| Navigation Bar Placeholder |
adjudicator forms a personal judgement regarding the argument, style,
organisation and impact of a debate which, in many cases, could differ from that
of another adjudicators. The main objective in providing these guidelines is to
ensure, as much as is possible, that the adjudicator makes judgements within a
framework of procedural rules and guidelines which direct attention to specific
issues and thus help limit subjectivity.
The adjudicators role is crucial in the discipline of debating - with the divine
responsibility of sitting in judgement upon the efforts of debaters. As in any
other competitive activity, a thorough understanding of the rules is a
prerequisite for the referee and ensuring that these rules are consistently
interpreted and applied becomes a critical aspect of the competition.
In assessing a debate, you have to adopt the role of an average reasonable
person with an average reasonable knowledge of the subject under debate but
with expert knowledge of the rules of the debate. Debating is an exercise in the
skills of persuasion, where the target audience is assumed to be an average
cross-section of the community who are open to persuasion. In this context, it is
important that the adjudicators judgement is not influenced by his or her
personal likes and dislikes, prejudices or any other preconceived opinions on
issues. There is no denying that each adjudicator carries into the debate, an
opinion baggage that could be based an personal experiences, expert
knowledge of the subject matter or a set of prejudices. An element of the real
test of a debater is, of course, the ability to persuade the adjudicator of the
validity of arguments advanced, which may be in contradiction with the
adjudicators views and perspective on the matter under consideration. But you
must be able to eliminate any special or exceptional attitudes which would not be
shared by an average group of reasonable people. The most important thing to
realise is that you are sitting in judgement on the relative merits of the two cases
that are proposed by the competing teams of the debate. And it is this ability of
comparison that assumes importance in adjudication.
It should be noted that the task of an adjudicator is not to decide whether his or
her views coincided with those expressed by one of the teams. The adjudicator
has artificial constraints that influence his decision - including the proportional
worth of the elements of matter, manner and method, and the weight of each
individual speech to the overall case of the team. The adjudicator is assessing a
process that consists of every single speech and his final judgement is a
function of the contribution of each individual in the debate.
There are three important functions performed by adjudicators in any debate:
- To decide which team has won the debate
- To provide an explanation of the reasons for that decision, and
- To provide constructive criticism and advice to the debaters
The function of deciding which team has won is, of course, the most important
function that is played by the adjudicator. In this context, it is very important to
note that the decision is made by the adjudicator and not by the marks awarded.
In other words, the marks should reflect the adjudicators decision; they should
not make that decision.
It is not rare in close debates to find that the total marks awarded reflect a
different decision from the adjudicators impression of the debate and the
relative merits and demerits of the two cases under consideration. In such
circumstances, you should review the notes of the debate and attempt to
identify the cause of this discrepancy. For example, you might realise that your
final impression was too heavily dependent on a strong third speech, in which
case your decision should be modified to reflect a correct weighing for that
speaker's contribution in the overall context of the debate. Or, you might realise
that the marks awarded to a particular debater’s speech does not reflect his true
contribution to the advancement of his case. What is important to note is that
the marks and the adjudicator's decision should be consistent and it is the final
decision of the adjudicator that determines the outcome of the debate.
Debaters are entitled to know the basis of any judgement and you, as an
adjudicator, has the obligation to explain your decision and offer constructive
criticism. What should be highlighted in such a discussion should be the critical
differences between the two teams and no attempt should be made to replay the
whole debate. Adjudicators should also be careful of getting drawn into a further
debate with the team members as to the merits of the judgement. While
explaining the reasons for the decision, you should be specific in weighing the
relative merits of the cases and the important elements of the cases that were
crucial in determining your verdict. These issues will be handled in detail later
when assessment of debates are discussed in terms of matter, manner and
method.
It should be remembered that the level of explanation provided should be
tailored to the experience of the debaters. Very experienced speakers are likely
to be concerned with the interaction of argument and the structure of team
cases; novices are likely to wish to receive more detailed comment on speaking
style, merging into the 'constructive criticism' discussed below.
Not every individual has the ability to inspire and motivate. But all adjudicators
do have a tremendous responsibility in ensuring that their judgement and the
criticism and advice that they give perform an educational function in debating.
Sound advice from good adjudicators make substantial differences to debating
careers. As pointed out earlier, the nature of advice offered should vary with the
experience of the debaters. Criticism should invariably be couched in
constructive terms. To a novice speaker for whom the debate itself may have
been a traumatic event, there is a world of difference between: 'The things
which you did badly were ..." and "The ways in which to improve your debating
are …". No adjudication should be scathing, sarcastic or derogatory. You have
an obligation to be constructive, supportive and encouraging.
2. Assessing
Matter
3. Assessing
Method
4. Assessing
Manner
5. Other Issues
6. Marking Scale
7. Conclusion
