Adjudicating 101
The adjudicating in WSC is less than adequate in my opinion, all they literally do is pluck volunteers (teachers, parents and even older students) to adjudicate debates. All they get is usually the scoring sheet, motion sheet and a sheet worth of guidance as to how to adjudicate. Unfortunately, that sheet isn’t exactly very detailed and frankly, the adjudicators could do with a bit more advice. So here is my (Khun Mick approved) array of tips on how to be a good adjudicator.
Packing sheet for adjudicators:
General Tips for Adjudicating:
Make sure all the team are settled before beginning: No need to rush the students, let them take their seats, get out their laptops or other resources before you begin speaking. Remember, the WSC debate is probably already behind schedule, no need to rush it any faster than it’s already going. Wait until the students go quiet, turn their attention to you before you begin speaking.
Get their team and speaker numbers first: Once you’ve begun speaking and are about to reveal the motion, ask each team for their number and speaker order. Even though the debate sheet tells you to ask for each individual speaker before they begin speaking, it’ll save quite a bit of time and annoyance for the teams to have to mention that they’re speaker A/B/C before they begin their debate. Just get this out of the way so your debate goes smoothly from the get go.
Write the motion on any surface or keep the sheet in clear sight of both teams: Trust me from experience, if you as an adjudicator only state the motion and give the teams a quick glance at the sheet, they’ll probably forget it or botch the wording and that’ll compromise their entire debate. When you show them the motion, let each team have a good look at it, let them write it down and commit it to memory. They’ll tell you when they’ve got it down, don’t assume they’ve done so until one of them says that to you. If possible, write it in large wording on a whiteboard and announce it to the teams. If that’s not possible, prop up the motion sheet so both teams can easily see it.
Timer in visible range: This is already pretty obvious, but as an adjudicator a timer is necessary equipment that needs to be within your eye level. Ideally it shouldn’t be too hard to look at, you can just take a quick glance every now and then to check and time and bang on the table if they’ve hit the 3 or 4 minute mark.
Stick to the time limits: Again, pretty obvious. Debaters get 15 minutes from the moment you reveal the motion to prepare. Once that time is up, the first speaker of the affirmative should be called to make their speech. After every speech is done, the other team gets 1 minute to prepare for their next speaker. Each speaker only gets 4 minutes from when they start talking, bang once loudly when they hit 3 minutes and bang constantly as soon as they hit 4. Don’t just bang twice, they should be done with their debate, so keep banging until they finish. It’s ideal to read out how long each speaker spoke for incase they want a mental note of it for further improvement.
Score at the end: Many times you’ll feel tempted to mark the score of a speaker once they’ve spoken for more than 2 minutes and you feel like you’ve heard most of what they’ve got to say. Again, this is horrible and might cause mistakes later when the scoring machine scans your paper. Wait until the speaker is finished, then utilize the 1 minute gap between debaters to give your score. Spend a few moments reviewing what you heard and saw from them and then give the score you feel best fits their speech.
Pay close attention to teamwork and feedback: Teamwork and feedback are 2 other things you score the affirmative and negative teams for once everyone has spoken. This means you need to watch each team in both the 15 minute preparation time and the 1 minute time gap and take some notes on how they work together.
Scoring:
Presentation: The first category is probably the one that’s hardest for debaters to nail yet the easiest for adjudicators to score. This is essentially “how” the debater(s) deliver their points, facts and rebuttals (if their position necessitates it). The biggest problem that judges have here is the use of language and gestures, I have been in so many debates where judges have marked me down in the category for using words they couldn’t understand (a warning to all of you prolific in the english language). Below is a simple chart about what a certain grade should look like:
Packing sheet for adjudicators:
- Notebook or papers for jotting down notes
- Writing utensil
- Packet of scoring and motion sheets (given by WSC staff)
- Water bottle (debates take a surprisingly long time, 30+ minutes if each speaker maximizes their time)
- Timer on a phone or other piece of technology
General Tips for Adjudicating:
Make sure all the team are settled before beginning: No need to rush the students, let them take their seats, get out their laptops or other resources before you begin speaking. Remember, the WSC debate is probably already behind schedule, no need to rush it any faster than it’s already going. Wait until the students go quiet, turn their attention to you before you begin speaking.
Get their team and speaker numbers first: Once you’ve begun speaking and are about to reveal the motion, ask each team for their number and speaker order. Even though the debate sheet tells you to ask for each individual speaker before they begin speaking, it’ll save quite a bit of time and annoyance for the teams to have to mention that they’re speaker A/B/C before they begin their debate. Just get this out of the way so your debate goes smoothly from the get go.
Write the motion on any surface or keep the sheet in clear sight of both teams: Trust me from experience, if you as an adjudicator only state the motion and give the teams a quick glance at the sheet, they’ll probably forget it or botch the wording and that’ll compromise their entire debate. When you show them the motion, let each team have a good look at it, let them write it down and commit it to memory. They’ll tell you when they’ve got it down, don’t assume they’ve done so until one of them says that to you. If possible, write it in large wording on a whiteboard and announce it to the teams. If that’s not possible, prop up the motion sheet so both teams can easily see it.
Timer in visible range: This is already pretty obvious, but as an adjudicator a timer is necessary equipment that needs to be within your eye level. Ideally it shouldn’t be too hard to look at, you can just take a quick glance every now and then to check and time and bang on the table if they’ve hit the 3 or 4 minute mark.
Stick to the time limits: Again, pretty obvious. Debaters get 15 minutes from the moment you reveal the motion to prepare. Once that time is up, the first speaker of the affirmative should be called to make their speech. After every speech is done, the other team gets 1 minute to prepare for their next speaker. Each speaker only gets 4 minutes from when they start talking, bang once loudly when they hit 3 minutes and bang constantly as soon as they hit 4. Don’t just bang twice, they should be done with their debate, so keep banging until they finish. It’s ideal to read out how long each speaker spoke for incase they want a mental note of it for further improvement.
Score at the end: Many times you’ll feel tempted to mark the score of a speaker once they’ve spoken for more than 2 minutes and you feel like you’ve heard most of what they’ve got to say. Again, this is horrible and might cause mistakes later when the scoring machine scans your paper. Wait until the speaker is finished, then utilize the 1 minute gap between debaters to give your score. Spend a few moments reviewing what you heard and saw from them and then give the score you feel best fits their speech.
Pay close attention to teamwork and feedback: Teamwork and feedback are 2 other things you score the affirmative and negative teams for once everyone has spoken. This means you need to watch each team in both the 15 minute preparation time and the 1 minute time gap and take some notes on how they work together.
Scoring:
Presentation: The first category is probably the one that’s hardest for debaters to nail yet the easiest for adjudicators to score. This is essentially “how” the debater(s) deliver their points, facts and rebuttals (if their position necessitates it). The biggest problem that judges have here is the use of language and gestures, I have been in so many debates where judges have marked me down in the category for using words they couldn’t understand (a warning to all of you prolific in the english language). Below is a simple chart about what a certain grade should look like:
Score |
What this looks like |
2 |
The speaker’s voice is hard to hear, their words are fairly hard to comprehend. They move around too much yet use no gestures to articulate their speech. They use a computer or phone and make limited eye contact with the adjudicator/audience. |
3 |
The speaker’s voice is fairly soft, their sentences can be heard but at times they may stutter or go completely silent for a few minutes. They use a computer or phone, make limited eye contact with the audience but use a few hand gestures to articulate their speech. |
4 |
The speaker’s voice is clear, all of their words can be heard and understood properly. There is no variation (i.e tone, volume, speed) within the voice however and the speaker still uses their computer or phone to read a script. Some eye contact is made but it is mainly only for a few seconds. The speaker uses some gestures to articulate their speech but still move around a bit (less so than in the lower scores). |
5 |
The speaker’s voice is clear, understandable and projected across the entire room. Their gestures are more frequent and relevant to what is being said, more eye contact is made even though they are still reading a script. They hardly move around at all but rock back and forth a little sometimes. |
6 |
The speaker’s voice is clear, projected and uses variation (tone, volume and speed) to emphasize their points or rebuttals. They remain completely still (no rocking or moving) during the debate and use hand gestures a lot to articulate their debate. They still read from a computer or phone, yet make more eye contact and only glance at their script a few times. |
7 |
The speaker’s voice is clear and utilizes lots of variation to masterfully emphasize their points. They do not move around at all and use lots of hand gestures to add some flair to their visual presentation. They do not use a script and only have notecards or no notes at all, allowing them to make constant eye contact both with the adjudicator and the audience. |
Strategy: This is probably the hardest one to score when adjudicating, yet it is surprisingly easy to nail when you’re the debater. Strategy refers to the structure and layout of their debate and probably encompasses the most “matter” in their speech. This includes the validity and “wow-factor” if you will, of their points and rebuttals. Below is another chart representing what each score looks like:
Score |
What this looks like |
2 |
Speaker has made only points or rebuttals (if rebuttals are possible) and their points are confusing, weak or incomprehensible. Rebuttals are few and weak, no specific examples or facts given to back them up. The introduction and conclusion only state what the speaker will be bringing to the debate, not the entire team as a whole. |
3 |
Speaker has made only points or rebuttals (if rebuttals are possible) and their points are confusing, weak or incomprehensible. Rebuttals are few and weak, no specific examples or facts given to back them up. The introduction and conclusion only state what the speaker will be bringing to the debate, not the entire team as a whole. |
4 |
Speaker has made points and rebuttals, their points are acceptable, make sense and link back to the motion in some way. Their rebuttals are only few and their strength is weak. Introduction and conclusion include brief explanation of what their team has and will bring to the debate. |
5 |
Speaker has made points and rebuttals, their points are substantial, make perfect sense and they strongly link it back to the motion. Their points are also connected to those of their team (if possible) and they explain in-depth what the next and previous speaker will provide to ensure a victory. Their rebuttals are substantial, quite a few of them and little pieces of data are used to back them up. |
6 |
Speaker has made points and rebuttals, their points are strong, make complete sense and link to the motion very well. Points are strongly connected to those of their team and they explain the points of each speaker in their team with mentions of any data or stories they’ll use. Rebuttals are strong, numerous ones and data is used to back them up. |
7 |
Speaker has made points and rebuttals, their points are very strong, have no errors and link with the motion in every conceivable way. Points are strongly connected, varied and link to those their team has brought or will bring. Conclusion and introduction include in-depth explanations of the previous of next points and how they link to the motion/help the team prove their side is correct. Rebuttals are strong, using data and critical thinking to outline logical fallacies and other flaws inside them. A little bit of arrogance is included, indirectly insulting the enemy team’s points/rebuttals. |
Content: This is probably the easiest criteria on the debate sheet to score. Content basically refers to how much is said by the speaker within the 4 minutes that they’re given. However this also includes a bit of time-management and time supervision on your part. So below is a breakdown of what content looks like and what score should be given:
Score |
What this looks like |
2 |
Speaker spoke for less than or exactly 90 seconds, only made a simple introduction, 1 or 2 rebuttals and quickly delivered their points. No conclusion was made whatsoever regarding what their team will bring to the debate. No facts were given to support their points. |
3 |
Speaker spoke for less than or exactly 105 seconds (1 minute 45 seconds), they spent majority of that time introducing their debate and what their team will be saying. They only spend about 15-30 seconds on their actual points. No conclusion was made whatsoever to wrap up their team’s progress so far. No facts were given to support their points. |
4 |
Speaker spoke for less than or exactly 2 minutes, they spent a minute of their time introducing the debate and making a few rebuttals. A minute was reserved for points and a conclusion, but the points only occupied about 30-40 seconds of that minute. A fact or personal experience was used to support their points. |
5 |
Speaker spoke for less than or exactly 2 minutes 30 seconds, they spent less than a minute introducing themselves and what they’ll be saying. They spend significantly more time however on rebuttals and conclusions than their actual points. Few facts were used to support their points. |
6 |
Speaker spoke for roughly 3 minutes 15 seconds, they spent majority of that time with their points, but also mention several rebuttals, introductions and conclusions. Some strong facts were used to support their points and some of their rebuttals (where applicable). |
7 |
Speaker spoke for more than 3 minutes 20 seconds and masterfully focused 2 minutes of that time on points. 1 minute was reserved for the rebuttal and introduction. 20 seconds were spent on the conclusion. Many strong facts and personal experiences were used to support their points and rebuttals. |
Teamwork Criteria:
Score |
What this looks like |
2 |
You do not see any cooperation between team members. During the preparation phase, they just keep to themselves, writing and researching on their own. During the 1 minute time gap, they silently pass notes but don’t talk about it or just don’t interact at all. Disrespectful behavior was exhibited to some speakers. |
3 |
You see limited cooperation and only at a few times between team members. During the preparation phase they talk for only a few seconds and only a few times. They do not share any notes or screens and mostly go it alone. During the 1 minute time gap, they silently pass notes and 1 of them explains it briefly. Disrespectful behavior was exhibited to few speakers. |
4 |
You see limited cooperation at some times between team members. During the preparation phase they communicate for a bit but then remain silent for majority of the 15 minutes. They share a few notes, 1 or 2 facts but no major writing on each other’s notebooks. During the 1 minute time gap, they pass a few notes and all members briefly discuss them. They listened quietly to each speaker but may have giggled or exclaimed quietly at one point. |
5 |
You see some cooperation at times between team members. During the preparation phase they share notes, some facts by showing their screens and at times spend more than a minute discussing a potential point/fact. During the 1 minute gap, they pass notes and share a few facts while discussing rebuttals and points with one another. They listened quietly to each speaker and didn’t distract the speaker with their motions. |
6 |
You see cooperation for most of the time in the team. During the preparation phase they energetically share notes, facts and once or twice one of them gets up to talk to another person or write something down on their notes. During the 1 minute break they pass notes, share facts and discuss rebuttals and points rather enthusiastically. They give encouragement to each member before or after they’ve spoken. They listened quietly to each speaker and didn’t distract the speaker with their motions, applauding them after they were finished. |
7 |
You see cooperation all the time in the team. During the preparation phase each member passes notes, talks to all the other teammates and sometimes they get up to share facts or whisper information into another ear. During the 1 minute time gap 1 might open their technology to find a fact, they pass notes to one another and eagerly discuss them. They give encouragement to each member before and after they’ve spoken. They listened quietly to each speaker, made solid eye contact and applauded them after they were finished. |
Feedback criteria:
Score |
What this looks like |
2 |
Feedback is quickly done and limited. Only nice feedback is given and no improvements are highlighted. |
3 |
Feedback is done within 45 seconds and is limited in terms of scope. Only 1 or 2 improvements are listed with no further explanation of how it will help the speaker(s) or team grow as debaters. The rest of their feedback is nice for the sake of politeness. |
4 |
Feedback is done within a minute and is limited in terms of scope. A few improvements are listed with shallow explanations. No specific examples of points, facts or rebuttals are included to support the feedback. Most of the feedback is positive. |
5 |
Feedback is done within a minute and 15 seconds and is acceptable in terms of scope. Several improvement are listed with some explanation as to how they will assist the opposition. 1 or 2 specific examples are given overall. Each speaker devotes their own feedback to their mirror opposite on the other team (i.e first speaker affirmative gives feedback for first speaker negative). |
6 |
Feedback utilizes the whole 90 seconds and is filled with scope and examples. Lots of improvements and positives are listed for each speaker as well as the team overall. In-depth explanations are provided to justify the improvements and specific examples are given for each speaker. Each speaker devotes their own feedback to their mirror opposite on the other team (i.e first speaker affirmative gives feedback for first speaker negative). |
7 |
Feedback uses the whole 90 seconds and is crammed with scope and examples. Lots of improvements and positives are listed for each speaker as well as the team overall. In-depth explanations are provided to justify the improvements and specific examples are given for each speaker. Each speaker devotes their own feedback to their mirror opposite on the other team (i.e first speaker affirmative gives feedback for first speaker negative). A comment or two is made about the organization and debating style of the team as a whole and an improvement for it is justified. |
And with that we wrap up our guide for how to be an effective adjudicator. For some odd reason the WSC boffins who made the website haven't updated their Dropbox links, so I can't provide links for the adjudicator script and scoring sheet (most peculiar).