A Guide for ACT Debating Union Adjudicators

Belinda Hollway, Diana Price and Harry Greenwell

April 2001

Contents

1 Adjudicator Code of Conduct *

1.1 Before the Debate *

1.2 During the Debate *

1.3 The Adjudication *

1.4 After the debate *

2 Core Competencies *

2.1 Introduction *

2.2 Matter (40 out of 100 marks) *

2.3 Method (20 out of 100 marks) *

2.4 Manner (40 out of 100 marks) *

  1. Adjudicator Code of Conduct
    2.

    This code is intended to explain ACTDU’s minimum expectations of our adjudicators. For more detail what is to be expected of debaters at the different competitions levels, see section two – Core Competencies.

    As an adjudicator, it is your role to provide a fair, impartial and professional adjudication.

    1. Before the Debate
      • Getting there: Ensure that you know where and when you are adjudicating and arrange your own transport. Arrive on time! (Ford and Douse – 6.15pm;
        Murray – 6.00pm)
        • If you are unable to attend, you must find your own replacement and inform the Competition Duty Officer of the change.
      • Conflict of interest: It is important to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest as well as any actual conflict of interest.
        • Unless unavoidable do not adjudicate a team from a school you attended within the last two years or teams with speakers with whom you have some sort of personal relationship (family friends, siblings of friends, etc.).
        • Where this cannot be avoided, take care not to be overly familiar with one team or speaker.
      • Chairperson and timekeeper: ensure that there is someone to fulfil these roles and that they understand their roles. Timekeepers should indicate the time elapsed at the following points: Ford – 3 and 4 minutes; Murray – 1, 5 and 6 minutes; Douse – 1, 7 and 8 minutes. Timekeepers should record the length of each speech for the adjudicator. Chairpersons should introduce the two schools and the individual speakers – responsibility for maintaining order during the debate remains with the adjudicator.
      • Introduce yourself to the teams by name and, in the Murray and Douse, explain that you will call order if points of information take too long.
      • The adjudication sheet: ensure that the teams correctly fill in the names of the speakers and the name (including the number) of the team.
      • Start the debate promptly.

    2. During the Debate
      • Pay attention: be attentive to the debate and all speakers in it. Take notes that are sufficient to ensure that you can make reference to specific arguments in your adjudication and to give personal feedback to individual speakers after the debate.
      • Maintain order: since the chair is usually a member of a participating school it will be up to you to maintain order and ensure speakers are not badgered. In particular, if points of information run too long or degenerate into an on-running dialogue, be prepared to call the debate to order and perhaps instruct the speaker to continue his/her speech.
      • Don’t provide a running body-language commentary of the debate. It is OK to laugh at jokes along with the audience, but raising your eyebrows, rolling your eyes, shaking your head and so on as points are made is off-putting and unfair to the speaker.

    3. The Adjudication

      4. Remember: the debaters have put a lot of time and effort into preparing and they deserve a clear, helpful and encouraging adjudication.

      • Prepare: Take time to prepare your adjudication. You expect a clear, well-structured, comprehensible speech from them debaters, so that is exactly what you should give to them in your adjudication. That said, don’t take more than 5-10 minutes to prepare – that just suggests that you can’t make up your mind!
      • Length: as a guide, your adjudication should last about as long as a speech in that competition (4 min at Ford, 6 min at Murry, 8 min at Douse). Just because you could talk about the debate for 20 minutes doesn’t mean you should.
      • The Adjudication: when preparing and delivering your adjudication, keep in mind that you have two roles, both of which are important and neither of which should be neglected:
        • Teaching: you are there to help teach the debaters how to improve their debating; and
        • Who won and why: the result is important, but explaining it well is even more so.
      • Tips for next time - CONSTRUCTIVE is the key word:
        • Emphasise the good, not just the bad: it is quite likely that inexperienced debaters are not aware of some of the things they do well. Reinforce the fact that adjudicators do notice the good things, not just the bad, by congratulating teams on things they did well. This will ensure that they do it again in the next debate, and make even the losing team feel more positive about their performance.
        • Age appropriate: you should give advice that debaters at that level will be able to profit from. Telling Ford debaters that a post-colonialist analysis of the topic might have been interesting is unhelpful, to say the least.
        • Keep it general: in your adjudication before the whole room, direct the tips you make to things from which you think all or at least several of the debaters could benefit. If only one debater made a certain mistake, its not a big enough issue to place in the adjudication.
        • Non-debate specific: the "reasons for the result" section of your adjudication is the place to discuss the mistakes made in this particular debate. Your advice should largely be generic debating advice. Eg you might say "try to rebut as many of the opposition’s arguments as you can" here, whereas in discussing the results you might say "X point was not rebutted and that was a weakness in the affirmative’s approach".
        • Fixable: focus on giving advice about things that are relatively easily corrected, especially at younger age levels. Eg "offer more points of information" or "try to use more examples" are helpful suggestions, whereas "your argument should be more sophisticated" is not.
        • Don’t overload: a total of 5 tips is probably plenty – maybe three pieces of advice for next time and two good things singled out for praise.
      • Reasons: you are there to provide a well thought out, rational adjudication. Clearly explain the reasons for your decision with reference to the debate’s content.
        • "they debate better so they won" is not an adequate adjudication!
        • Several Reasons: in almost all instances you ought to be able to give several reasons why one team won. This demonstrates to the audience that you have listened closely to the debate and considered all the issues and haven’t just grabbed at one random reason to award the debate.
        • Examples: try to back up the points you make with examples from the debate. For instance, if you are stating that one team didn’t rebut as well as another, give examples of poorly rebutted or unrebutted points (without mentioning which speakers didn’t rebut them – see below!).
      • Don’ts:
        • Don’t give a speaker-by-speaker analysis. Adjudications should be thematic.
        • Don’t make it clear that a particular speaker won or lost the debate for his or her team or even put too much emphasis on the poor performance of individual speakers.
        • Don’t make comments about the school, whether it is public or private, its uniform, the appearance of the speakers or any other irrelevant personal comments.
      • Marks: your marks should reflect your adjudication and should be confined in the following ways.
      • Margins must be within the range of 1-10 points (1 = an extremely close win, 2-3 = a close win, 4-6 = a clear win, 7-8 = an emphatic win, 9-10 = the two teams were of entirely different standards).
      • Speaker scores must be within the range of 70-80 points (80 = an outstanding speech, excellent in every respect, 75 = a good, average speech, 70 = a poor speech in every respect).
      • Matter/Manner/Method scores should be in the range 28-32 (for manner and matter) or 14-16 (for method).
      • BE POSITIVE: ACTDU wants debating to be an enjoyable learning experience for debaters. There is always something nice to say about every team in every debate, so be sure you say it. If you can’t find even a couple of nice things to say about a whole debate, then the problem is probably your expectations and attitude, not the debaters’ performance.

    4. After the debate
      • Individual comment: invite debaters to come and speak to you after the debate for individual feedback or further comments. In this more private context it is fine to give individual speakers advice about their own personal performance. Remember the above rule about giving positive feedback as well as constructive criticism however.
      • Challenges to your decision: if people come up to you afterwards to query your decision, try to explain it to them again clearly and calmly. This happens to all of us at one time or another. Try not to take it personally, but to deal with it quietly and sensibly:
      • Don’t get into a heated argument.
      • Above all do not agree with them that you probably made the wrong decision in the hope that this will make them go away! Far from placating the losing team this will send them away even more annoyed with you than they were before.
      • Don’t assume that you will be able to convince everyone that you made the right decision every time. Debating is a fairly subjective activity, and your audience (largely of parents) is not composed of impartial observers. You will often have to agree to disagree, especially if you have the next debate waiting to begin.
      • If necessary, the best way to diffuse the situation may simply be to tell the person that that if they do want to raise issues about your performance they are entitled to contact ACTDU.
      • If you are having any concerns or problems, please feel free to discuss them with the Competition Duty Officer or the Adjudication Officer. We don’t expect you to be infallible or perfect, and we are always happy to give advice to less experienced adjudicators.

       

      Adjudicating is an extremely rewarding and fun experience when you make the effort to do it to the best of your own ability.

       

  2. Core Competencies
    1. Introduction

      2. These lists of competencies are intended as a guide to debaters, teachers, parents and adjudicators. They are intended to act as a guide in two respects. First, each set of competencies indicates the essential features of matter, manner and method. Second, the competencies suggest the standard of debating that we believe speakers should be able to achieve after two years in their respective competitions.

    2. Matter (40 out of 100 marks)

      3. The matter category assesses the content of a speech and of the team’s case overall. It includes the arguments used to build up the team’s own case and prove their case line and the rebuttal of the opposing team’s case. Ideally a speaker should have a range of arguments that are not internally contradictory and each of these arguments should be illustrated and backed up by examples. A speaker should also demonstrate the ability to priorities material according to its strength.

      As speakers become more experienced they are strongly encouraged to:

      1. Engage as much as possible with the other team. This does not mean spending the whole speech rebutting, but rather recognising the issues that become important as the debate progresses and adapting one’s focus accordingly.
      2. Attempt to take a thematic approach to the topic, rather than simply debating and rebutting by example or presenting the case as a collection of disjointed points that all go to proving the same thing.

      1. FORD

        2. A speaker who performs well in the matter category will usually:

        1. Have several arguments to support the team’s case.
        2. Back these arguments up with examples.
        3. Use arguments and examples consistent with the team’s case line.
        4. Attempt to rebut some of the arguments raised by the other team (unless first affirmative).

      2. MURRAY

        3. A speaker who performs well in the matter category will usually:

        1. Have several arguments to support the team’s case.
        2. Back the arguments up with examples that are NOT drawn from personal experience (the "I know because I’ve been there" approach).
        3. Ensure that all arguments presented by the team are consistent, ie that there is no contradiction between different lines of argument used by the team.
        4. Avoid debating by listing a string of examples to prove your case: examples should illustrate arguments, they are rarely (if ever) arguments in their own right.
        5. Display some general knowledge about the topic area.
        6. Rebut the main points of the other team’s case.
        7. Defend the team’s case from rebuttal points made against it by the other team.

      3. DOUSE

        4. A speaker who performs well in the matter category will usually:

        1. Have several arguments to support the team’s case and emphasis each argument in accordance with its strength and importance in the debate.
        2. Back the arguments up with examples that are NOT drawn from personal experience.
        3. Ensure that all arguments presented by the team are consistent, ie that there is no contradiction between different lines of argument used by the team.
        4. Avoid debating by listing a string of examples to prove your case.
        5. Display an understanding of what the team needs to establish in order to win the argument (eg is the debate a cost-benefit analysis? one where two different models must be compared?)
        6. Demonstrate an ability to adapt and alter pre-prepared material to take into account the other team’s interpretation of the topic and the direction the debate takes as it progresses.
        7. Introduce or reinforce points that have been or will be made by other members of the team.
        8. Display good general knowledge of the topic area.
        9. Identify and rebut the major themes of the other team’s case. Attempt to attack the foundations of the other team’s arguments, as opposed to just rebutting by listing counter-examples.
        10. Defend the team’s case from attack by the opposition, ideally by contrasting the different approaches of the team to each issue and explaining why your team’s approach is superior.

    3. Method (20 out of 100 marks)

      4. The method category marks the way in which each speaker structures and organizes their speech. It also takes into account how a team performs as a whole in structuring and organizing their case. Introducing elements such as internal case structure and sensible time management aids the audience and the adjudicator to comprehend and follow each individual speech and team case as a whole.

      At the higher levels of competition (especially Douse) it is expected that teams will take a thematic approach to the topic, rather than a mere collection of independent points. Teams that score well in the method category also respond and adapt to the development of the debate. This may involve making strategic decisions, such as choosing to emphasize one point over a weaker point. It is also important that speakers who appear later in the debate reinforce points established earlier by their team.

      1. FORD

        2. A speaker who scores well in the method category will usually:

        1. Define the topic of the debate (if first affirmative).
        2. Refer to a team 'case statement' that briefly summarizes the basic argument of the team.
        3. Follow the case split provided by the first speaker. The division of team material should be sensible and effective.
        4. Logically progress through each idea, taking time to introduce each new point.
        5. Make use of the full 4 minutes of time available, while not exceeding the time limit by more than 30 seconds
        6. Divide this time wisely. Some time should be spent rebutting one or more of the opposing teams main points. Speakers who appear later in the debate should usually devote more time to rebuttal than earlier speakers. Each speaker’s remaining time should be sensibly divided between his or her substantive points.
        7. A conclusion that briefly summarizes the major points raised during the speech.
        8. Keep within the parameters of the speaker's role.

      2. MURRAY

        3. A speaker who scores well in the method category will usually:

        1. Define the topic of the debate (if first affirmative), highlighting the major issues and potential areas of contention.
        2. Refer to a team 'case statement' that briefly encapsulates the essential theme of the team's argument.""
        3. Adhere to a case split provided by the first speaker. The division of substantial material between the first and second speakers should be sensible and effective.
        4. Logically and smoothly progress through each idea, taking care to introduce each new point.
        5. Make full use of the 6 minutes of available time, while not exceeding the time limit by more than 30 seconds.
        6. Divide this time wisely between rebutting all major points of the opposing team's case and thoroughly establishing each substantial point.
        7. A firm conclusion to the speech.
        8. Keep within the parameters of the speaker's role.

      3. DOUSE

        4. A speaker who scores well in the method category will usually:

        1. Define the topic of the debate (if affirmative). This may involve identifying the burden of proof or perhaps setting a test which the team must fulfill to establish their case.
        2. Refer back to a central theme that underpins their team case.
        3. Adhere to a case split provided by the first speaker. The division of substantial material between the first and second speakers should be sensible and effective.
        4. Logically and smoothly progress through each idea, taking care to introduce each new point.
        5. Make full use of the 8 minutes of available time, while not exceeding the time limit by more than 30 seconds.
        6. Divide this time wisely between rebutting all major points of the opposing team's case and thoroughly establishing each substantial point.
        7. A firm conclusion of their speech and the team case as a whole.
        8. Keep within the parameters of the speaker's role.

    4. Manner (40 out of 100 marks)

      5. Points awarded under the heading of manner are designed to assess how effectively each speaker presented his or her speech and engages with the audience. Manner is therefore extremely important. Unfortunately, students often fail to appreciate its significance and weight in the marking scheme. There is no ‘right’ way of presenting a speech, as the manner category is deliberately flexible enough to encourage and reward individual style. Debaters are encouraged to experiment with different styles of presentation, including within a single speech. Some students may wish to use humour, passion, sincerity and alike to effectively communicate their speech.

      Factors such as vocal style, eye contact, gestures and the use of palm cards are also relevant to manner.

      1. FORD

        2. Generally, speakers who score well in this area usually:

        1. Speak clearly and loudly enough for everyone in the audience to hear easily.
        2. Show they are not relying wholly upon palm cards or prepared notes.
        3. Maintain good eye contact with all members of the audience.

      2. MURRAY

        3. Generally, speakers who score well in this area usually:

        1. Speak clearly and loudly enough for everyone in the audience to hear easily.
        2. Use palm cards or prepared notes only as guide from which to speak from.
        3. Avoid using too many slang words, overly technical jargon or pompous words.
        4. Maintain good eye contact with all members of the audience.

      3. DOUSE

        4. Generally, speakers who score well in this area often:

        1. Speak articulately so the audience can easily comprehend the speech.
        2. Use palm cards minimally.
        3. Not use slang words too much, overly technical jargon or pompous language.
        4. Vary the pace of delivery during their speech to add contrast between points.
        5. Vary the tone of voice during their speech to create different moods.
        6. Maintain steady eye contact with all members of the audience.
        7. Use gestures, while not being overly repetitive.
        8. Assume a standing position that is not distracting. For instance, continuous pacing may be distracting for the audience.