ADJUDICATION

SEMINAR
JOVED 2016
RODERICK ROMARIO NADYA - OMAR
 WHAT IS DEBATING?
Debating is a CLASH of opposing ideas.

The aim of teams in a debate is to show why your teams

case is stronger than the opposing teams.

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

Gov. Bench Opp. Bench

Prime Minister Leader of Opp.

Deputy PM Deputy LO

Gov. Whip Opp. Whip

Gov. Reply Opp. Reply

Adjudicators
 Prime Minister
Provide a clear setup of the
debate
Context
Definition
Stance
Model (if needed)
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
teams case
 The Whips
Government Whip & Opposition
Whip

Summation of the debate

Provide an array of attacks to opposing
teams case in a holistic manner (Clashes)
Glorify Teams 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!
 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 shouldnt be

Truistic (not debatable)
Ex: THBT what goes up must always
come down.
Tautological / circular (self-proving)
Ex: THBT extremism is a catalyst for
progress
Squirreling (no logical link to motion)
Ex: THW disband the police
 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?
Weigh 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 dicuss 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 its 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 teams intended goal
The orthodoxy of the analysis
If an argument fulfills all the criteria above, thats 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 opponents arguments will not happen
How effective it proves that the opponents impacts (harm/benefit) will
not take place
How effective it proves that the opponents arguments are irrelevant
and insignificant to the intended goal/teams stance
How effective it shows that the opponents 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, thats not a
response yet
 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 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
Mark Matter
69 No effort to fulfill the role. Barely talks.
70 - 72 Shows little effort in trying to fulfill the role. Some claims
were made but not substantiated . Hard to follow, little
or no structure.
73-74 A better attempt in trying to fulfill the role. Arguments
and responses are in the form of assertion with weak
reasoning. Poor structure.
75 The average speaker. Has fulfilled the basic role.
Reasoning for arguments and responses are adequate,
but not fully developed. Relatively easy to follow.
 Guide for Scoring
(contd)
Mark Matter
76 - 77 The role is well fulfilled. The structure is unlikely to be
problematic. Able to provide a deep analysis on the
arguments and the responses. Brought in a persuasive
manner.
78 79 Basically have no problem in fulfilling role and structure.
Arguments are fully developed and to certain extent are
unorthodox. The evidences are many, prevalent, and
powerful.
80-81 Flawlessly executed. Able to provide many unorthodox
responses and arguments effectively. Sophisticated words
are used that made the elaborations are extremely
powerful and enchanting
 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
Adjudicators 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
Q&A
Any questions?