1. Judge training

2. What to look for when judging. Content Analysis Role-Fulfilment Structure and Timing Presence Style

3. Content Relevant to the debate/motion. Engaging with the other speakers. To the point. Don't lie too much, or at least make it believable.

4. Analysis WHY?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! What? How? Why do we care? Examples, but not personal ones. To the point. Logical progression. Assertions, make sure they make very little and the ones they make need to be the simplest possible.

5. Role-fulfilment 1 st prop must: Mechanise(1 st speaker), Make key points, rebut (2 nd speaker), engage with 1 st op's points (2 nd speaker) 1 st op must: Attack the mechanism, engage with 1 st prop's points directly, rebut, make key points. Extension speakers must: Extend the debate as a whole while adding new information, or re-analyse a point that has been made in a new way, engage with the first half of the table. Summation speakers must: Summarise the key points on the table giving particular emphasis to the biggest points of clash, they must add no new information. TEAM WORK (Flagging, key phrases, etc etc)

6. Structure Signposting Flagging Mechanism/rebuttal Make sure the timing for each point is good. If the speech is too long it's a good indication that they haven't considered their time. If the speech is too short it's a good indication that they haven't analysed their points correctly.

7. Presence Making points of information to all members on the opposite table. Defending points of information (this requires that they actually take some) Check that they do this all the way through the debate not just after their speech. Check that they don't give up after their speech, make sure they have a presence all the way through the debate.

8. Style Confidence Report with team member. Engagement with debate as a whole. Clear and calm. Eye contact. Little niggles: Addressing the chair not the room, going for a walk, scratching yourself

9. How to actually judge 1 st prop 1 st opp1 st prop 1 st opp Rebuttal Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Rebuttal Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Rebuttal Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Rebuttal Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 2 nd prop 2 nd opp2 nd prop 2 nd opp Rebuttal Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Rebuttal Point 1 Point 2 Point 3 Rebuttal Point of clash 1 Point of clash 2 Point of clash 3 Rebuttal Point of clash 1 Point of clash 2 Point of clash 3

10. Worlds Debating Scale 95-100 Plausibly one of the very best debating speeches ever given, flawless and astonishingly compelling in every regard. It is incredibly difficult to think up satisfactory responses to any of the arguments made. 90-94 Brilliant arguments dominate the main issues in the round. Arguments are very well explained, always central to the case being advocated, and demand extremely sophisticated responses. The speech is very clear and incredibly compelling. Structure and role fulfilment are executed flawlessly. 85-89 Very good, central arguments engage completely with the most important issues on the table and are backed up by deep and compelling analysis; sophisticated responses would be required to refute them. Delivery is clear and very persuasive. Role fulfilment and structure probably flawless. 80-84 Good arguments address key issues in the round and are both well reasoned and explained, although may leave avenues open for attack. The speech is clear in almost its entirety and advocated persuasively. Role is well-fulfilled and structure is unlikely to be problematic.

11. Worlds Debating Scale 75-79 Arguments are almost exclusively relevant, and frequently persuasive. Occasionally, but not often, the speaker may slip into: deficits in explanation, simplistic argumentation vulnerable to competent responses or peripheral/irrelevant arguments. The speaker holds ones attention, provides clear structure, and successfully fulfils their basic role on the table. 70-74 Arguments are generally relevant, and some explanation of them given, but there may be obvious gaps in logic, multiple points of peripheral or irrelevant material and simplistic argumentation. The speaker mostly holds the audiences attention and is usually clear, but rarely compelling, and may sometimes be difficult to follow. There is a decent but incomplete attempt to fulfil ones role on the table, and structure may be imperfectly delivered. 65-69 Relevant arguments are frequently made, but with very rudimentary explanation. The speaker is clear enough to be understood the vast majority of the time, but this may be difficult and/or unrewarding. Structure poor; poor attempt to fulfil role. 60-64 The speaker is often relevant, but rarely makes full arguments. Frequently unclear and confusing; really problematic structure/lack thereof; some awareness of role. 55-59 The speech rarely makes relevant claims, only occasionally formulated as arguments. Hard to follow, little/no structure; no evident awareness of role. 50-54 Content is almost never relevant, and is both confusing and confused. No structure or fulfilment of role is, in any meaningful sense, provided.