1. adjudication seminar
SOURCES:
NOVELISA WIRID
A. KHUSAY
PANDU NOER UMARO
National University Debating Championship LLDIKTI XII 2019
PRESENTED BY DORA ANGELINA ARUAN &
TIUR SIMANJUNTAK

2. 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 today’s context. Just like the Kardashians, you need to keep up.

3. What will we be discussing?
General Rules of BP Debating
How to Adjudicate
Scoring Standards
Oral Adjudication
Conflict System

4. GENERAL RULES OF BP DEBATING: 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.

5. General rules of bp debating: fiat privileges
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).

6. 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 speaker’s extension

7. 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.
The way role fulfillment should be assessed is how it impacts your understanding of the team’s case.
Ex: if the team was unclear in terms of definition and that created a confusing debate, you may place blame on OG for their lack of definitional clarity. However, if they didn’t bring a definition but the debate did not suffer from the lack of definition, then you should not penalize OG because there was no harm done.

8. GENERAL RULES OF BP DEBATING: ARGUMENTATION
Arguments are the teams’ way of proving whether the motion should be supported or not. Arguments must be: i) relevant, ii) logical, iii) mutually exclusive.
Relevance refers to the fact whether or not the argument fits into the context that the debate is taking place in.
Ex: THBT technology brings more harm than good, OG argument is about why technology is not justified  argument irrelevant to Burden!
Logical refers to the quality of argument, whether or not it can be accepted through common sense and whether or not there is a development of logical processes.
Ex: THW ban smoking, OO argument is about harm to national economy  argument must explain in details how!
Mutually Exclusive refers to the condition where arguments should prove why its premises are exclusively existing on your side and does not occur on the other side. If an argument isn’t mutually exclusive, it is a conceded point by both teams and does not become a contention point.
Ex: THW subsidize internet, OG argument is about gov duty to accommodate society in general  not contextual!
Judges must be aware that they are NOT blank slates. Use your brain during the debate.

9. General rules of bp debating: REBUTTALS AND RESPONSES
Rebuttals are material attacks to the opponent’s case, attempting to disprove their weight in the debate.
Essentially, rebuttals are about proving why your opponent is wrong. Rebuttals are important in a debate because it shows which teams are engaging and making the issues clash. The absence of rebuttals may indicate that a team is inferior as they are unwilling/incapable of responding to the opponent. However, teams are not obliged to rebut everything. Some points may already be weak on their own and do not require so much response from the opposing side.
Rebuttals exist in many forms, from negating a point to creating a comparison/trade-off analysis, and all of them should be considered valid.
What is NOT considered rebuttals are mere questioning of the opponent’s case, without proving otherwise.

10. General rules of bp debating: extensions
Extensions are the unique responsibility of Closing teams, specifically the Member Speaker. Extensions essentially are any form of material that will extend the debate and push it forward.
Extensions can take place in the form of:
New arguments which have not yet been made in the debate.
New rebuttals.
New examples.
New analysis or explanations of existing arguments.
(New applications of existing argumentation (e.g. if the extension speaker points out that that one of the first-half's arguments is able to defeat a new argument from the other side).
Just because Opening has already said it, doesn’t mean Closing automatically loses. Be on the lookout for distinct analysis or conclusion that the Closing may provide.

11. How to adjudicate: KNOWING YOUR ROLE
Adjudicator assume the role of an average reasonable voter. You must be average, reasonable, and act as a voter.
You must be a person who has average knowledge of the topic under debate but expertise knowledge of the rules for competitive debating
Not an expert on issues
Read the news regularly
Understand debating rules
You must put logic and reason as your guide in assessing the debate.
Open-minded
Detach yourself from personal preferences (e.g.: religious beliefs, political affiliations, etc.)
Your role is to act like a moderate voter deciding their stance on a proposed policy.
Balance of information between two contrasting party
Must be comparative towards all the information presented to you.
IN SHORT, YOU MUST ADJUDICATE THE DEBATE THAT HAPPENS AND NOT THE ONE THAT YOU THOUGHT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED.

12. HOW TO ADJUDICATE: THE GENERAL PROCESS
1) Judges individually decide their ranks.
2) All judges on the panel will have a conferring to decide the outcome of the round.
3) The Chair will fill in the Adjudication Sheet.
4) The Chair (or an appointed Panel, if the Chair dissents) will provide the oral adjudication to the teams, explaining the reasons how the panel came up with the final call.

13. HOW TO ADJUDICATE: THE INDIVIDUAL PROCESS
1) Prepare to take notes of the debate. There is no specific way how one should take note, as everyone has different ways. You may choose to write things verbatim (word per word) or just a summation of what the speakers said. Don’t be lazy and rely on your memory only.
2) Assess the debate as it goes on. What this means is that as the round progresses, you are constantly evaluating who wins/loses by that point. This is helpful because it allows you to continuously compare the teams and by the time the round ends, you have a rough idea on the team ranking.
3) Pay attention to claims made by each teams (both arguments and rebuttals) and scrutinize them with common sense questions such as, “is this true?”, “why is this important?”, “how will this happen?”. Teams that are able to satisfy this decisively indicative test generally are the more superior team, as they were capable to provide clear elaboration.
4) At the end of the round, list down your justification as to why you felt certain teams deserve to get the higher ranks and why the others do not. Remember, adjudication emphasizes on your interpretation, your sense of judgment on the points made– don’t just repeat the cases!

14. HOW TO ADJUDICATE: THE CONFERRING PROCESS
Discuss the decision (ranks) with the other members of the panel until a consensus is reached (everyone agrees on the rank and scores given to each team/speaker). The Chair adjudicator will facilitate the discussion, with Panels and Trainees pitching their thoughts about the round.
Changing decision doesn’t mean that you are a bad adjudicator. It is allowed in order to achieve the consensus. Remember that other people on the panel may perceive the arguments differently with you and thus, keep an open mind to their interpretation.
If a consensus is not reached after a 15-minute discussion, the decision should be taken by voting. If the number of the votes are even, the Chair judge will be the tie-breaker.
The chair will fill in the Adjudication Sheet and give it to the LOs.

15. Scoring standards: BELOW AVERAGE SPEECHES

16. SCORING STANDARDS: AVERAGE AND ABOVE AVERAGE SPEECHES

17. SCORING STANDARDS: HOW TO DO IT properly
Follow the standard provided by the exhibition debate
Be comparative among speakers
Be consistent in all rounds
Do not disclose the speaker scores to the debaters! Any form of score leaks will be penalized heavily.
You may give a qualitative assessment on how the speaker performed and which range they might fall in (below average, average, or above average), but nothing more.

18. Scoring STANDARDS: SCORESHEET SAMPLE
[Speaker Name] 2
[Team Score]
Opening Government [Position] 1
[Team Name]
Opening Opposition [Position]
Closing Government [Position]
Closing Opposition [Position]
3 [Panelist’s Name]
1 [Panelist’s Name]
2 [Panelist’s Name]
Panelists:
Chair Adjudicator
Motion:
Venue:
Round:
(chair signature)

19. Oral adjudication: what should be in one
1) Brief general commentaries on the round
2) Result of the round (the ranking of the teams)
3) The justification of each ranking
Judges may choose to individually assess each team’s 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!

20. 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 team’s understanding of the justifications and will affect your feedback score.
You are a human being, not a parrot. Don’t 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!

21. 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.
They arise in the following situations:
In a Relationship.
Attendance at the Same University/Institution.
Substantial Involvement with Another Debating Society (e.g., Coaching, co-training)
Other circumstances that may compromise your objectivity in adjudicating the debate (e.g.: Bad Blood, Boss and Employee, They stole your boy/girlfriend)
Soft Conflicts (other circumstances where judges believe they might not be objective in adjudicating)
Judges must declare their conflicts during the accreditation. If new conflicts arise, or some have been missed, please notify the Adjudication Core at once.

22. Q&A
Any questions?