1. NSDC 2013
ADJUDICATION SEMINAR

2. Difference between Worlds and Asian/Australsian Format (for invited)
Manner matters;
Checklist-based adjudication;
Using clashes is NOT THE ONLY WAY to adjudicate;

3. Adjudication in a nutshell
There’s no such thing as a tie. Each judge has 1 vote, and different opinions in a debate is not a problem.
The debate is judged based on the quality of the case which includes arguments, rebuttals, POIs, and the presentation of the case
The scores reflect the contribution of the speaker to the debate. Speakers are judged individually, regardless the team’s overall performance.

4. Adjudication Sheet
Adjudicators are expected to finish making their decision, filling their adjudication sheet, and conferring with the each others in 20 minutes.
Adjudicators needs to fill in: the winner of the debate, the total team score for both teams, and the margin of the debate.
Adjudicators must make their decisions INDIVIDUALLY before they confer.

5. Verbal Adjudication
The chair adjudicator must make a recap of their conferrals in a 5 minutes speech.
An ideal verbal adjudication consists of:
The winner of the debate
Comments regarding matter, manner, method
Constructive inputs for the speakers (OPTIONAL)

6. Manner (Style) Elements of Manner: Clarity & Fluency of the speech
Grammar & choice of words
Political correctness
Persuasiveness
Proper use of emphasis, tone of voice, and pauses.

7. Manner (Style) 24
Very poor English (a lot of fatal grammatical errors), not understandable, stutters a lot, too many gap-fillers, unappealing. You don’t want to listen to this speaker at all. 25
Poor English (made a couple of fatal grammatical errors), barely understandable, stutters a lot, a lot of gap fillers, unappealing. This speaker managed to get your attention a few times, but only for a really small part of his/her speech. 26
Relatively Acceptable English (made very few fatal grammatical errors), understandable, you can somehow follow his/her speech. The speaker doesn’t stutter but still uses a handful amount of gap-fillers. The speaker manages to get your attention at least in half of his speech.

8. Manner (Style) 27
Acceptable English (made a few grammatical errors), understandable, easily followed, The speaker manages to get your attention for most of his/her speech. The speaker’s presentation is fluent even though he/she stutters/uses gap-fillers a few times. 28
Decent English (made a few to no grammatical errors), very understandable, uses proper choice of words (relatively effective in getting his/her point across) in most of his/her speech, very easily followed. The speaker manages to get your attention for most his/her speech, very few to no gap fillers. 29
Exceptional (in a good way) English, you barely notice any grammatical error, has good choice of words. The speaker successfully grabs your attention. The speaker is able to adjust its tone and emotion according the words he/she is saying.

9. Manner (Style) 30
Compelling grip on English, no grammatical errors. The speaker captivated everyone in the room. The speaker is very aware of his/her eye-contact, emphasis, tone and emotion; and use it to his/her advantage in accordance to the motion. 31
Close to perfect English, Strong diction. A captivating public speaker, has a really good grip on emphasis, eye-contact, pauses, etc. The speaker successfully convinced with only his/her words and gesture. 32
Perfect English. Very strong diction/choice of words. A very captivating and flawless public speaker. You are convinced that you would listen to his/her speech even if you weren’t adjudicating, You almost don’t want this speaker to stop talking.

10. Matter (Content) Complete elements for Arguments & Rebuttals
Quality of Arguments and Rebuttals
Quality & Quantity of examples
Adjudicators are expected to give credit to speakers who offers strong POIs, or to give a strong answer to a POI from the opponent.

11. Matter (Content) Elements of Arguments/Rebuttal (A-R-E-L):
The relevance of the title to the content of the point. (Assertion)
The depth & quality of explanation (Reasoning)
The supporting facts of the point (Statistics, Case study, or parallel examples)
How does the point supports the case of your team. (Linkback)

12. Matter (Content) 24
The speech gives you very little to write (even if there are some, it’s the same with what you’ve already written, i.e. repetitive). 25
The content of the speech bears almost no relevance to the debate. The argument does not have all the necessary components (A-R-E-L). You almost can’t see the logic behind the material. The arguments/rebuttals have obvious fatal mistakes (contradiction or inconsistence). 26
The content of the speech is somewhat relevant to the debate; the argument’s relevance is limited to some parts of A – R – E - L (e.g. only in the assertion level). You can see how the explanation makes sense, even though it wasn’t explicit.

13. Matter (Content) 27
The speaker has attempted to list down all components of arguments/rebuttals (A-R-E-L), even though not all of them are relevant (e.g. the example might not support the reasoning). The speaker is also able to demonstrate the logic behind his argument, even though some parts are missing. 28
The speaker has successfully established all components of arguments/rebuttals (A-R-E-L), in which all the components are relevant and support each other. The arguments/rebuttals contain sufficient logical explanation that can be conclusively linked back to the motion. 29
The argument/rebuttal are thoroughly explained. The difference between 29 and 30 are the relevance of the material to the debate (whether all the opponents’ points have been responded to, whether the argument answers the concern of opposing team, etc.) and the amount of examples presented.

14. Matter (Content) 30
The argument/rebuttal are thoroughly explained. The difference between 29 and 30 are the relevance of the material to the debate (whether all the opponents’ points have been responded to, whether the argument answers the concern of opposing team, etc.) and the amount of examples presented. 31
The argument/rebuttal (and all the components within them) are strong and highly relevant. The ideas are unorthodox (not the first thing that comes to mind when the motion arises) but managed to be proven. 32
The argument/rebuttal (and all the components within them) are very strong, it’s close to impossible to point out the flaw. The ideas are unorthodox (not the first thing that comes to mind when the motion arises) but convincingly proven.

15. Method (Strategy)
Method is the art of presenting a case, both individually or as a team.
Team Strategy:
Issue, Model & Stance
Division of arguments between speakers
Individual Strategy:
“Sign posting”
Time management
Role fulfillment

16. Method (Strategy) 12
The speaker brings up highly irrelevant issues (no connection to the debate/motion). 13
The speaker doesn’t perform his/her expected role (1st speaker that doesn’t explain team’s stance, 2nd speaker that spends 6 minutes for rebuttals / no rebuttal at all). 14
The speaker manages to explain all the points expected from his/her role. The speaker might still have minor problem with signposting / prioritizing issues (arguments/rebuttals).

17. Method (Strategy) 15
The speaker knows which issue to prioritize and manages to fulfill his/her role. The signposting employed by the speaker helps you understand his/her speech. 16
The speaker manages to use his/her given time perfectly, according to their role (all points are explained and given proper prioritization). A very clear and effective signposting and structure, you can easily take note of his/her speech without thinking.

18. Penalty Under-time & over-time Receiving less than 2 POIs
Offering less than 2 POIs (as a team)
Definitional foul
Factual error, using wrong/fake evidences
Offensive statements/gestures

19. Judging Reply Speakers
Reply speakers are judged and scored just like Substantive Speaker, but the final result will be halved.
In judging matter, adjudicators should look at the way the speaker compared the cases of both team, and the way the speaker analyze the “tipping points” of the debate