1.- INTRODUCTION
The aim of the manual is to introduce potential judges to their role and what is expected of them. The judge is the most important person in a debate. They listen to every word of every speech and every piece of information with equal attention. They are the person the debaters are most keen to impress, as they will be making the decision on who wins the debate. And once the debate is over, they must send the debaters on their way with constructive feedback, which will both encourage them and improve their skills. Debating without judges cannot happen, at least not as a competitive activity.
Judging a debate is not only particularly important, but also challenging. It involves processing a huge amount of data at a fast pace and under pressure. However, it is suggested that every debater should have a go at judging, as there is no better way to understand how debates work.
The Manual for Judges is structured in the following way. First, the debating roles are described, with a further analysis of the role of the Judge. Then, the criteria categories are analyzed, so that a judge can know how to evaluate them. As a practical tool, this manual includes the scoring sheet to be used by judges during the debate. Further, the manual provides information on what judges should do after the debate and on how to provide constructive feedback to debaters.
2.- ROLES IN A DEBATE
In each debate, there will be:
- A Speaker of the House.
- Judge(s)/Timekeeper(s).
- Three speakers for each team (Pros and Cons), one of whom will give either the first or second speech as well as the reply to speech.
Initially, the Speaker of the House calls the House to order and opens the floor. Then, the Speaker of the House invites the First Speaker for the Proposition to begin the debate. The order of the debate can be the following:
Source: own research.
Image 1. Debate Structure.
3.- ROLE OF THE JUDGE
The judge has three main roles during the debate:
- First, the Judge keeps time, oversees that the rules are being followed and helps to keep the debate on time and the positive experience for all.
- Secondly, the Judge provides constructive feedback for the debaters, commenting on strengths and areas for improvement.
- Finally, the Judge determines the winner of each debate.
4.- JUDGING CRITERIA
The judge’s task is to decide which team has made the more persuasive case. But how can one decide upon it? The risk in the judge’s role is that they may fall for the debater who seems the most impressive. This happens if one approaches judging in a ‘holistic’ manner. What this might mean is that a judge might award the debate to someone who speaks with great fluency but little substance over another debater who may speak with less confidence but in fact has much more solid, well-founded arguments.
This is why it is important for a judge to make decisions based on pre-set criteria. To achieve that, the key is to break the debaters’ performance down into the key skills of debating and assess each one of them separately. There are three main skills / criteria categories for judging.
4.1.- Criteria Category “Strategy”
The first criteria category in judging is that of “strategy” and it involves a series of criteria:
4.1.1.- Role
The criterion of the “role” refers to whether each speaker has fulfilled their tasks, according to the step of the debate. Tasks per step of the debate are described in the table below:
| Speaker | Tasks |
| First Proposition | Fair definition Proposition case line Allocation of arguments to be covered by each Speaker on the Proposition Constructive arguments |
| First Opposition | Accept or challenge definition Rebuttal of first proposition’s arguments Opposition case line Allocation of arguments to be covered by each Speaker on the Opposition Constructive arguments |
| Second Proposition | Rebuttal Constructive arguments assigned to them by First Speaker |
| Second Opposition | Rebuttal Constructive arguments assigned to them by First Speaker |
| Third Proposition | Rebuttal Small amount of new constructive material if assigned by First Speaker No new material otherwise |
| Third Opposition | Rebuttal No new arguments |
| Reply | Tasks are the same for Opposition and Proposition (Opposition Reply goes first) Only focus on the key issues of the debate, not minor details Isolate the “key” areas of clash in the debate Demonstrate why their team’s case best carried the day |
Source: own research.
Table 1. Speaker/Tasks.
4.1.2.- Definition
The judge needs to write down the definition as soon as it is given. In this way, if it ever comes up as an issue later in the debate, they will have a record of exactly what was said. A tip is to write the words of the motion in advance vertically on a sheet of scrap paper so that the definition can be filled in beside each word as the first speaker defines the motion.
In a debate, a Proposition and an Opposition team contest the truth or falsehood of a motion. The first duty of the Proposition is to give a fair and clear definition of the motion. A fair definition is one which allows for a reasonable debate to follow; an unfair definition will attempt to narrow the debate to the point where it is impossible for the Opposition to contest or will even make debate a logical impossibility. A clear and fair definition is one that avoids any unnecessary ambiguity by succinctly delineating all relevant terms in the motion.
If the Proposition fails to deliver on either of these criteria, it is the prerogative of the Opposition to contest the definition, either in part (redefining selected terms) or in total. The same burden applies to the Opposition. Their chosen definition must allow for a fair debate and must clearly delineate the terms of the contest. If the Opposition wishes to challenge the definition it must be done in the first speaker’s speech. Not commenting on the definition by the first speaker is the same as accepting it, and later challenges should be seen as inconsistency among the Opposition.
Source: own research.
Image 2. The 4 pillars of a fair definition in debate.
EXERCISE: Define the key terms of the motion “This house believes that remote work is beneficial for society”. To do so:
- Identify key terms: List the terms within the motion that are crucial to its understanding and debate. Consider why each term is significant and how it influences the motion’s interpretation.
- Define key terms: Using the four pillars, create definitions for each identified term. Ensure your definitions are clear, relevant to the topic, of appropriate scope, and balanced to allow fair debate from both sides.
- Review: Compare your definitions with the four pillars to ensure they meet the criteria for a fair and effective debate.
Source: own research.
Image 3. Remote work.
Source: own research.
Image 4. Pillars “Remote work” and “Beneficial”.
SOLUTION
- Identify the key terms: we have identified two key terms in the motion: “This house believes that remote work is beneficial for society”
- Define key terms: To make the exercise clearer, we have provided a fair and an unfair definition for each of the key terms.
- Review: Compare the definitions with the 4 pillars to ensure they meet the criteria for a fair and effective debate.
4.1.3.- Consistency
Debating is a team pursuit. As such it is imperative that each team is comprised of consistent speakers. Several outstanding but contradictory debaters cannot win. A well-prepared team will have a ‘case-line’ – a one or two-sentence summary of their case, repeated by each speaker. If the case-line “shifts” during the debate this is penalized.
Source: own research.
Image 5. What is consistency?
4.1.4.- Teamwork
Besides being consistent, a good debate team also works together. The argument needs to be divided appropriately between the team members. It is a positive quality for debaters to quietly confer with each other while they are at the table, provided they do not distract the speaker or the judge(s). Also, it is preferable for all team members to take at least one point of information, rather than having one person who always speaks.
TIP: example of a teamwork
Source: own research.
Image 6. Teamwork.
4.1.5.- Points of Information (PoI)
A Point of Information (PoI) is a short interjection by a member of the team who does not have the floor. They are forbidden in the first and last minutes of the main debate speeches and none are allowed during the Reply speeches. To give a PoI, the debater must stand and say something to the effect of PoI. Before delivering the PoI, the offering debater must wait for the speaker to accept the point. If the point is declined, the debater must sit down without further comment. The speaker is entitled to finish their sentence prior to acknowledging the PoI.
In the unprotected time in each speech, the speaker should accept at least one, and usually not more than two. If the speaker does not accept any points, it seems as if they are ‘afraid’ of what the other side might say. Speakers who take too many are not penalised as such, but a speaker who does so is unlikely to be able to fulfill their role correctly and could lose points there. Speakers who try to give points of information inappropriately (in the first or last minute of the speech, before the speaker has finished dealing with another PoI, etc.) should be marked down.
Source: own research.
Image 7. Points of information in debate.
4.1.6.- Organization of argument
A strong speech should be well structured and have a clear beginning, middle and end. There should be clear signposts along the way to allow the audience and judge(s) to follow the line of argument. Students should also be cognizant of the time limits for their speeches and how to divide their time between rebuttal, signposting, and constructive material.
Source: own research.
Image 8. Evaluating Speech Organization.
4.2.- Criteria Category “Content”
The second criteria category in judging is that of “content” and it involves the following:
4.2.1.- Quality of information
A team’s case-line should be supported by their constructive arguments in a logical and understandable way. Their constructive arguments, in turn, should be supported by facts and examples, usually mentioning the source. Delivering an argument with no facts, figures or proof to document is a sign of a poorly prepared debate and should be marked down. Sometimes judge(s) have personal views that lead them to show preference over one side of the argument prior to the debate. These personal preferences should be put aside when judging a debate. A well-chosen motion will allow both sides to put forward reasonable cases.
EXERCISE: Rank the following arguments from stronger to weaker according to the quality of the information presented:
- Consider how each argument supports its claims with specific examples, data, or research.
- Evaluate the clarity and relevance of the information provided in the context of arguing for the effectiveness of digital learning platforms versus traditional classroom settings.
Source: own research.
Image 9. Debate Motion: “Digital learning platforms are more
effective than traditional classroom settings.”.
SOLUTION
Source: own research.
Image 10. Digital Learning.
4.2.2.- Quality of Analysis
When assessing each speech, the judge needs to think about the quality of the analysis. There should be logical and well-structured links between cause and effect. Speakers should analyze, explain and provide evidence that supports their case. The speakers will be convinced by the content of their argument.
TIP
Source: own research.
Image 11. Assess Arguments.
EXERCISE
Create a structured assessment of the three previous arguments (personalization through digital learning, access to resources in digital learning and cost-effectiveness of digital learning), evaluating each of them based on the three criteria: Logical Structure, Cause and Effect, and Evidence Support. Each criterion must be scored on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 represents the highest quality.
SOLUTION
Source: own research.
Image 12. Structured assessment.
4.2.3.- Rebuttal
Rebuttal is as important a part of a debate speech as constructive arguments. For the group of speakers, usually it is their main task. Teams must argue their own cases and refute those of their opponents. If an argument is not rebutted, it stands, no matter how weak it is.
TIP
Source: own research.
Image 13. Four steps to assess a rebuttal.
4.2.4.- Timing
Speaking for an inappropriate amount of time (i.e., stopping well before the final bell or going on so long that the timekeeper rings the bell continuously) should be marked down. Speakers should manage their time well. They are marked for giving sufficient time to each part of their speech without rushing through anything, but also without unnecessarily repeating themselves.
4.3.- Criteria Category “Style”
The last criteria category in judging is that of “style” and it consists of the following criteria:
4.3.1.- Confidence
The speaker may refer to brief notes but should not simply read a speech. Speakers may opt to use index cards, legal pads, or sheets of paper. Provided that they use them confidently and do not distract the audience by fumbling with them, one is not preferable to another. A strong debater will make eye contact with their audience and thus engage them in the debate.
4.3.2.- Pace
A good speaker will speak at a pace that is easy to follow, not too fast, nor too slow.
4.3.3.- Pitch/Volume
The speaking style should be fluid and engaging. A speaker should not speak at one pitch the whole time but raise or lower their pitch to keep the audience’s attention. They should be loud enough to be heard, but not shouting.
4.3.4.- Politeness
Politeness is paramount in debating. Any bad language or personal attack on another speaker should be marked down severely.
TIP
Source: own research.
Image 14. Style.
5.- DEBATE SCORING SHEET
Judges mark the scores for the teams during the debate using a scoring sheet for each one, based on the criteria described in the previous section. The marks for Strategy represent 40% of the mark, for Content another 40% and for Style 20%.
Source: own research.
Table 2. Debate evaluation.
6.- WHAT SHOULD A JUDGE DO AFTER A DEBATE
Go through each speaker in turn, discussing each of their skill / debating criteria in turn. Judges should proceed to mark after having discussed all that is to be discussed about debaters’ skills. If judges agree on the mark, it is easy. If they disagree, they should go back to their notes and discuss some more. It may well be that this discussion will uncover that one judge has missed something a debater has done well or overlooked a mistake they have made; that is the point of having more than one judge, so they can balance out each other’s blind spots. If they still cannot agree, only as a last resort, split the difference. Do not skimp on the discussion – it is important to produce a fair verdict – but equally be brisk and businesslike about it. Courtesy and respect of co-judges’ views is as important as not being afraid to challenge them. Avoid the sort of conversation where people keep saying the same thing over and over again.
If one is judging by themselves, the process will be faster, but should still not be skimped. Read the notes carefully and check that skills / debating criteria have been given equal consideration with the mark. Finally, add up the marks and consider whether the team that got the most marks really made the most persuasive case. If the result is remarkably close, or does not feel right, the judge(s) need to go back to their notes and tweak the numbers if that gives what feels like the right result.
7.- HOW SHOULD A JUDGE GIVE FEEDBACK
When giving feedback, the judge needs to go through each speaker in turn, and each of their skills / debating criteria in turn. They start with the positive and end with the positive but include in the middle what need’s improvement. This is easy if detailed notes are kept. The positive points will offer material for encouragement, and the negative points will provide areas for development. If there is a co-judge or judges, the feedback duty should be divided, e.g., one taking proposition, one taking opposition.
Judges should not announce the verdict until the very end, as debaters will stop listening to feedback if they already know the verdict.
Judges should make themselves available for further questions and clarification after the debate. However, if there is any hint from a debater that they are challenging the verdict, the judge should make it clear politely but firmly that it cannot be changed and should report the incident as soon as they can to the competition organizer. It is a fundamental principle of competitive debating that a judge’s verdict, once given, is final.
8.- BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alén, E., Domínguez, T., & de Carlos, P. (2015). University students׳ perceptions of the use of academic debates as a teaching methodology. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 16, 15-21.
Arrue, M., & Zarandona, J. (2021). El debate en el aula universitaria: construyendo alternativas para desarrollar competencias en estudiantes de ciencias de la salud. Educación médica, 22, 428-432.
Bermuda Debate Society (n.d.) Judge´s Manual. En:
https://debate.bm/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Judges-Manual.pdf.
Manual para Jueces y Debatientes (2019) CMUDE Perú. En: https://formaciondebatecom.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/manual-para-jueces-y-debatientes-cmude-peru-2019-2.pdf.
Moncalvillo Boracho, S. & López Pérez M.C. (n.d.) Manual de debate. GUÍA PARA REALIZAR UN DEBATE ACADÉMICO EN EL AULA. Junta de Andalucía. En https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/educacion/portals/delegate/content/0b87e7f5-f5b3-4231-abfa-7741398912c1.
Preci, C. (2014). La enseñanza de oratoria en el aula. El método de autoconfianza. Reflexión académica en diseño y comunicación, 23.
Rief, J. J., & Schrader, B. J. (2024). Debating About, Against, and With ChatGPT: Redesigning Academic Debate Pedagogy for the World of Generative Artificial Intelligence. In The Role of Generative AI in the Communication Classroom (pp. 87-105). IGI Global.
Zare, P., & Othman, M. (2015). Students’ perceptions toward using classroom debate to develop critical thinking and oral communication ability. Asian Social Science, 11(9), 158.
Alén, E., Domínguez, T., & de Carlos, P. (2015). University students׳ perceptions of the use of academic debates as a teaching methodology. Journal of Hospitality, Leisure, Sport & Tourism Education, 16, 15-21.
Arrue, M., & Zarandona, J. (2021). El debate en el aula universitaria: construyendo alternativas para desarrollar competencias en estudiantes de ciencias de la salud. Educación médica, 22, 428-432.
Bermuda Debate Society (n.d.) Judge´s Manual. En: https://debate.bm/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Judges-Manual.pdf.
Manual para Jueces y Debatientes (2019) CMUDE Perú. En: https://formaciondebatecom.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/manual-para-jueces-y-debatientes-cmude-peru-2019-2.pdf.
Moncalvillo Boracho, S. & López Pérez M.C. (n.d.) Manual de debate. Guía para realizar un Debate Académico en el aula. Junta de Andalucía. En https://www.juntadeandalucia.es/educacion/portals/delegate/content/0b87e7f5-f5b3-4231-abfa-7741398912c1.
Preci, C. (2014). La enseñanza de oratoria en el aula. El método de autoconfianza. Reflexión académica en diseño y comunicación, 23.
Rief, J. J., & Schrader, B. J. (2024). Debating About, Against, and With ChatGPT: Redesigning Academic Debate Pedagogy for the World of Generative Artificial Intelligence. In The Role of Generative AI in the Communication Classroom (pp. 87-105). IGI Global.
Zare, P., & Othman, M. (2015). Students’ perceptions toward using classroom debate to develop critical thinking and oral communication ability. Asian Social Science, 11(9), 158.
