The word of the adjudicator is final and the speaker will declare the motion either carried or defeated based on the verdict of the adjudicator. The leader of the winning team will be awarded the Adjudicator’s Cup. Following the adjudicator’s critique, the Speaker will announce the popular vote to compare and contrast with the adjudicator. The leader of the winning team by popular vote will receive the People’s Choice Award.

How to score a debate as the official adjudicator

In order, these are the essential responsibilities of the Adjudicator:

1. Assign each debating team a score as defined in this criteria such that the winner is determined correctly.
2. Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the teams and the individual speakers and provide constructive criticism on how to improve.

A speech is scored on five key elements. The adjudicator should spend time discussing how each team performed in regard to each of these elements.

1) Argumentation and Analysis [30%]

A team should present three or four separate and distinct arguments. Each argument should be supported by evidence. And each argument should be clearly related to the resolution.

If a Logical Fallacy is correctly identified by the opposing team, that argument is nullified and does not count toward scoring. (It is as if the argument was not made).

2) Content [20%]

An argument must be backed up with evidence. This can take the form of statistics, real-life examples and factual knowledge. The content must not veer into Special Knowledge).

3) Rebuttal and Refutation [20%]

After the Prime Minister’s speech, the focus of the remaining speeches will be on rebuttal. Each argument presented by a speaker must be opposed by each successive speaker with a counter argument. A single dropped argument will not automatically mean the team loses the debate but a convincing refutation of most of the opponent’s points will be necessary to carry the debate.

Acknowledging what the opposing side presents in their debate is helpful in presenting a fully-integrated debate. If a team sticks to their prepared talking points in spite of the resolution definition or the evolution of the debate, they should be penalized. This is not to suggest the team should contradict themselves (see Teamwork): but to not address the opposing sides arguments and instead stick with what the team has prepared regardless of relevance to what has been said is a weakness and should be judged as such.

If the Opposition accepts the resolution as defined by the Government, they must present arguments and counter arguments that relate to the resolution as defined; failure to do so is fatal. However, the exception to this is when the opposition is challenging the definition of the resolution.

In a normal debate (i.e. not a Cross Examination debate), The Prime Minister is not scored for refutation; the team score is averaged over the two speeches.

4) Teamwork [20%]

Debaters are expected to perform as a team. Earlier speakers set the stage for latter speakers while those following expand on and reinforce earlier arguments. A follow-up speaker may need to clarify (and even correct) a point made by an earlier speaker. This should be done very carefully, however, because contradictions and inconsistencies between speakers can be fatal.

In short, a team gains points for supporting each other and providing a unified message. A team loses points for changing arguments mid-stream, contradicting each other, etc.

5) Style and Rhetoric [10%]

The manner in which arguments are presented can, at times, be as important as the arguments themselves. A smooth, polished and confident speaking style is very persuasive. And using rhetorical techniques and flourishes to add flair to a speech can heighten the impact of the speech. Effective use of humour can be a very powerful style element as can an apt quote.

Banging on the table and heckling (defined as “an occasional single-word outburst; e.g. “source”, “shame”) are within the acceptable realm in the spirit of fun. If the outburst is well timed and comical, the adjudicator may even award points for comedy. Beyond this, the Speaker will get involved to put the debaters back in line and the adjudicator should also deduct points for rowdiness.

Deductions

The adjudicator will deduct points for:

• New arguments or other new information in a summation.
• Using props.
• Going over time.

Special debate formats

For information on how to score special debate formats, see:

• Points of Information
• Cross Examination
• Comedy Debate

How to present an adjudication verdict

After the adjudicator has evaluated the debate and determined the final score for each debating team, the adjudicator delivers an address of no more than ten minutes to justify their position. Like other speaking positions, the adjudicator is also attempting to deliver a pursuasive presentation to conclude the debate.

The adjudicator should not simply restate what each side said. The adjudicator should provide a value-added assessment which speaks to each of the five key elements of scoring as above. The critique should draw attention to praiseworthy elements of the presentations as well as provide constructive criticism.