Judging Guidelines I

Here are the judging guidelines based on what Rita gave me of this year's guidelines at Euros:

Rita’s version of the Euros judging brief

The order of criteria on which you judge

1. Role fulfilment

2. Quality of argument

3. Content

4. Strategy and teamwork

5. Style

Adjudication must be done in this sequence. A team cannot win a debate if they have failed to fulfil their role on the table.

Positions

First Prop

· No squirreling

· Clear definition

· For analysis motions a model is not required

First Opp

· Must oppose the case stated, even if it is messy

· Does not have to rebut everything mentioned by prop

· Should bring up key issues of the opposition side

Second Prop

· Must provide new substantative matter

· Summary speech may include some new material

· Summary speech should include rebuttal of previous speaker

Second Opp

· New matter brought in summary must not be considered

General

· Each speaker must bring in new information

· Summary speakers should not be penalised for not summarising thematically

· Analysis motions exist as a statement, and teams have to argue whether the statement is either true or not.

· To argue whether a statement is true the proposition should provide criteria for which the motion should be judged on. The opposition need to argue that those criteria are either irrelevant or not strong enough.

Speaker points

Lowest mark: 50

Highest mark : 90

75 is the average for the competition.

These are guide marks but to go above or below these marks the CA would have to be consulted.

50 – 60 poor speech

60- 70 average speech but with some large flaws

70-75 good speech with some problems

75-80 good speech

80-90 great speech – expect to get to break rounds.

90 exceptional, to be seen in a World’s final