Debate Judging Packet

Skyline’s

2023

Grizzly Growl

Debate

Judge’s Packet

Thank you for judging our tournament! On the next pages you will find your guide to judging!

Lincoln-Douglass (LD):

Lincoln Douglass Debate is a one- on-one debate. This is a morality debate. It contains a value and criterion as an essential part of the debate.

A value is a concept or ideal that debaters use as the key standard society is trying to achieve. It is something that is held to deserve importance or worth (Examples: Democracy, Dignity, Happiness, Individual rights, justice, life and quality of life.) Both sides may present different values and use it as a way to promote their side.

A criterion supports the value. A way for establishing when the value has been fulfilled, met, or achieved. This is typically a philosophy. (Common Examples: Utilitarianism: Greatest good for the greatest number of people; Consequentialism: The consequences determine if it is good or bad; Autonomy: Independence, the right to govern oneself or nation)

Time:

1st Affirmative Constructive: 6 minutes

Cross Examination (Negation will ask Affirmation questions): 3 minutes

1st Negation Constructive: 7 minutes

Cross Examination (Affirmation will ask Negation questions): 3 minutes

2nd Affirmation Rebuttal: 4 minutes

2nd Negation Rebuttal: 6 minutes

3rd Affirmation Rebuttal: 3 minutes

Prep Time: 4 minutes per team (this can be used at any time and can be used in chunks).

Your Responsibilities:

· Bring a timing device, paper, and writing utensil. Formal dress is not required.

· Make sure that the teams have the correct code and are on the correct side—aff on the left and neg on the right. Time speeches.

· Allow debaters to time themselves. Cell phones and other devices are acceptable timers.

· Before the debate, tell the debaters your Paradigm which is what you want the debate to be like and what key thing or things that you judge off of.

Some of the most common paradigms for beginner judges are:

§ Communications. Coms judges look for speaking skills and effective communication.

§ Tabulations. Tabs judges keep careful track of specific arguments.

§ Tabula Rasa. Tab Ras judges have no set preferences for type of arguments or debating style.

Also tell the debaters:

§ How fast you’d like them to talk. (Slow, Medium, Fast)

§ How familiar and experienced you are with judging.

§ Anything else about your preferences or specific judging style.

· Listen and take notes during the round.

Judge Based On:

· How well your paradigm was met.

· Communication skills.

· Preparedness.

· Use of evidence.

· Impacts.

· Voters (key reasons to vote one way) given by debaters in their last speeches.

· Courtesy and ethics.

Don’t Judge Based On:

• Biases towards the resolution, arguments, argumentation style, and debaters.

• Completely new arguments brought up in rebuttal speeches. This does not include new evidence or points supporting arguments that have already been made.

Filling Out the Ballot:

· Rate speaking skills with speech points. Don’t be overly generous or critical. A well prepared and effective debater deserves top or near top marks.

· Record key points made by debaters.

· Include an objective and thoughtful reason for decision.

· Give advice and constructive criticism you feel will be helpful.

· Carefully write the correct code of the winner.

Public Forum (PF)

This is a pro/con or cost-benefit analysis debate. To decide who is debating on

which side, there will be a coin flip and whoever wins the flip decides which side they are on or speaker order. The other teams gets to choose the remaining option

Time:

First Speaker - Team A 4 minutes

First Speaker - Team B 4 minutes

Crossfire 3 minutes

Second Speaker - Team A 4 minutes

Second Speaker - Team B 4 minutes

Crossfire 3 minutes

Summary - First Speaker - Team A 3 minutes

Summary - First Speaker - Team B 3 minutes

Grand Crossfire 3 minutes

Final Focus - Second Speaker - Team A 2 minutes

Final Focus - Second Speaker - Team B 2 minutes

Prep time: 3 minutes per team (this can be used at any time and can be used in chunks).

Congress

The purpose of Congressional Debate is to simulate a mock United States Congress. Students are given a docket that are the topics students will be debating. Students engage in debate before deciding to vote on if the bill should “pass” and become a “law”. Once the vote is taken, the debate moves onto the next topic. Some of the documents are written by students and will be the first ones debated.

Format:

*You don’t really need to know this to judge as the Presiding Officer and Parliamentarian will take care of ensuring the format is followed.

• Debate on a bill starts with a speech in favor of the bill. These are called authorship speeches.A After the affirmation speech there will usually be a speech in negation. All speeches have a maximum of 3 minutes, the Presiding Officer times them and will cut them off if the student goes over), there is not really a minimum time limit.

• After each speech there is a questioning period by other students in the Congress. Students can ask questions toward helping the bill pass or trying to get the bill to fail.

• The back and forth between aff and neg continues until a student makes a motion to “move to the previous question”. If the motion is successful, they vote on the bill/topic and move to the next one. l

Roles in Congress:

Parliamentarian: an adult who knows the rules and makes sure the students are following them and doing what they are supposed to. After the round (or during breaks) you can ask them if you have any questions.

Presiding Officer: This is a student who runs Congress during their elected time. They time speeches (and give time signals) and call on people to give speeches and ask questions. This counts as one speech.

• When a student is selected to give a speech they will tell you their name/code (this will be found at the top of their ballot.

• For each ballot, there will usually be a grid that will allow judges to do two things

• Provide and make short notes about each speech

• Score the speech on a scale of 1-6. 1 is the lowest and 6 being the highest they can receive. Speeches ranked as a 3 or 4 or usually considered average. Criteria that judges can use to help them score speeches include:

• Fluency and overall delivery (eye contact, filler words, body language)

• Does the speech introduce new arguments and ideas that help to advance the debate?

• Does the speaker seem well organized and come close to using the full three minutes?

• Does the speaker have and cite evidence to help them prove their points

• Does the speaker reference arguments or ideas brought up by other debaters? Do they build on or refute these ideas?

• Make sure to record a score for each speech. This is how students receive points for the National Speech and Debate Association. Typically at the end of the round, the Parliamentarian (adult) will check with judges to make sure everyone has the same number of speeches per competitor.

• Overall scoring: In addition to rating each speech, judges are asked to rank competitors for how they did in the round overall. Ranks typically are 1-9. 1 being the highest and that student contributed to and essentially won the round, 2 is 2nd second place, and so on. The rank of 9 is the only rank that can be given multiple times.

• Criteria that judges can use to help them rank competitors:

• Quality of speeches

• Quality of ideas

• Overall participation (including if they were an effective presiding officer)

• Questions (questions are not ranked or recorded like speeches, however, judges can use them to help decide on a students contributions to the round

Policy

Policy is a plan debate. Affirmation will propose a plan that solves the resolution, the negation will refute the Affirmative plan.

Often, judges view the round in terms of stock issues, or major questions that both teams need to address. They are: Topicality (Does the affirmative plan meet the terms of the resolution? Is it an example of the resolution?), Harms (What’s the problem with the status quo?), Inherency ( Does the plan exist in the status quo (the way things are now), and what structural or attitudinal barriers exist?), Solvency (Does the affirmative plan solve the problem?).

Disadvantages: Sometimes an affirmative plan can solve for all five of the stock issues and still be a bad idea. Disadvantages have several important parts: Uniqueness (is the disadvantage happening in the status quo?, Link (does the plan cause the problem to happen?), Impact (does the plan cause something bad to happen?).

Time:

1st Affirmative Constructive: 8 minutes

Negative Cross-Examination of Affirmative: 3 minutes

1st Negative Constructive: 8 minutes

Affirmative Cross-Examination of Negative: 3 minutes

2nd Affirmative Constructive: 8 minutes

Negative Cross-Examination of Affirmative: 3 minutes

2nd Negative Constructive: 8 minutes

Affirmative Cross-Examination of Negative: 3 minutes

1st Negative Rebuttal: 5 minutes

1st Affirmative Rebuttal: 5 minutes

2nd Negative Rebuttal: 5 minutes

2nd Affirmative Rebuttal: 5 minutes

Prep Time (each team): 8 minutes (this can be used at any time and can be used in chunks).

General Argumentation:

· The Aff will present and defend a plan that has to do with the topic. The Neg can use an assortment of arguments to show that the plan is non topical, bad, or should not be passed.

· The neg can present several main arguments against the aff, but doesn’t need to win on all of them to negate and win the debate.

· After the first speech, debaters will start out with a quick untimed roadmap which lists the points that their speech will cover in order.

Types of Arguments:

· Topicality: The neg can say the plan presented by the aff is not within the parameters of the debate resolution.

· Inherency: The neg can argue that the plan is not needed because it may have already been done or will be done in the status quo.

· Solvency: The neg can argue that the plan will not be feasible and can’t accomplish its goals.

· Harms: The neg can argue that the impacts of the plan are either inevitable or not as substantial as the aff suggests.

· Disadvantages: The neg may say the plan will result in a bad thing.

· Counterplans: The neg can present a favorable alternative to the plan and argue that it is better than the original plan.

· Kritiks: Arguing about the advocacy of one team linking to or implying something bad or wrong.

· Theory and Framework: These arguments can be seen on all levels of debate. A team offers an interpretation of a term or a rule for the debate. These interpretations are argued with standards-specific reasons to prefer one interpretation.

Your Responsibilities:

· Bring a timing device, paper, and writing utensil. Formal dress is not required.

· Make sure that the teams have the correct code and are on the correct side—aff on the left and neg on the right. Time speeches.

· Allow debaters to time themselves. Cell phones and other devices are acceptable timers as long as they are not connected to the internet.

· Before the debate, tell the debaters your Paradigm which is what you want the debate to be like and what key thing or things that you judge off of.

Some of the most common paradigms for beginner judges are:

§ Communications. Coms judges look for speaking skills and effective communication.

§ Stock Issues. Stock Issues judges prefer the debate to center around arguments that apply directly to the plan. (Topicality, Inherency, Harms, Solvency, Advantages, Disadvantages)

§ Tabula Rasa. Tab Ras judges have no set preferences for type of arguments or debating style.

Also tell the debaters:

§ How fast you’d like them to talk. (Slow, Medium, Fast, Very Fast.)

§ How familiar and experienced you are with judging policy.

§ Anything else about your preferences or specific judging style.

· Listen, take notes, and don’t interrupt during the round.

· After the round, shake the debaters’ hands.

Judge Based On:

· How well your paradigm was met.

· Communication skills.

· Preparedness.

· Use of evidence.

· Impact calculus. (which arguments matter more and why)

· Voters (key reasons to vote one way) given by debaters in their last speeches.

· Courtesy and ethics.

· Validity or arguments.

Don’t Judge Based On:

· Any biases towards the resolution, debater, or debating style.

· New arguments brought up in rebuttal speeches.

· Blatantly unfair or abusive argumentation.

Filling Out the Ballot:

· Rate speaking skills with speech points. Don’t be overly generous or critical. A well prepared and effective debater deserves top or near top marks.

· Record key points about each debater’s arguing.

· Include an objective and thoughtful reason for decision.

· Give advice and constructive criticism you feel will be helpful.