A Comprehensive Guide to Debate Adjudication
Muhammad Abdul Latif
Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Department
Student Development and Co-curricular Activity Division
International Islamic University Malaysia
Introduction to Adjudicating Competitive Debates
The Team Roles in British Parliamentary and the Asian/Australasian Debates
Closing Teams in British Parliamentary Debate: Extension vs. Dumping/Backstabbing
Role of Adjudicators, the Chair and the Panel in Asian/Australasian Debate
Role of Adjudicators, the Chair and the Panel in British Parliamentary Debate
There is no right or wrong, is there?
Taking Notes: Rewinding the Tape
Adjudicating Debates as the Average Reasonable Person
Assessing the Strength of an Argument vs. Entering into the Debate
Basics of Adjudication: Matter, Manner & Method
Assessing Matter
First, Definition
Second, Arguments
Third, Rebuttals
Assessing Manner
Assessing Method
First, Organisation of the Team’s Case
Second, Organisation of the Individual Speeches
Third, Responses to the Dynamics
Judging a Definition Debate: It is Merely a Technical Complexity
Marking Points of Information
Asian/Australasian Style Reply Speeches: the Biased Adjudication and the Half Truth
Marking Scheme in the Context of Asian/Australasian Debate
The Margin in the Context of Asian/Australasian Debate
Adjudication Scheme at Worlds (BP style):
Adjudication of BP Debate in the Malaysian Context
Marking Scheme: Where do I start?
When Does the Opposition Have to Provide an Alternative?
Oral Adjudication and Why the Debaters Complain
The End Process and Double Checks
The Role of the Chief Adjudicator of a Tournament
(Note for the Participants of the Adjudicators’ Workshop at U.P.S.I: The Royal Malaysian Intervarsity Debating Championship (known as Royals for short) uses the same format as that of the All Asian Intervarsity Debating Championship. Thus in this guide everything that is applicable for the Asian debating format is equally applicable to Royals. The discussion about the British Parliamentary Debating Format is not relevant for Royals. However, it is good to know about this format as it is the format for the World Universities Debating Championship and a number of English debating competitions in the country and the region use this format.)
Adjudicating debates is a subjective exercise. Unlike many sports, in debates there is no clear method of proving a team’s score. Adjudicators, quite often, are equally divided as to the winner of a debate, particularly in very close ones. This guide intends to minimize subjectivity in debate adjudication, clarify the defined rules of debate and bring consistency in the adjudication of English debates in the country and in the region. This guide does not explain in detail what a debate is and the differences among various formats of debates, although it provides a basic introduction. As this focuses on adjudication of competitive debates, it is advisable that the reader has actually seen a competitive debate before reading this guide.
Introduction to Adjudicating Competitive Debates
There are many competitive debating championships following different formats/style of debating around the world and in the region. Among these formats, the Australasian, the Asian Parliamentary and the British Parliamentary formats are the most well known in the region. Although these formats differ in some areas, the skills to adjudicate these debates are very similar. Assessments of teams’ strengths and weaknesses, arguments, manner etc. follows more or less the same rules. When adjudicating competitions in different formats, the adjudicators need a good understanding of the rules of the different formats in addition to the general rules of assessment of a debate.
The Team Roles in British Parliamentary and the Asian/Australasian Debates
In the Australasian/Asian format of debates, there are two teams in the debate: the government and the opposition. The role of the Government team is to support the motion. This involves defining the motion, constructing a positive case in favour of the motion, providing substantive materials and arguments in support of the case and responding to any challenges made to that case by the Opposition. The role of the Opposition team is to negate the motion. This involves responding to the Government's definition, constructing a case in opposition to the motion, providing substantive materials and arguments in support of the case and responding to the arguments delivered by the Government.
In British parliamentary debates, there are four teams: two on each sides i.e. government and opposition. The teams are known as Opening Government, Closing Government, Opening Opposition and Closing Opposition. The general roles of the government and opposition teams are the same as those in Asian/Australasian format. The two teams on the same side, although are different teams, must work as one bench supporting the same general idea. Since only one team out of the four will eventually win the debate, the closing teams may and should distinguished themselves from their opening teams, in terms of focus and arguments.
Closing Teams in British Parliamentary Debate: Extension vs. Dumping/Backstabbing
The closing teams’ task is challenging in the sense that they have to support the opening teams but at the same time have to distinguish themselves from the opening teams and make their own impact in the debate. The closing teams should distinguish themselves by providing an extension and by brining original contributions in the debate while defending the opening team of the side. An extension is new arguments, analysis, and applications that support and further strengthen the opening team’s case. A ‘mechanism’ or a ‘model’ can also be a legitimate extension provided a mechanism is important in the debate and the opening team did not provide one. It is also possible that a closing team comprehensively develops an argument or issue that was only mentioned in passing by the opening team. In this situation such a development can be treated as an original contribution and thus a legitimate extension.
A closing team should not contradict or be inconsistent with the opening team. If an opening team has presented a plainly weak case, it is the responsibility of the closing team to patch the holes and re-interpret the issues to make the case sound. A closing team cannot stab in the back or dump the opening team even though the case of the opening team has been very weak and torn apart by the opposing team. Defending a weak case of the opening team through refining, fine-tuning, re-interpreting and bringing additional analysis while roughly following the general line of argumentations of the opening team presents the best chance at wining for a closing team. Adjudicators should not expect a closing team to defend what is indefensible. For example, contradictions within the case, factual errors, very illogical arguments etc. of the opening team need not be defended by the closing team. But in the process of choosing what to defend of the opening team and trying to, perhaps, shift the focus of the debate, the closing team should try not, to sound like they are abandoning the approach of the opening team. If there is a feeling among the adjudicators that the closing team has dumped or backstabbed the opening team, the adjudicators should consider ‘why the closing team dumped the opening team’, ‘was dumping absolutely necessary to ensure survival of the closing team’, ‘did dumping lead to a better debate’.
A closing team may depart from the opening team when there is a dispute of definitions between the opening teams and the opening opposition provides a valid redefinition. However, if the definition given by the opening government is a valid one, it is expected that the closing government defend that definition.
Role of Adjudicators, the Chair and the Panel in Asian/Australasian Debate
The three main roles of an adjudicator is to decide the winner, reason out the decision and provide constructive criticism for the teams. A single adjudicator or a panel adjudicates debates. In the case of a panel at the Asian/Australasian debates, the adjudicators decide the winner individually and fill up the score sheets and pass them to the chair. The chair opens all the score sheets only after he has filled up his. The winner is decided based on majority. After the winner has been decided, the chair generally conducts a discussion among the adjudicators regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the teams. No change of decision is allowed upon the discussion. The chair delivers the verdict, and in case the chair is in the minority, it is advisable that a member of the majority does so.
Role of Adjudicators, the Chair and the Panel in British Parliamentary Debate
As there are four teams in a British Parliamentary debate, adjudicators will rank the teams as 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th. The ranking of the teams must be reflected in the teams’ total marks. Thus the team that ranks first must have more points in total than the team that ranks second. The total marks of two teams in the same debate cannot be the same, as the adjudicators have to put one of them at a higher rank than the other.
The ranking of teams is achieved through the discussion among the adjudicators in the panel. In this regard it differs from adjudicating an Australasian/Asian format of debate where adjudicators reach their verdict individually and the team that gets majority votes of the adjudicators in its favour is declared as the winner.
In British Parliamentary debates, I have observed two ways of conducting discussions among good adjudicators. First, where the adjudicators give a tentative ranking that they have individually reached and then they discuss to reach an agreement. The advantage of this method is that it ensures that adjudicators freely express their ranking without being influenced by other adjudicators’ opinions. However, this method may present some difficulty in terms of reaching an agreement as adjudicators whose initial ranking were different may not be very keen to change their ranking after discussion.
Second, where the adjudicators discuss the general features of the debate and strengths and weaknesses of each team. It is always easier to agree on strengths and weakness of the teams, and the important aspects of the debate, rather than the ranking of teams. Once agreement has been reached on these areas, it is then easier to reach an agreeable ranking.
When a unanimous agreement as to the ranking cannot be reached, the adjudicators may try to reach a majority decision. If a majority decision cannot be reached, the chair of the panel will have the final say in deciding the ranking. In this process of discussion and coming up with a ranking the chair of the panel acts as the moderator.
There is no right or wrong, is there?
Many of us will say, in debate adjudication there is no right or wrong decision. This is only partially right. Yes, there is no right or wrong when it comes to assessing the subjective elements of a close debate. But there are clear-cut rights and wrongs when it comes to the process of adjudication. It is obviously wrong if an adjudicator fails to listen to an idea of a team no matter how ill developed it may be. Nothing is right about not noting that a team has developed most of its substance in the last few minutes of the debate. The most important aspect of being right is to consider every single issue and remain methodologically correct in comparing the faults and strengths of the teams.
Taking Notes: Rewinding the Tape
Adjudicators should maintain detailed notes during the debate. Notes should be taken in such a way that a glance over the notes reminds the adjudicators as how every speech and the whole debate progressed. By looking at the notes, one should be able to rerun the debate in his/her mind. I call it visualizing the debate once again after it is over. This is not to say that the adjudicators should take tens of pages of notes only to find that they never have the time to look at them before they have to decide, or never have the time to appreciate the beauty of the speech by looking at the debater and enjoy his/her presentation. But as I said, it should be enough to rerun the debate in your mind.
I found one practice very helpful and that is to make my own remarks at the end of every speech regarding the debater’s performance. Remarks like ‘reads too much from notes’, ‘did an excellent job in dealing with a particular issue e.g. fairness’, or ‘fails to address a particular issue e.g. fairness which is the main argument of the other team’ ‘the questions he /she raised that I expect the next debater to answer’, ‘the questions he/she failed to answer that were raised by the previous debater’. Before a speech, one may note down the issues or questions that one expects the debater to address. These are not issues that I think are important, rather these are issues that the previous debater has raised. These methods are every person’s own. I have seen lot of adjudicators using pens of different colours to take a special note of things they want to remember. These remarks, colouring etc provide an explanation behind the interim marks and help adjudicators rerun the debate when needed.
Adjudicating Debates as the Average Reasonable Person
The adjudicator enters the debate chamber as an ‘average reasonable person’. An average reasonable person is a fairly well-informed citizen of the globe with an average understanding of global and regional issues, and a basic understanding of popular disciplines and logic. The adjudicator must set aside his/her exceptional personal preferences, experiences, opinions or expert knowledge, which will not be shared by an average reasonable person. An adjudicator is supposed to be a jack-of-all-trades and master of none.
However the adjudicator is an expert in terms of the rules of debate. Adjudicators (often being ex debaters) tend to analyse the argument by pin pointing the possible weaknesses of it, as the opposing team would do it. This sometimes will be seen as ‘entering into the debate’ (discussed afterwards). Adjudicators must strictly avoid this. The adjudicators should merely determine whether the arguments are convincing in the eyes of an average reasonable person. An interesting observation in this respect is that an average reasonable person is more easily convinced than a debater, because he is open to be convinced. Generally an average reasonable person is equally easily convinced otherwise when the merits of the opposing side are pointed out. Adjudicators should avoid coming in between this process of the teams trying to convince the average reasonable person by bringing their own views of what is weak or what is strong unless it is obviously so.
Assessing the Strength of an Argument vs. Entering into the Debate
The most obvious instance of adjudicators entering into the debates is when adjudicators bring in their expert knowledge or preferences into the debate. They also enter into the debate if they build the arguments for the teams. Adjudicators should not supplement an unclear or ill developed argument with their additional explanation. However, the adjudicators’ task is to assess the argument’s strength. He should point out the weaknesses that an average reasonable person will observe. He should not go beyond that and assume the duty of finding faults on behalf of the opposing teams. In this case he can be seen as entering into the debate.
Take a very tricky example (real). The debate is about genetic engineering of crops. The government team argued that the third world does not have proper bodies that can regulate the growth of genetically engineered crops. The opposition team ignored the argument. The adjudicator in the verdict stated that he finds the argument not convincing because as an average reasonable person he would know that in third world countries there is the ministry of agriculture that can regulate. If this was to be raised by the opposing team, then the government team could have responded with the issue of ineffectiveness of and corruption in third world ministries. I also ponder whether the average reasonable person knows how efficient/ corrupt the third world ministries are. At the end, I concluded that in this debate the adjudicator has either entered the debate or has only considered half of the average reasonable person’s knowledge (that there is the ministry of agriculture, since the adjudicator ignored the fact of ineffectiveness of the third world ministries). In any case the adjudicator was methodologically wrong. The best practice in these cases will be to let the teams fight out what is right or more convincing and for the adjudicators not to bring issues unless the teams themselves pick it up. As I said the average reasonable person will not look for faults, but will mark one when it is made obvious.
Basics of Adjudication: Matter, Manner & Method
Debates are generally judged on the basis of matter (40), manner (40) and method (20). In Worlds the categories are matter and manner while method is included within the two.