Debate-guidelines For Judges

Guidelines for judges

Judge who debated best, even though this may not coincide either with the audience’s or your own opinion of which side of the argument should be supported in real life.

Do... Listen carefully and make notes that will remind you of the speeches at the end of the debate. Look unfavourably on people who read pre-prepared speeches in a way that prevents them from responding to the arguments of the other side. Give fewer marks under ‘Listening & Response’ if speakers don’t engage in rebuttal during their own speech. Reward speakers (especially as the debate progresses) for adapting their speeches to respond to what has been said earlier in the debate. Allow teams to approach you for individual feedback after the debate and make sure all the comments you make are positive and polite.

Don’t... Don’t bring your opinions to bear on the motion; the teams may not have chosen the side they are arguing for. Don’t take into account accent, appearance, dress, or background of the speakers. Don’t allow one category to dominate your thinking (especially ‘Expression and Delivery’).

Acknowledgments: English-Speaking Union, Chiew N Pang

Page 1 of 4

Speeches are judged according to the four categories laid out below. Teams’ total scores consist of a total of 100 points: 40 points for the first and second speeches, and 20 points for the summary. Main Speeches (40 points)

1. Reasoning & Evidence (20 marks for 1st proposition, 10 for the others) Reasoning is about the content of the individual arguments each speaker makes and how well they are explained. • •

•

Clarity & Logic: Are the arguments explained clearly and logically? Examples & Analogies: Are the arguments backed up with plenty of well chosen examples and analogies? Facts, statistics, case studies, news stories, historical reference, laws of science, etc. all benefit from being relevant, clear, well known and topical. Links to the motion: Are the arguments shown to be relevant to the motion?


The higher mark for the 1st proposition reflects the importance of good content in setting up the basis for a good debate. Judges should also reward those giving a sensible, concise, comprehensive definition for the motion.

2. Organisation & Prioritisation (10 marks) •

•

• •

Team structure: Did the team’s speeches complement each other? Did the first speaker lay out a clear case which the other members of the team followed? Were the most important arguments in a position which gave them appropriate emphasis? Individual structure: Was each individual speech well structured and easy to follow? Were individual arguments grouped into a logical and coherent whole? Were the most important arguments emphasised? Adaptability: Did the speakers show that they were able to reorganise their material if developments in the debate necessitated it? Timing: Did the speakers speak for approximately their allotted time of 5 minutes? Did they divide their time sensibly between the different points?

Acknowledgments: English-Speaking Union, Chiew N Pang

Page 2 of 4

3. Listening & Response (10 marks. Not applicable to the 1st proposition) •

Rebuttal: Have speakers been listening carefully to their opponents and shown, in their own speeches, why they disagree?




The 1st proposition is not marked here because they haven’t yet heard an opposition speech to respond to through rebuttal.

4. Expression & Delivery (10 marks) Expression is about how the speakers come across rather than what they say. The mark is for how much they engage the audience, including: •

•

• • •

Use of notes: Speakers should have some notes from which they speak fluently. Speakers should be penalised for reading speeches which they have written out in full beforehand or for reciting obviously memorised speeches. Use of voice: Are the speakers audible and clear, while varying speed, volume and intonation to keep their speeches interesting and to add conviction and authority? Use of words: Is language varied, persuasive, appropriate and precise? Use of body language: How effective are hand gestures, eye contact and facial expressions? Rhetoric and humour: Is there an appropriate level of rhetoric and humour?

Acknowledgments: English-Speaking Union, Chiew N Pang

Page 3 of 4

Summaries (20 points)

1. Reasoning & Evidence (5 marks) • • •

Clarity & Logic: Are the arguments still explained clearly and logically? Revisited material: Did the speaker choose the most powerful examples and analogies to revisit in their summary speech? New material: New material is only permitted if it elaborates – or responds to – material already mentioned by another speaker in the debate. A small amount of interesting, relevant new material of this type can be rewarded. Totally new material should be penalised.

2. Organisation & Prioritisation (5 marks) •

• • •

Choice of arguments: There is no time to summarise every argument raised in the debate. Summary speakers should concentrate on the main points of contention that are key to winning over the audience. Structure: Was the speech well structured and easy to follow? Was it logical and coherent? Adaptability: Did the speech reflect the debate as it actually happened, rather than having been written out before the debate started? Timing: Was the allotted time used wisely?

3. Listening & Response (5 marks) • • •

Own team: Has the speaker listened to their own team, reflecting what was actually said rather than what was planned beforehand? Rebuttal: Has the summary speaker listened carefully to their opponents and shown why they disagree with the key arguments? Floor debate: Were some points referred to?

4. Expression & Delivery (5 marks) As for main speeches.

Acknowledgments: English-Speaking Union, Chiew N Pang

Page 4 of 4