PF Judging Instructions

Judging Instructions for Public Forum Debate

OPEN YOUR BALLOT BEFORE THE ROUND STARTS!

Public Forum is a team debate event that advocates or rejects a position posed by the monthly resolution topic.

Topic:

Resolved: The North Atlantic Treaty Organization should substantially increase its defense commitments to the Baltic states. 

Format and Time Limits:

Evaluation and Judging:

The judge is the chairperson of the round (facilitating the coin flip and giving time signals if requested). S/he may not interact in the crossfire or debate. Judges evaluate teams on the quality of the arguments actually made, not on their own personal beliefs, and not on issues they think a particular side should have covered. Judges should assess the bearing of each argument on the truth or falsehood of the assigned resolution. The pro should prove that the resolution is true, and the con should prove that the resolution in not true. When deciding the round, judges should ask, “If I had no prior beliefs about this resolution, would the round as a whole have made me more likely to believe the resolution was true or not true?” Teams should strive to provide a straightforward perspective on the resolution; judges should discount unfair, obscure interpretations that only serve to confuse the opposing team. Plans and counterplans are not allowed. 

Quality, well-explained arguments should trump a mere quantity thereof. Debaters should use quoted evidence to support their claims, and well-chosen, relevant evidence may strengthen – but not replace – arguments. 

Clear communication is a major consideration. Judges weigh arguments only to the extent that they are clearly explained, and they will discount arguments that are too fast, too garbled, or too jargon-laden to be understood by an intelligent high school student or a well-informed citizen. A team should not be penalized for failing to understand his or her opponent’s unclear arguments. 

In short, Public Forum Debate stresses that speakers must appeal to the widest possible audience through sound reasoning, succinct organization, credible evidence, and clear delivery. Team points provide a mechanism for evaluating the relative “quality of debating” by each side.

For Ballots: please fill out the ballot completely; choose a winning team, assign speaker points. Please submit your ballots prior to leaving the digital round. Each debater should be awarded speaker points, which range from 24-30. Please assign speaker points based on the scale on your ballot. Ties are not allowed but you can specify in 10ths of point increments (i.e. 27.2 or 28.4). Speaker point below 25.0 should be reserved for debaters demonstrating especially obnoxious and rude behavior and 30.0s should be reserved for the best speaker you will see in your lifetime.

Lastly, because we are hosting this tournament online, we request that all judges attempt to use a laptop or tablet during their rounds. Please note that you need to stay on call during the day, and that tabroom connects with you via text or email. Please check this regularly and understand you are on call at any moment during the day, even if your student is no longer participating.