Cusid West Chief Adjudicator Guide

CUSID WEST CHIEF ADJUDICATOR GUIDE

Introduction

This guide is meant for the experienced and inexperienced CAs among us. You might not end up agreeing with everything in this guide, but everything included in here comes from people with experience and a genuine interest in seeing tournaments run well. If you would like to contribute an article to the CA Guide, please contact the VP West.

Speaker Score Range

By Spencer Keys

The following descriptions are to be used as a base and are holistic in their intent. Judges are free to weight elements of debate differently as long as they stick to the two areas of matter (what they say) and manner (how they say it).

0-34 These scores fall below the floor and are to never be given out.
35 This was an awful speech. Not only did the speaker stand up and mumble through just a few seconds of speaking, but what they did say was little more than offensive. As I often put it, they stood up for thirty seconds and spouted racial slurs. This is a score that (hopefully) should be given out no more than once per year in all the tournaments in a region. People were crying. Judges questioned coming back. Hate crime legislation was quoted. It was a bad, bad speech. This score should only be given out in consultation with the chief adjudicator.
36 This speech was just bad. The speaker did not even fill the majority of his/her time, and when they did speak they provided little in the way of points, or style. This score should only be given out in consultation with the chief adjudicator.
37 This is a speech that is given to a speaker that fills the majority of their time and has one or two points. The contentions are not particularly interesting but are decent.
38 This speaker filled their time and provided a few obvious points though they may not be particularly important. They may have failed to explain those points in sufficient detail or rebut the opposing arguments.
39 This should be an average speech. They have done everything they need to do, it just isn't compelling. The debater fills their time and has a few arguments (though it may not be organized in a coherent fashion). The arguments are not necessarily creative or interesting but obvious and reasonably important to the round.
40 This is a good speech. When watching this speaker, you saw something unique; whether it be a style that sets them apart from the crowd or an argument that was intellectually stimulating. If this speaker keeps doing a speech like this, you would expect them to be in the top ten speakers of the tournament.
41 This is a strong speech; it has strong delivery and strong substance. You are interested in what the speaker has to say and you are intellectually stimulated by the arguments that s/he brings forward. The style is very natural and engaging. You believe that if this is the standard speech being given by this debater, they are in the hunt for the top speaker in the tournament.
42 Great substance and great delivery make this speech truly remarkable. You know that if this is the average of what they're capable of, they will be the top speaker in the tournament. Not only did you get lost in their words but you also found yourself seriously reconsidering prior opinions that you "knew" to be true.
43 This speech is phenomenal and the best one at the tournament. It has excellent delivery and excellent substance. This debate is probably the best in the tournament and this speaker was the one that clearly set him or herself apart from the other three. You feel privileged for having seen it. This score should only be given out in consultation with the chief adjudicator.
44 This debater, with one of the most beautiful voices you have ever heard, stood up and provided example after example after example after example, outlining the entire history of the world and showing, quite successfully, that the true purpose of human existence is for that person to give the very speech that you are watching. This score is given to whom we would call "God's Lawyer" and you actually believe this person is capable of leading a cult or a country. This is a score that should be given out no more than once per year in all tournaments in a region... if that. This score should only be given out in consultation with the chief adjudicator.

Reasons For Decision

By Chris Jones

Reasons For Decision: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

As a debate judge, you have three tasks: first, to decide who won; second, to decide on speaker points for each debater; and third, to help the debaters improve. You'll be asked to provide written reasons for decision (or RFD) for each round, both to help you clarify your reasoning and come to the best possible decision, and for the debaters to understand the strengths and weaknesses in their argumentation. You will probably also be asked to provide oral adjudication to the debaters after the round.
The organizing team for the tournament will tell you what you should be looking for, as a judge, in order to decide who won the debate round. Some possible choices on their part include "who convinced you", "whoever moved the ball the furthest", and "whoever did the best job of convincing you given their position's burden of proof". Ask the chief adjudicator during the judges' briefing if you have any questions at all about the tournament's judging philosophy.
RFDs shouldn't simply say what your decision is --- you've got another part of the ballot form for that --- rather, they should give your reason for deciding as you did. For example, "The opposition convinced me that they were right." or "The government was better." are bad RFDs, because these don't provide a lot of information (the first is likely to be true if the opposition wins, while the second is by definition true if the government wins).
An ideal RFD will indicate the degree of difficulty attached to each side's case (for example, arguing that "killing children is bad" is not very difficult, while arguing the converse is rather difficult, if not outright impossible), and then explain how each team met its burden of proof (for example, "Gov't argued that children are a net benefit to society in the long run."). In addition, you should say whether a side was able to effectively rebut the other side's contentions (for example, "Gov't argued that the SU should seek corporate funding for a universal student bus pass, but Opp demolished this by asking why a company would pay millions each year for bus passes when it could get good publicity by donating a few thousand to charity."). Any major structural flaws in the case or its rebuttal, such as it being a tautology, should probably also be noted in the RFD.
With that said, there's no need to write an essay --- a succinct, well-written paragraph or at most two will be enough to convey the reasons you arrived at the decision you did. And that's what RFDs are intended to do.
After the round finishes, but before you decide on the winner, you should review your notes of the round and mentally formulate your RFD before deciding who won. If you're on a judging panel, do so before discussing with your fellow judges, but be prepared to revise your RFD on reflecting upon their comments. Then indicate your win/loss decision and RFD on the ballot sheet, and give oral adjudication to the debaters.
In this way, your RFD helps guide you to your win/loss decision, rather than working backwards from your decision to the rationale. Not only does this ensure higher-quality judging because you'll be focussed on the argumentation rather than the presentation (that comes later, in determining speaker points), but you'll also be doing your part to ensure the legitimacy of the tournament results, and that's something everyone can look forward to.

Roles and POIs

By Deborah Book

Roles

In a good debate it will be a given that all debaters will fill their roles, as a judge it is important to understand what that means.

Government

The job of side government is to present a well defined case that provokes good debate. If the government case is too tight or frames the debate in unreasonable terms this is not fulfilling their role as initiators of good debate. A resolution such as "THBT murder is bad" is likely to stand, but does not make for good debate and government should be heavily penalized if not outright dropped for presenting such a case.Similarly, cases that assume absurd burdens of proof should be examined in view of their contribution to debate. This house would kill babies is a high government burden case, and one might be inclined to reward a government team that moves the ball far with such a case. However, the majority of the time such a case makes for bad debate as it enters the realm of the ludicrous, and in such cases government teams should not be rewarded for the case, if anything they should be punished.

Each member of the government team has a specific role to fill in advancing the government case.

The Prime Minister (PM) speaks first and last in the debate. It is their job to define the terms, clearly outline the government case and introduce a few constructive points on government side. In the last speech of the debate the Prime Minister will summarize the proceedings and should make clear how side government has met its burden of proof and why the resolution must stand.

The Minister of the Crown (MC) is responsible for the initial refutation of claims made on opposition benches and for further development of side government’s constructive case.It is the job of this debater to respond to attacks from side opposition and to present relevant points supporting government’s case that will carry through the debate.

Generally the burden of proof falls to the government who must show that the resolution stands. If judges are not convinced of the resolution by then end of the debate (or, in the case of a high government burden case, their opinion has not been significantly swayed towards the resolution) the government team has not done their job. Occasionally, if the opposition fails to fulfill their role, a government team that does not meet their burden may carry the round, however this is rare, and not likely to happen at many tournaments.

Opposition

It is the role of the opposition to question the propositions of side government. In addition to this, opposition teams are expected to present constructive points arguing against the resolution. Such point should be developed and supported to aid the opposition argument.

Each member of the opposition team speaks for eight minutes.

The Member of the Opposition (MO) is the first person to speak on that side of the house. It is their job to refute what is said on side government in the first speech and develop the first few points of side opposition’s constructive. A good MO speech makes the government case seem entirely unconvincing and presents relevant arguments against the resolution. If the MO has done their job well, at the end of the speech the judge has been convinced that the proposal of side government is seriously flawed.

The Leader of the Opposition (LO) has the last speech on opposition benches. The first five minutes of this speech are constructive. The LO may introduce new contentions and arguments. The last three minutes of the speech constitute the official rebuttal, and in this part of the speech no new contentions may be raised. The rebuttal should summarize the key failings of side government and the strength of the opposition case and leave the judge convinced of opposition’s arguments. A good LO speech flows from start to finish with well presented themes and effectively proves side opposition’s case while countering that of the government.

Whereas the government, who propose the bill must prove the worth of the resolution, the opposition too has a duty to show the flaws in side government’s proposal. Although a strict refutation case may rarely win if it is very strong, it is almost always necessary for side opposition to present some proof of the weaknesses of the resolution or of alternatives in order to successfully counter the proposals of side government.

POIs

The key element of parliamentary style that is likely to play a role in CUSID West debates are points of information (POIs). POIs can be a very powerful tool for debaters to interject with short questions or statements that undermine their opponents cases. The general rule is to give and take two POIs per speech. POIs should not exceed 15 seconds each. It is not reccommended that debaters insert a hint as to what their POI is about. For instance, debaters should refrain from standing up and saying "On ______". Instead, they should merely stand. A simple "sir" or "madame" may be acceptable in order to attract the speaker's attention.

There are occasions where POIs are abused.If these are being used to badger/bully opponents, or debaters are making speeches rather than short points, they may lose speaker points for such flaws in style. Poor use of POIs should only affect the decision in a round in extreme cases, however a poor use of this stylistic element can easily result in low speaker points.

For the most part POIs are used appropriately and enrich the debate. Debaters who make good use of POIs should be rewarded.

How to Give an Effective Judges Briefing

By Kevin Massie

While there is no single way to give a judges briefing, over the years I have noticed that a few key areas are always problematic, and I have tried to address them here. Usually the bulk of the useful information comes from the Q&A session after the briefing anyway, so don’t worry too much about covering everything, you’ll always have breakfast time and between rounds to make announcements about things you may have missed. I would recommend as a universal rule to keep the judges and debaters together for the briefing. The CA should brief everyone at the tournament and the TD should brief no one. Even assuming that the CA gets everything in the briefing wrong, the only thing that really matters is that the debaters and the judges are given exactly the same set of instructions.