As an Adjudicator, I Wish Debaters Knew…

Our adjudicators have seen many speeches from many debates across many topics. Over time they start to see some common issues, and here they would like to share the common issues they see and what you can do to avoid them in your own speeches.

...that debating is a team sport.

While you are given individual scores, your team score is more important than the sum total of your individual scores. Likewise, due to the narrow scoring range, scores are more reflective of the team's effort, than the individual speakers’. The first affirmative speaker is awarded or deducted marks for their definition, even when it is the whole team that created the definition (hopefully). Keep in mind that a component of method score is how well your speeches align with that of your teammates' speeches, and don’t forget that if you are the first speaker you can still be helpful after your speech by writing rebuttals for your following speakers\!

...what the role of the chairperson is.

The chairperson’s role is to welcome people to the debate, introduce speakers and sometimes keep time. Often in debates I’m welcomed as the ‘chairperson’ when in fact my role is the adjudicator. This involves providing an assessment of which team won, providing the reason for the decision, and giving you feedback on your speeches. Whilst technically we sometimes fulfil the duties of the chairperson in debates, it is not our primary role that we are fulfilling.

...it’s okay to pause and breathe.

A lot of people get scared that if they make a mistake or have a pause in their speech that there will be automatic point deductions. It’s not true. Often the pause feels 3x longer for the speaker than the audience.

If you are nervous, take a few deep breaths: a 5-10 second break will not destroy your speech. What makes good vocal delivery is to be collected and paced. A speaker is more likely to lose Manner points for stumbling through material and forgetting points and then needing to go back to them because they were nervous, than if they had a 10 second break but then delivered a composed speech. Breathe. It’s okay.

...you don’t need to rebut \*everything\*.

Rebuttal is all about choosing the most significant things in the opposition's case, and taking the time to break their arguments down, respond and expose their disadvantages/weaknesses and turn those responses into full arguments.

It is better for your method, to have debunked 3 key points on the opposition’s side really well, than to try and cover every sentence and not expand much at all.

...that adjudicators have to stop listening to your speech at the second knock.

In A Grade, the speaking time is 8 minutes. So your speech stops, as far as adjudicators are concerned, at 8 minutes, and we cannot give you credit for any material presented after that. The thirty seconds before continual knocking is to allow you the chance to wrap up neatly before we force you to finish. While we love to hear all your thoughts and ideas, time management is an important skill in debating, public speaking and life.

…That “fallacy” is not a synonym of “idea we disagree with”.

Debating is not about fancy words and sounding clever, it’s about persuading the average reasonable person that your ideas are better than the other team. “Smarter” words are often less persuasive because they aren’t used correctly: use words that you can pronounce easily and use correctly to allow your speech to have maximum impact.

...That their names are on the scoresheet and we know which speaker they are.

Spending time saying “I’m so-and-so, the X speaker of Y team” doesn’t add anything useful to your speech. Instead, it just takes up important time you could be spending rebutting your opposition, building your argument or making an engaging, emotive appeal to your speech. Also, please write your full name into the scoresheet. Writing just your first name will likely get you confused with other Isabels, Muhammads and Marias.

...That we don’t need to be called “Mister/Madam Adjudicator”, “Honourable Adjudicator”, “Learned and respected adjudicator” or anything of that ilk.

If you want to address us, simply “adjudicator” will suffice during your speech, no bells or whistles required. If you’re talking to us afterwards, you can use our names (it’s on the scoresheet) or just start with “hi, can I have some feedback”. Calling us “Sir/Miss” can make adjudicators (most of whom are under 25\) feel a bit old and creates distance between you and us.

…Evidence is intended to support your argument, not replace explanations.

Long quotes or lists of diseases or statistics may be interesting and demonstrate an interest in debating but they often carry little weight with adjudicators. We don’t verify the evidence, so we encourage you instead to spend your time using logic and reasoning to flesh out your argument. Instead of telling me each of the 20 diseases caused by smoking, explain the impact it would have on one’s life. Instead of reading out a paragraph-long quote from a professor, use it to inform your understanding of an argument and explain why the academic came to that conclusion.

I Wish Debaters Knew…

...Using your allowed speaking time to the max is not a criterion of 3v3 debating by itself, however, presenting several coherent, well-supported, well-structured arguments and rebuttals is crucial to Matter (and Method). It’s hard to do this without speaking for at least longer than the minimum speaking time limit. If your speeches fall well short of the minimum time limit, it is recommended that you add an extra argument, or break a big argument into two. Besides, speaking times will increase as you progress through the grades. Also, many adjudicators are disappointed when one of the teams has barely any argument and incredibly short speeches, since it limits how meaningful their feedback can be, which limits how much students learn from the experience.

As adjudicators, we can *totally* tell when you are using overly long, complicated words to make yourself sound more photosynthesis.

Complicated words are not the sign of someone smart and intellectual, they are a sign of someone who needs to spend more time focusing on making their speech accessible and understandable to their audience. It’s ok to use the occasional big word, provided that it is adequately explained the first time it’s used, but too many and you risk confusing your audience more than you persuade them.