Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Adjudication Seminar
Vicario Harris Boby Deta Rifan
Why are we
doing this?
Being an adjudicator is a tricky task. It requires in-depth understanding of debating rules which is necessary to facilitate individuals in making a
decision for the rounds. This seminar acts as a guideline to help N1 judges acclimate themselves to these rules.
Some judges might be familiar with adjudicating in other formats than BP. It is important to recalibrate their orientation as BP judging is uniquely
different and should be assessed with a different benchmark.
Standards in competitive debating constantly evolves, following the new standards introduced and employed in
World Universities Debating Championship every year. What you thought was good judging in the past might not be relevant in todays context.
Just like the Kardashians, you need to keep up.
What Will We Be Discussing?
BURDENS :
In a debate, 4 teams will present their case. They are the Opening and
Closing teams from the Government and Opposition side.
Government must propose the motion as stated, Opposition can choose
how to negate the topic.
What this means is that Opposition does not have to negate everything.
They may concede with certain points of Government.
Ex: THW send ground troops to Syria, Opposition can opt to propose
sending air strikes via drones instead of ground troops. They will
concede that military action is necessary and justified, but prefers a
different method. This is a valid strategy.
The burden of Opposition is to oppose the motion they have no burden
to solve whatever urgency is brought. Judges should not expect
Opposition to provide a counter-solution to the problem, unless the team
decides that it is the burden that they will take.
General Rules Of BP Debating
PROPOSITION FIAT
Fiat is the privilege granted to teams, allowing them to assume that their policy will be
carried out by the relevant actor (or whoever This House is defined as). This is done so
debates do not become about unnecessary technicalities.
What this means is that feasibility attacks by the opponent that tries to disprove that the
motion will not happen at all/will never take place cannot be credited.
Ex: TH, as the United Nations, would invade Syria.
Government team can assume that United Nations will do the policy (in this case,
invasion to Syria)
Opposition can NOT attack by saying, Oh, but Russia will veto this resolution in UNSC!
Government team, however, cannot assume that all parties will fully support this.
Thus, Opposition can still say, Given Russia is an ally of Syria, they would most likely be
opposed to the attack and still give Assad weapons, which make the invasion fruitless
and ineffective.
Opposition team, should they choose to bring a counter-solution, is granted the same
degree of fiat as Government team, as long as they utilize roughly similar amount/form of
resources (money, political will).
General Rules Of BP Debating
ROLE FULFILLMENT
Role fulfillment refers to the unique roles that each speakers in the round has. These roles are
a minimum standard required for the teams to do well in the debate.
Opening Gov
Prime Minister: define the debate, explain details of motion, provide argumentation
Deputy Prime Minister: clarify definition/stance if needed, provide responses and
argumentation
Opening Opp
Leader of Opposition: set a clashing point with the Government, provide responses and
argumentation
Deputy Leader of Opposition: clarify clashing point if needed, provide responses and
argumentation
Closing Gov and Opp
Member of Government and Opposition: provide mapping of the debate, explain distinct
stance/approach, provide extension
Government and Opposition Whip: summarize the debate, provide responses, glorify member
speakers extension
General Rules Of BP Debating
ROLE FULFILLMENT
Role fulfillment helps teams to make the debate understandable and engaging to
the judges. However, role fulfillment is not (and should never be) a determinant
of whether or not a team wins/loses.
If a team fulfilled their roles properly, does not mean they automatically win the
debate.
Conversely, if a team missed a few of their roles, does not mean they
automatically lose the debate.
In short: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AUTOMATIC WINS OR LOSSES.
(chair signature)
Oral Adjudication
WHAT SHOULD BE EXPLAINED
Brief general commentaries on the round
Result of the round (the ranking of the teams)
The justification of each ranking
Note:
Judges may choose to individually assess each teams performance,
or provide a direct comparison between 1st and 2nd, 2nd and 3rd, & 3rd
and 4th. Just keep in mind that either way, comparatives must be
made.
Judges should be balanced in their justification they must show
which good things teams brought made them persuaded and which
bad things made them not. Be fair in your assessment!
CONFLICT SYSTEM
Conflicts of Interest is the condition in which judges objectivity might be
compromised because they are judging a team/speaker that they have a
unique relationship with.
Judges must declare their conflicts during the accreditation. If new conflicts
arise, or some have been missed, please notify the Adjudication Core at
once.
Oral Adjudication
HOW TO DELIVER EFFECTIVELY
Always prep before you deliver!
A verbal adjudication is not a debate speech. It should not take too long.
(5-6 mins max)
You are not arguing but showing the debaters how you perceived the
debate.
Again, there is no single style to verbal adjudication. What is important is
justifying the decision. However, try your best to provide clarity during the
OA, because if your OA is unclear, it may impact the teams understanding
of the justifications and will affect your feedback score.
You are a human being, not a parrot. Dont just repeat what the teams
have said!
Separate evaluation from constructive feedback.
Remember that your decision matters to the debaters and your own
final accreditation!