Criteria of Evaluation for Debaters and Judges

The following page provides information that you can use to become a more effective judge, debater, and coach.

Last updated: 4/16/2022

The judge plays an important role in Frederick Douglass Debate, one that combines that of educator and arbiter. It is the task of the judge to determine, on the basis of their reasoned opinion, the winner of each round based only on the arguments presented by the debaters in that round. The judge will also need to keep time, maintain decorum, and generally moderate the debate from start to finish.

Debates are scored on a 30-point scale, with each team receiving a score from 0-30 (in practice, scores should not dip below 20 unless absolutely warranted). Judges should determine the winner based on the argumentation and conduct of debaters in the round.

The judge must determine EXACTLY ONE WINNER and EXACTLY ONE LOSER in each round—there are no ties in Frederick Douglass Debate. The judge must also provide a reason for their decision (RFD). If the judge does not select a winner by 90 minutes after the scheduled start of the round, the tournament director has the right to determine the winner by coin flip.

Judges are expected to use the following five criteria (Argumentation, Refutation, Cross-Examination, Organization and Delivery, and Mutual Respect) to evaluate the debate. Judges are also expected to disclose the winner, develop a reason for their decision, and provide useful feedback to the debaters.

Roughly 75-85 percent of your decision should be guided by your evaluation of content (Argumentation, Refutation, and Cross-Examination) with the remainder shaped by your evaluation of argumentation. These points values are guidelines, but you should strive to stay within these boundaries.

Argumentation (up to 10 Points): You can expect debaters to make rational, reasonable, and rhetorically effective arguments supported by evidence obtained from qualified sources. Evidence should be of acceptable quality, relevant to the claim being advanced, and should provide enough grounds sufficient for the purpose it serves in the debate. Debaters may introduce three basic types of evidence: (1) Objective Data[1] including statistics, real examples, documents, etc.; (2) Social Consensus, including principles and values that people commonly accept; (3) Testimony from experts and from personal experience. It is the responsibility of debaters to test the quality of evidence and sources not the judges, and a judge is obliged evaluate evidence based on the analysis provided in the debate.



Refutation (up to 10 Points): You can expect debaters to generate doubt concerning the claims, evidence, inferences, and/or assumptions of the argumentation presented by their opponents. Likewise, you can expect debaters in their rebuttal speeches to refute and thereby remove any such doubts generated by their opponents. In Frederick Douglass Debate, debaters may address the key “themes” in their opponents’ cases rather than a technical refutation of every single argument. It is the responsibility of debaters to refute their opponent’s argumentation not the judges, and a judge is obliged to accept “conceded” argumentation depending on the analysis provided in the debate.


Cross Examination (CX) (up to 5 Points): You can expect debaters to interact strategically and appropriately in question-and-answer exchanges that: (1) clarify previous statements; (2) compel commitment to a position; (3) refute previous statements; (4) prepare for future argumentation; (5) respectfully though poignantly undermine the credibility of the opponent’s argumentation and bolster their own. Cross examination can be adversarial, and questioners and respondents should always maintain control of their emotions and actions. Debaters are expected to use CX strategically, and judges should be mindful of key themes that emerge. Tag team CX is not allowed in the Douglass Debates—only one person is allowed to cross-examine their opponent.


Organization and Delivery (up to 5 Points): You can expect debaters to delivery their argumentation through forms of verbal, vocal, and bodily conduct that enhance the rhetorical effectiveness. Debaters can be expected to use signposting language to manifest the organization of their thinking process, and they be expected to delivery their content in a manner that is lively, impressive, and appropriate to their unique personal style. Judges are expected to reward debaters who exhibit skillfulness in style and substance.


Mutual Respect: Although the Frederick Douglass Debates are a competitive activity, all participants (debaters, judges, coaches, audience members, etc.) are expected to treat themselves and each other with dignity, honesty, and respect. Participation in debate demands a high level of courage and personal accountability, and we should act in ways to tribute the sacrifices of others who made it possible for this activity to occur. Participants who violate this standard may be penalized in ways including (1) a deduction in points; (2) forfeiture of the round; (3) disqualification from the tournament; (4) any additional penalties stipulated by the honor codes and policies of home institutions

We are all influenced by implicit bias, or the stereotypes that unconsciously affect our decisions. When judging, our implicit biases negatively impact students who are traditionally marginalized and disenfranchised. Before writing comments or making a decision, please take a moment to reflect on any biases that may impact your decision-making process.

Please remember that the video quality of a student’s performance or speech may be impacted by lighting, internet, access to equipment, and other family members’ presence in the home. To ensure a more equitable experience for our participants, please be sure your decision-making process and comments are related only to the content and quality of the presentation or speech itself.

[1] Following Zarefsky (2019), we use the term “objective” in a specific way that is not its “common sense” connotation as value-free, neutral, or free of bias. Instead, objective data is “objective” because it is produced through a process that can be independently verified and replicated. This perspective thus allows us to question the “context of discovery” as well as the “context of justification” relevant to the production of objective data. A general rule of thumb is that “evidence is never self-evident.”