Chairing an Adjudication Panel

1. China Debate Education Network: Chairing an Adjudication Panel

2. Adjudication-review • Four-team parliamentary debates typically are judged by a panel of adjudicators trained to judge this form of debate. • Following the debate, • Judges Rank teams 1-4 • Judges Assign Speaker points for each student (100 point scale with range usually 55-85). • Team member’s speaker points are combined for the team's points.

3. Responsibilities of Chairing • Chairing a panel represents a significant responsibility • Responsible to the other adjudicators—that they have opportunity to voice their view of the debate and that their input is heard. • Responsible to the teams in the chamber—that teams receive a fair adjudication of the debate and that teams receive constructive educationally focused feedback. • Responsible to the tournament—to keep the tournament running in a timely manner while allowing for the necessary feedback to debaters and adjudicators.

4. Approaches to Chairing • There is no single “right” way to chair a panel, but there are approaches that are better than others. (The following approaches may operate simultaneously.) Audience centered approach • This approach asks all judges to think of themselves not as specialists or experts on subject matter, but members of a broader audience. Chairs should consider not only how arguments are made and the completeness of those arguments in relationship to opposition arguments, but also how the teams in the debate made a good debate for a “general audience.”

5. Approaches to Chairing—Cont. • Beyond Role Fulfillment Approach • Role Fulfillment (RFF) is a central component of British Parliamentary Debate and judges/chairs should consider how well each debater fulfilled their specific role. • However, RFF is not nearly as important as the quality of arguments constructed, the refutation of arguments, the interaction of arguments, etc. • Simply deciding the debate on RFF may ignore many important nuances of the debate, the debaters, and the interaction of arguments. RFF should not be cast out, but it should not necessarily be the primary means of adjudication.

6. Approaches to Chairing—Cont. • Argument Approach • Here we could mean “argument” in two ways • Arguing with the other judges about the decision • Focusing on “argumentation” of the debate as the primary criteria for rendering a decision. • The latter definition of argument is helpful, but may sometimes preclude seeing how a “general audience” may view the debate. • The former definition or argument, where judges try to argue, or even bully one another, is not productive.

7. Approaches to Chairing—Cont. Consensus Approach • The goal of consensus judging is just that, consensus. • The Challenge of consensus judging is arriving at consensus sometimes when judges see the debate in very different ways (in which case recall the “audience approach”) or where judges are at a loss for how to decide a close or poorly executed debate. • Open dialogue among judges where all judges, but especially the chair, avoid pushing an agenda or “bullying” other critics, can lead to productive conversation about the debate and productive feedback for the students. • Chairs, especially, must avoid pushing an agenda since it is the chair’s responsibility to manage the discussion not dominate the discussion. • Chair leadership is demonstrated through cooperative conversation not through “winning” their own points. Remember that all judges are equal in the consensus process.

8. Process for Chairing • A general process for chairing: • Watch, record, and evaluate the debate. • After the debate render a decision of how you think the teams rank and ask your wing judges to do the same reminding the wings that the decision is to be based on what occurred in the debate rather than their preconceived view of any one argumentative thread. • That is, debates should not be evaluated on whether or not an adjudicator believes one team to be “true” but on how the teams argued their points.

9. Process for Chairing--Continued • Once each judge has established their preliminary rankings the chair should invite each judge to provide their team rankings. This step allows the judges a sense of how “close” or “far apart” they may be in evaluating the debate. • If the judges concur then the discussion should focus on the following for feedback to the debaters: • What did each team do well? • Why did the “1” team earn the “1” (make distinctions between teams)? • Where could each team improve? • What speaker rankings should be given for each member/team?

10. Process for Chairing--Continued • If the three judges do not concur (which happens more often than not) then the chair should do the following: • Set aside his/her own rankings and ideas of the round. • Invite the wing judges to explain their rankings and the criteria by which they decided the debate. • The chair should listen to the points made by the wing judges and, if necessary, take notes on their primary evaluations of the debate. • After the chair has listened to the positions of the wing judges then s/he should offer his/her interpretation of the debate explaining why s/he ranked the teams the way s/he did.

11. Process for Chairing--Continued • The consensus process should focus on differences in the rankings between the judges • It often helps to focus on collections of team. For example, is there agreement on which two teams should be 1 and 2 but not on the specific order? If so, then allocate your time to make the finer distinctions. • The chair should help guide the discussion, not force the discussion. • No single judge, but especially the chair, should to the majority of talking • The chair should help summarize the collective view and explain that view to the debaters highlighting areas for improvement. • If time permits, the chair should help clarify matters for the wing judges. The education process is for all involved.

12. Review • Story of Thai Fireflies that synchronize their “fire” is the goal of consensus judging. • Consensus is not optimal if dominated by any individual judge. • Chair responsibilities • Other adjudicators, teams, tournament • Approaches to Chairing • Audience Centered • Beyond Role Fulfillment • Argument • Consensus • Process for Chairing • Individual decisions shared • Open conversation to reach consensus • Goals • Fair decision based on the debate • Educational opportunity for the students not the judges