Adjudication

of
Parliamentary Debate
 Roles of Adjudicators
The three main roles of an adjudicator are:
to decide the winner,
reason out the decision,
provide constructive criticism for the teams

In the case of an adjudicator panel:

the adjudicators decide the winner individually
the winner is decided based on majority
The role of the two opposing teams
The role of the Government team
to support the motion
define the motion
construct a positive case in favour of the motion
provide substantive materials and arguments
respond to any challenges made by the
Opposition
The role of the two opposing teams
The role of the Opposition team
negate the motion
respond to the Government's definition,
construct a case in opposition to the motion,
provide substantive materials and arguments
respond to the arguments delivered by the
Government.
 Basics of Adjudication
Matter

Manner

Method
 Assessing Matter
Matter includes:
Definition (set up of the case, burden of proof
etc.),
Arguments (Key statement, explanation, analogy,
examples, evidences etc.),
Rebuttals (Key statement, explanation, analogy,
examples, evidences etc.)
 Assessing Matter: Definition
The definition should be reasonable, i. e. the
definition should:
I. state the issue or issues arising out of the motion
II.clarify meaning of any terms in the motion
III.display clear and logical links to the wording and
spirit of the motion.
The definition must not be truistic or
tautological.
 Assessing Matter: Argument
Content of Arguments:
a)Truthfulness of arguments
b)Relevance of arguments
Quality of argumentation:
a)how well developed the argument is
b)logical consistency
 Assessing Matter: Rebuttal
Rrebuttals disprove the validity of an argument
A team does not have to rebut each and every
argument
They should rebut the fundamental logic of the
argument
 Assessing Manner
Elements of manner:
respectable attitude,
vocal style,
appropriate use of notes,
eye contact,
body language and hand gestures,
impression of sincerity,
humour, wit, appropriate sarcasm.
 Assessing Method
Method consists of three elements:
organisation of the teams case
organisation of individual speeches
responses of the team to the dynamics of the
debate
Assessing Method: Organisation of the
Teams Case
The adjudicators consider
effectiveness of the teams overall organization of
arguments to prove the case in contention,
continuity of the teams theme in all speeches,
consistency among all debaters (no
contradictions),
reinforcement of team members' arguments,
clear & logical separation between arguments.
Assessing Method: Organisation of the
Individual Speeches
A model individual speech will have the following
elements:
Statements regarding definition/ theme/ burden
of proof / quick overview,
Rebuttals: rebuttals of the arguments as well as
rebuttals of the rebuttals,
Presentation of arguments, and
concluding summary.
Assessing Method: Organisation of the
Individual Speeches
Some specific speeches will have some differing
elements:
The Prime Minister will spend substantial amount
of time setting up the definition which no other
speaker will do unless the definition is challenged.
Similarly the third speakers will present very few
arguments and will spend substantial amount of
time on rebuttals.
Assessing Method: Organisation of the
Individual Speeches
Some specific speeches will have some differing
elements:
The Prime Minister will spend substantial amount
of time setting up the definition which no other
speaker will do unless the definition is challenged.
Similarly the third speakers will present very few
arguments and will spend substantial amount of
time on rebuttals.
Assessing Method: Organisation of the
Individual Speeches
Some specific speeches will have some differing
elements:
The Prime Minister will spend substantial amount
of time setting up the definition which no other
speaker will do unless the definition is challenged.
Similarly the third speakers will present very few
arguments and will spend substantial amount of
time on rebuttals.
Assessing Method: Organisation of the
Individual Speeches
Assessment of the individual structure should be
based on:
the speakers performance in the role expected of
him/her,
time management in the speech.
 Assessing Method: Responses to the
Dynamics
The Adjudicator will judge the debaters :
acknowledge the challenges
ability to cope with the shifts
promptness of response
 Marking Points of Information
The debaters are advised to take at least two POIs during
their speeches.
Debaters should not be disruptive to the debater holding
the floor. What amounts to be disruptive is subjective.
Using long sentences in POI is not acceptable
There must be a minimum 20 seconds gap between two
POIs by the same debater.
POIs are assessed on the basis of the threat they pose to
the strength of the argument of the debater.
The responses to the POIs are judged on the basis of its
logical and intellectual strength, promptness and
confidence in answering.
 Range and Distribution of Score
Total Min-Max Av.
Matter 40 27-33 30
Manner 40 27-33 30
Method 20 13-17 15
Over all 100 67-83 75
 Margin of Win and their Explanation
Category Points Description

Close/ 0.5-4 A very close debate; only minor

Marginal differences separating the two teams.

Clear 5-8 A relatively clear decision, with one

team having an obvious advantage.

Thrashing 9-12 A very clear win, with the losing team

failing on one or more fundamental
aspects of the debate.
 General Tips
In delivering the oral adjudication, explain the main reason
behind the decision.
The feedback should be linked to particular examples from
the debate.
Focus on the losing teams weaknesses and complement the
decision with some of the strength of the winning team.
Highlight the differences between the two teams strength
and weaknesses of the cases, matter, manner and method.
Be very careful in giving their reasons for the decision. (For
example pointing out more weaknesses of the winning team
than the losing team will give a wrong impression.)
 General Tips
Take notes during the debate. Write down what
the debaters say not your interpretation of
what the debaters say.
Avoid analyzing the argument by pointing its the
possible weaknesses.
Judge manner properly.
Give the debaters benefit of doubt.
Identify your biases and resist them.
Do not pre-interpret the topic.