How to adjudicate a debate and decide a winner

When you judge a debate, your job is to reflect what happened in that debate to determine a winner.

Basic approach is to ask “which team most persuaded me that their side or position was correct.”

Style, strategy and content are all relevant categories for determining which teams persuaded you that their side was correct.

When deciding a winner, the best approach is to look at “areas of clash” or the “main issues” that have emerged over the course of the debate.

What is an area of clash?

In all debates material from both teams will relate, or come under the umbrella, of a larger broader issue.

In debates, there will be several significant areas of clash or main issues that the result of the debate depends on.

E.g. What is the correct moral position in the debate? How will a particular stakeholder be impacted by the policy? What will the societal impact of a policy be?

For example in a debate on “This house would remove sanctions on Cuba,” the main issues could be: Is it moral to impose sanctions on Cuba? Are sanctions effective in creating internal regime change in Cuba?

These areas of clash emerge from the material from both teams in the debate - whether it be substantive material or rebuttal.

The areas of clash will always depend on the material in a particular debate. They should cover the important material in that debate.

Part of judging is deciding which team won each area of clash Part of judging is deciding which team won each area of clash. The other part is weighing the importance of each area in terms of the overall debate.

How do you decide which team has won an area of clash?

This involves elements of style, content and strategy.

You should first look at how well substantiated or developed a point is in a team’s case - how much did they prove the material on its own?

This includes: Looking at mechanisms (have they explained why the point/outcome will happen in the way they say it will)

Do they have persuasive examples that assist to prove the point they are making? What is the effect of the point they are making? How much does it matter?

Second, you should look at how each team has engaged with the opposing team’s material (“rebuttal”).

Rebuttal relates both to negating material from the opposing team and also in many cases reducing its significance in a debate.

Often substantive material from both teams will indirectly relate to one another.

Third, the relative prioritisation of material will be relevant - when did the material come out in the debate and how much time was spent on it?

Overall, you should aim to be comparative.

Look at the material of both teams, how they have engaged, and decide which team has been more persuasive for the issue at the end.

This can involve deciding what is the most likely response by stakeholders/actors to a policy based on both teams material? E.g. How citizens of Cuba react to sanctions

How do you decide a winner based on these areas of clash?

Involves a weighing up of the areas of clash in the debate.

Depends on: To what extent has a team won an area of clash? What has a team proven through that area of clash? What is its significance in the debate? Overall, what appeared to be the biggest issue in the debate?