Athens Spring In Person Tournament
2024 — San Francisco, CA/US
Open LD
Event Description:
Judge’s Guide to Lincoln Douglas (LD) Debate
As a Judge for LD Debate, you will observe and evaluate competitors’ evidence-based arguments on a pre-determined topic, before choosing a winner, assigning speaker points, and providing constructive feedback to each debater on your ballot.
About the Event
LD is 1-on-1, evidence-based debate. All LD Debaters will debate the same pre-determined topic (Resolved: The primary objective of the United States criminal justice system ought to be rehabilitation). The debaters sides will be assigned in advance on the judge’s ballot. Each debater has a prepared speech and set of arguments that they have prepared prior to the tournament.
Round Procedure
-
Each preliminary round will consist of one judge and two competitors.
-
The contestants are assigned to a side prior to the round during preliminary rounds, and will compete on the side they are assigned.
-
The debaters will, for the most part, conduct the round themselves. As a judge, it is crucial that you are timing the debaters for every speech and moment of prep time used.
-
While the debate is going on, judges are encouraged to flow (take notes on) the debate.
-
All students should remain in the competition room until the final vote is complete.
-
To keep the tournament running in a timely manner, judges should dismiss students immediately after the debate concludes. If judges want to give verbal feedback, they can do so but will be asked to keep it under 5 minutes, and must do so AFTER they have hit submit on the ballot.
-
After all students have been dismissed, the judge should immediately fill out and submit their ballot on Tabroom.com. It’s vital that judges submit their ballot before providing any verbal feedback to students.
Round Structure
6 minute Aff Constructive: During this time, the Affirmation Speaker (Aff) will present their arguments on why the resolution is correct.
3 minute Cross Examination: During this time the Negation Speaker (Neg) will ask the Aff debater questions, and the Aff debater will answer the questions they are asked. Notes:
-
Questions can range from clarifying to very pointed challenges of an argument, but they must always be in the form of a question.
7 minute Neg Constructive: During this speech, the Neg will present arguments against the resolution/affirmative arguments.
-
From the Neg Constructive on, debaters will frequently utilize something called an “offtime roadmap” before their speech. This is allowed. An offtime roadmap will sound something like: “Before I begin my speech, I would like to give a brief offtime roadmap. During this speech I will present my arguments and then respond to my opponent’s. My time starts now”.
3 minute Cross Examination:During this time the debater on the Affirmative side will ask the debater on the Negation side questions, and the Negation debater will answer the questions they are asked.
4 minute 1st Aff Rebuttal: During this speech, the Affirmative debater will respond to their opponent’s arguments and framework, and begin framing the round.
-
Aff Debater may bring up new evidence to respond to new arguments made in the Negative Constructive, but otherwise no new affirmative arguments are allowed in the Aff Rebuttal.
6 minute Neg Rebuttal: During this speech, the Negation will respond to the affirmative’s rebuttal, before explaining what issues the judge should vote on (voting issues) and why they should win the debate.
-
Neg Debater may bring up new evidence to respond to new points made in the 1st Aff Rebuttal, but otherwise no new arguments are allowed in the Neg Rebuttal.
3 minute 2nd Aff Rebuttal: During this speech, the Affirmation will respond to the negation’s rebuttal, explain what voting issues the judge should vote on and why they should win the debate
-
No new arguments may be made in the 2nd Aff Rebuttal
-
No new evidence may be introduced in the 2nd Aff Rebuttal
NOTE: 4 minute Prep Time: Each Debater will have four total minutes of running prep time that they may use before their speeches. Debaters are not required to use their prep time, but generally will.
-
Their prep time can’t exceed 4 minutes ADDED UP. An example of prep allocation may look like: The Negative uses 2 minutes of prep used before the Neg Constructive and 2 minutes before the Neg rebuttal; The Affirmative uses 3 minutes before the 1st Aff Rebuttal and 1 minute before the 2nd Aff Rebuttal.
-
Prep time may not be used before cross examination.
Judging Criteria
Judges should evaluate each speech based on the following criteria:
-
Time Management: Students’ speeches should be within the allowed times (with a 10 second grace period).
-
Structure: Speeches should be well-structured, clear, and understandable. If the structure cannot be understood by you, that is a failing on their end to cater the argument to you, and as a judge they should be graded on that no matter how sophisticated the argument may “feel”.
-
Content: The speech contents should be relevant to the topic, engaging, and well-organized. Scholarship, nuance, clash (responding to opponent’s arguments) and use of supporting evidence/examples should be rewarded. In particular, the quality of research and how well-defended an argument is are important in LD.
-
NOTE: Because the LD debate format of switch-side debate requires students to prepare and present a diverse range of arguments on BOTH sides of the debate topic at each tournament, debaters will often make arguments they don’t personally believe in. To maximize fairness, judges must be non-biased in their approach (“tabula rasa”) and evaluate the debaters’ arguments on their own terms.
-
Delivery: The speaker should deliver the speech clearly and effectively, using appropriate vocal variety, body language, eye contact, and other presentation skills. This will determine the Speaker Score that you list for each debater.
Scoring Procedure
Once all speeches are completed, the judge will vote on who won the debate. Judges will be asked to input three key pieces of information:
-
Win/Loss: On the ballot, indicate who won and who lost the debate.
-
Speaker Score: You’ll score each student on a scale between 25 and 30 evaluating how effectively you believe the student spoke in the round. PLEASE DON’T SCORE BELOW 25. Sometimes the student with the lower speaker score wins (for example - they have poorer verbal delivery skills but provided better evidence and analysis), but this is rare and will be marked specifically on the ballot as a “low-point win”.
-
Reason For Decision (RFD) where the judge explains why they voted the way they did. Example RFD (Reason For Decision):
“This was a very close round! Great presentation and persuasion skills from both debaters! I was swayed by the affirmative’s framework and first contention, particularly the excellent use of supporting evidence and thoroughly explained impacts on Contention One. The negative did a great job defeating the affirmative’s second contention, and the neg’s own counter-contention was strong, though it didn’t have quite the impact analysis necessary to outweigh the affirmative’s first contention. Ultimately, I vote for the affirmative because they brought a stronger framework and outweighed on impacts. Well done both debaters!”
NOTE: Students will be eager to know the round’s outcome and may stay after the debate to request a voting disclosure. AFTER SUBMITTING THEIR BALLOT ON TABROOM, LD judges may verbally disclose their decision, but this is optional in preliminary rounds. If you feel uncomfortable disclosing, you are not obligated to. If you feel comfortable, and both competitors feel comfortable hearing the results, you may disclose. Please keep verbal feedback to a minimum to keep the tournament running on time.
Individual Feedback
For students, feedback is one of the most educationally valuable resources at a tournament. Judges must provide each competitor with written feedback on their performance. Feedback should be positive and encouraging, but should also include clear, actionable constructive suggestions for student improvement. To keep the tournament running on schedule, please keep feedback concise.
Example Individual Feedback:
“Overall, great job! You have excellent argument writing and strong presentation skills! Your research was solid, though I’d like to see more current evidence to support your 2nd contention. An area for improvement is Cross-Examination. Try to make your questions more concise to maximize your time, and prioritize questions that are strategically beneficial.”