ADJUDICATORS’ FUNCTIONS

1. ADJUDICATORS’ FUNCTIONS • Decide which team has won. • Decide the best speaker. • State the reasons for the decision (oral adjudication). • Provide constructive criticism and advice to the debaters. • Sometimes chair and time-keep the debate as well. Notes • Keep detailed notes during the debate (including POIs) Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM

2. A DEBATE IS JUDGED ON THE BASIS OF: • 1. Matter: • What the teams/ speakers present (i.e. the content) • 2. Manner: • How they present (i.e. the style) • 3. Method: • Organisation/ structure of their presentation Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM

3. JUDGING MATTER Elements: • 4. Rebuttals • Logic • Relevance • Promptness • 1. Definition: • abide by the rules of definition • 2. Arguments: • Logic • Relevance • 3. Evidences: • Relevance • Strength of the Evidence • Matter in a humour debate. • Pre-conceived notion. • Average reasonable person. • Expert Knowledge. Notes: Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM

4. GOOD DEFINITION • Explains the key-words in the topic. • Identifies the burden of proof and the stand of the team. This is called the theme of the team. • If there is a measurement involved, sets up the yardstick or criteria for such measurement. • It must bear a close relation to the motion. • It must not be truistic. • It must not employ time or place setting. • It must not be based on overly specific knowledge RULES OF DEFINITION Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM

5. CHALLENGE OF DEFINITION Grounds for Challenge: • The opposition can only challenge (reject) a definition if it violates any of the rules stated earlier. Frequently used terms in challenging definitions are: wholly unreasonable, squirrel, time-place set, truistic. • The opposition cannot challenge a definition simply because you have a more reasonable or better definition. Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM

6. CHALLENGE OF DEFINITION • Challenge must come from the leader of the opposition, not later. • Leader of the opposition must provide an alternative definition. • In most of the cases, the teams must introduce an 'even if’ argument. • `Even if' argument is not possible in some cases. (e.g. truistic definition & definition running counter to the resolution i.e. where govt. has taken the opposition’s case). • In a definition debate, all the speakers except the PM argue the following: • Why challenge? • Validity/ invalidity of the two definitions. • Even if we are to accept the other side's definition, these are the weaknesses of their case. • Positive case under their own definition. Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM

7. JUDGING A DEFINITION DEBATE Consider the following: • Does the definition meet the characteristics? Or, Is there an acceptable ground for the challenge? • What about the alternative definition. Is it reasonable or equally unreasonable? • How the teams argue about the definitions? • Are they able to prove the case under their own definition? • How effective are the 'even if' arguments of the teams? • Consider matter, manner, method as usual. Notes: • Often in a definition debate two topics are debated simultaneously. • Usually the team that argues better under both the topics and the definition, wins the debate. Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM

8. JUDGING MANNER/STYLE Assessing the Elements: • Assessment of manner is very subjective. • Following are elements of manner: • Respectable attitude towards the judges and the other team. • Vocal style: volume, clarity, pace, intonation etc. • Use of notes: not to read a written text. • Eye contact. • Body language: hand gestures, pacing, standing etc. • Impression of sincerity. • Humour, wit, appropriate and healthy sarcasm. • Adjudicate manner according to whether an average reasonable person will find a particular speaker’s manner attractive. Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM

9. JUDGING METHOD • Team structure • Continuity of team’s theme in all the speeches. • Consistency among all the speakers (no contradictions) • Reinforcement of team members' arguments • Clear & logical separation between arguments. • Individual Structure • Attractive opening/ outline of the speech. • Proper organisation & priority of the arguments. • Organisation of rebuttals. • Appropriate timing of the speech • Summary of the speech. • Responses to the dynamics of the debate- Right thing at the right time. - Ability to follow the progression of and changes in the debate, and to re-act accordingly. Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM

10. JUDGING METHOD • Team structure • Assess whether all speakers in the team adequately fulfilled their expected roles. • Whether the team’s over all oraganisation of arguments effective to prove the case in contention. • Assess the following elements: • Continuity of team’s theme in all the speeches. • Consistency among all the speakers (no contradictions) • Reinforcement of team members' arguments • Clear & logical separation between arguments. • Individual Structure • Assess the following elements: • Attractive opening/ outline of the speech. • Proper organisation & priority of the arguments. • Organisation of rebuttals. • Appropriate timing of the speech • Summary of the speech. • Responses to the dynamics of the debate - Whether the speakers and the team are able to follow the progression of and changes in the debate, and re-act accordingly. Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM

11. POINTS OF INFORMATION (POI) • A POI can be in a question or statement form and should not take more than 15 seconds. • A debater should accept at least two POIs. • All three members of the team should try to give POIs, but they must not be disruptive. • Adjudicators should keep record of: • how many times a debater tries to offer POI. • how many POI a debater accepts during his speech. • POIs are judged on the basis of: • the threat they pose to the strength of the argument of the debater. • value of its wit & humour. • Responses to the POIs are judged on the basis of: • promptness, confidence in answering. • strength of the response. • value of wit & humour in the response. Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM

12. MARKING SCHEME Individual Speeches: Margin: Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM

13. MARKING SCHEME How to Assign Marks: • Decide the scores of the PM according to his performance vis-à-vis the expected standard in the competition. • Using the PM as the benchmark award scores to the subsequent speakers. • Do not write the score on the score sheet until the end of the debate. • Balance between the subjective & objective judgement. • The scores should not dictate your decision. Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM

14. ORAL ADJUDICATION Guidelines: • Usually the chief Adjudicator delivers the judgement and oral adjudication. • Be confident in giving your reasons. • Do not enter into argumentation with the debaters. • Do not replay the whole debate. • Highlight the differences between the teams: • Technical strengths & weaknesses. • Strength & weaknesses of the cases. • Differences in matter, manner, method. Notes: • Make sure that your oral adjudication reflects the actual judgement (i.e. do not criticise the winning team more than the loosig team). • Be motivating & encouraging. Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM

15. NEW MATTER RULE Rules: • Third speakers and the reply speakers cannot introduce a new matter in the debate. • The following are not new matter: • further illustration, examples or evidences of an existing argument. • anything introduced in response to the other team's case Notes: Australasian Debate: 3rd Prop not encouraged to bring new matter. Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM

16. NEW MATTER RULE Example 1: 1st Prop : Political arguments 1st Opp : Economic arguments. 2nd Prop: Economic arguments 2nd Opp : Political arguments. 3rd Prop: Social arguments 3rd Opp : Rebuttals Here the 3rd Prop is bringing new matter. Example 2: • 1st Prop : Political Arguments 1st Opp : Social arguments • 2nd Prop: Economic Arguments 2nd Opp : Political argument. • 3rd Prop : Social Arguments 3rd Opp : Rebuttals • Here the 3rd prop is not bringing a new matter if he puts his social arguments as rebuttal to the 1st Opp's arguments. Prepared by the Speech & Interpersonal Communication Enhancement Unit, IIUM

17. THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US & HAPPY ADJUDICATING