How to be a qualified

adjudicator
Vederis Leunardus
It’s Just sharing, So
Stay calm!
What is debating?
Debate is
Debating is a CLASH of opposing ideas.

The aim of teams in a debate is to show why your team’s case

is stronger than the opposing team’s.

Teams seek to win by showing strength of logic, relevance,

and in-depth analysis of arguments, and not merely by
stating examples, fact, and evidences.
ASian Parliamentary Format
Role of Speaker
Prime Minister
Provide a clear setup of the debate

Context

Definition

Stance

Provide arguments to support motion

Leader of Opposition
Clarify definition (if necessary)

Show the difference of stance (negation)

Offer responses / rebuttals

Provide arguments to oppose the motion

The Deputies
Deputy Prime Minister & Deputy Leader of The Opposition

● Offer responses / rebuttals

● Provide arguments to develop the team’s case
The Whips
Government Whip & Opposition Whip

● Summation of the debate

● Provide an array of attacks to opposing team’s case in a
holistic manner (Clashes)
● Glorify Team’s case (Rebuilding)
● No new matter may be delivered!
New Matter
A completely new line of argumentation that has never been
discussed before in the previous speakers.

Not including new examples, precedence, and rebuttals. They

are all allowed!

:D
Reply Speakers
Provide a biased adjudication of the debate.

Point out the BOPs (Burden of Proofs) that needs to be

answered in the debate.

Cluster arguments and responses into clashes.

Show to the adjudicator how your team managed to win the

clashes.
Definitions
Motion should be defined as a whole

Definition may contain:

definition of key lexical units (words/phrases)

parameters

Definition must be reasonable:

have clear and logical link to motion

debatable (a reasonable opposition exists)

Definition shouldn’t be …
Truistic (not debatable)

Tautological / circular (self-proving)

Squirreling (no logical link to motion)

Adjudicator?
Adjudicator
Adjudicator assume an average reasonable person role

A person who has average knowledge of the topic under debate

but expertise knowledge of the rules for competitive
debating

Not an expert on issues

Read the news regularly

Understand debating rules

 What does an adjudicator do?
Weight the arguments and responses presented to decide the
winner

● To evaluate and assess the significance and relevance of

arguments presented.

Assign the speaker score that you think is the most

representative
Provide a verbal adjudication to explain the reason behind your
decision

● Provide a balance adjudication (assess both teams fairly and

equally)

Provide constructive criticism to help the debaters improve

Assessment of the Debate
Use holistic view

Clash

Central issue(s) of the debate: Can be determined through

the contribution it gives to the development of the debate.

It can be indicated through:

Most discussed (Majority of the speaker discuss the issue in
their speeches)
Relevance
Which claims that proven at the end of the debate (rate how
an argument is initially brought and how it’s responded)
Assessment of the Debate
Assessing arguments

● The criteria that adjudicators should rate in an argument

○ The depth of logical analysis
○ The significance of the argument
○ The strength and relevance of evidences provided
○ The relevance of an argument toward the teams’ stance, or the
contribution of an argument in reaching the team’s intended goal

If an argument fulfills all the criteria above, that’s an

excellent argument. You should vote for the team that
provide better argumentation based on those criteria.
Assessment of the Debate
Assessing responses

● The criteria that adjudicators should rate in a response

○ How effective it proves that the opponent’s arguments will not happen
○ How effective it proves that the opponent’s impacts (harm/benefit)
will not take place
○ How effective it proves that the opponent’s arguments are irrelevant
and insignificant to the intended goal/team’s stance
○ How effective it shows that the opponent’s arguments are internally
inconsistent
○ In short: how effective it oppose the logic behind an argument
● Questioning is not the same with responding. Until a
speaker proves an argument will not happen, that’s not a
Assessment of the Debate
Assessing manner

● The things you should look at when assessing the manner

of a speaker:
○ How persuasive and clear a speaker is
○ Intonation and volume
○ Diction and effective use of words
● Remember, never give a team a victory based mainly on
their manner. But, a speaker with exceptional manner
should deserve an appreciation.
How About POI?
1. Criteria
a. Is it clear?
b. Is it effective?
c. How’s response from the speaker?
2. At least take 1 POI
3. Don’t Underestimate the POI and use it as the part of
speaker score
How to give Margin?
The margin of score between winning and losing team (losing
team get negative margins)

Classification:

● 1 – 4: close winning
● 4 – 6: close-to-clear winning
● 8 – 12: clear winning
● 12 and up: thrashing debate
How to determine speakers’ score?
The standard of scoring:

● The average substantive speaker (1st, 2nd, 3rd) score is

75. Range: 69-81
● The average reply speaker is halve of substantive
speaker, which is 37,5. Range: 34,5-40,5
● The average of a team score ( a total score of 3
substantive and reply speakers) therefore should be:
262,5
Guide For Scoring
Guide for Scoring
Oral Adjudication
● Process of explaining the reasons behind your decision to the debaters
● Prepare your oral adjudication!
● Verbal are conducted by the chair
● Issue: adjudicator may receive different result in a close debate
○ Dissenting opinion is okay, as long as you have strong reasoning to do that
○ Dissenting opinion are discussed in the conference. The chair may include the dissenting opinion to
create a better verbal (even the chair may dissent!)
● Inform the debater:
○ The winning team only along with the margin
○ Do not inform individual speaker score
● Give constructive feedback
○ In this phase, you may give your expert opinions to help the debaters improve in the next round
Conclusion of Adjudicator’s Role
● The sequences of adjudicating
○ Decide the winning (assess the debate)
○ Determine the margin
○ Mark the score
○ Give the score sheet to the LO
○ Conference among chair and panels of adjudicator
■ Note: conference should start only, and only, if all adjudicator already fill the score sheet
○ Verbal (5 – 7 minutes)
○ End of adjudication session. The debater may ask you while walking to the hall.
● IMPORTANT: Adjudicator should not influence another adjudicator to decide the
result of the debate. All process to decide the winning team should be done
independently
● EVEN MORE IMPORTANT: Adjudicator should always assume the role of average
reasonable person. Do not put your personal knowledge to decide the winning.
Conflict of Interest
A situation where your personal interest may cloud your
judgment and objectivity as an adjudicator.

Potential source of Conflicts:

● Institutional Affiliations (Almamater & Coaches)

● Family Members
● Past & Current Romantic Relationships
Mainly Case that always happens in the debate
● A gradual case, or a hung case, is when you have to wait until 2nd / 3rd speakers to
complete the analysis of 1st speaker argument. More credit should be given to the
speaker who accomplishes the explanation of hung case.
● A gradual case is a less persuasive case than a case that was clear from earlier
speakers
● Review the chronological order of each speakers points in the debate! Ask
yourselves: Did the team win the clash because their opponent did not have a chance
to rebut the complete argument conveyed by later speakers? Use this when assessing
your clashes.
WARNING!
1. Listen to the speaker!
2. Take a Note!
3. Give attention
4. Silent your phone! Don’t play with it!
5. Don’t give any response about speaker’s case
6. Don’t discuss with the other adjudicator until you finish
your decision !
7. Check your scoring sheet before give it to Tabbie
Any Questions?