Judge Training Information

PF:

How to judge Public Forum Debates

Topic for PF: The United States federal government should enact a moratorium on hyperscale data center construction

• The round will be centered around this topic.

Before the round, make sure to ask your teams what side they are (pro/con), what speaker they are (1st/2nd), and make note of their names so you can assign speaker points at the end of the round.

Procedure and Order of Speeches: Teams will flip a coin prior to the round. The winner of the coin flip will have up to five (5) minutes to choose either the side of the topic they wish to debate or the speaking order position they wish to have in the debate. The remaining option is given to the team who does not win the coin flip. If the team that wins the coin flip does not make a selection within five (5) minutes, the selection will be deferred to the other team.

Speaker points – refer to this scale below:

30 – This individual would crush the gods of Mount Olympus in every debate and North Korea would instantly give up its nuclear program if this person was sent to argue our position tomorrow. There is literally nothing that could have been done better.

29.8 – This is the best speech that I expect to be made at any similar tournament this year. Based on this round, I expect this individual to win top speaker at national tournaments.

29.5 – Based on this round, I expect this individual to win top speaker at this tournament.

29.0 – Based on this round, I expect this person to win a speaker award at this tournament

28.6 – Based on this round, I expect this person to be in the top half of speakers at the tournament but not win a speaker award.

28.4 – Based on this round, I expect this person to be in the bottom half of speakers at the tournament.

28.2 – This person made a legitimate effort, but is one of the bottom speakers at the tournament.

28.0 – This person showed little to no effort or understanding in the round.

< 28 – This person did something extremely rude or disrespectful.

It’s good to know the format of a public forum round –

Team A- First Speaker Constructive- 4 mins

Team B- First Speaker Constructive- 4 mins

Crossfire- 3 mins

Team A- Second Speaker Rebuttal- 4 mins

Team B- Second Speaker Rebuttal- 4 mins

Crossfire- 3 mins

Team A- First Speaker Summary- 3 mins

Team B- First Speaker Summary- 3 mins

Grand Crossfire- 3 mins

Team A- Second Speaker Final Focus - 2 mins

Team B- Second Speaker Final Focus - 2 mins

Each team has 3 minutes of prep time.

IF YOU HAVE THE TIME, PLEASE CHECK OUT THIS VIDEO (it explains how you should be writing RFD and evaluating the round at the end of the debate): Public Forum Debate Judge Training Video

It is important that you have some background knowledge of how to judge a debate before you go into the round and start evaluating novices. Go to the NSDA Judging Tutorial for more information.

Don’t stress about learning how to actually evaluate the arguments, evaluate it based on your impression of the round.

Do not judge based on race or gender, but do take into account how they treat you and their opponents.

EACH SPEECH BREAKDOWN

THIS IS NOT AN ORDER OF THE SPEECHES – refer back to the order and times listed above :)

Constructive: they read contentions for 4 minutes. Give like 5 seconds of grace period if they go overtime, these are novices after all.

Crossfire: only the constructive givers will ask each other questions about what their opponents read.

Second Speaker Rebuttal: this is a response to whatever the second constructive said.

Second Speaker rebuttal: this is a response to whatever the first constructive said, and also a response to the first rebuttal.

Summary: The summary is a full revision of the round – the debaters present this as a method to crystallize what has been said during the round already. They restate their main arguments, “collapse” or “condense” the arguments that they would like the judge to evaluate, and it presents “win conditions” (impact weighing, voter issues) to the judge.

Final focus: final comparison of the round – last-ditch effort for the debaters to convince the judge of exactly why they should win.

• Remember: no new arguments, it is really a comparison and extension of whatever arguments made in the past, on top of the “win conditions” they stated earlier.

LD:

Topic for Lincoln-Douglas Debate: Outer space colonization is a moral imperative.

LD is a debate format based on morals. This document will cover useful information about judging it.

Debaters, in their framework, should offer values (the highest standard of morality within a round) and value criterions (methods of measuring those abstract values) which the round will be weighed under.

Arguments are called contentions, which outline the reasons each side believes the resolution is true / false. The impact should be something under a value or value criterion.

The structure of an LD round is as follows:

1st Affirmative Constructive (1AC – 6 minutes): The affirmative should online their framework, and reasons to supporting the resolution.

Cross-examination of the Affirmative (CX – 3 minutes): The negative will question the affirmative.

1st Negative Constructive (1NC – 7 minutes): The negative should outline reasons for opposing the resolution, along with responding to the affirmative’s case.

Cross-examination of the Negative (CX – 3 minutes): The affirmative will question the negative.

1st Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR – 4 minutes): The affirmative should respond to the negative case, along with defending their own case.

2nd Negative Rebuttal (2NR – 6 minutes): The negative should respond to the affirmative case, defend the negative case, and provide the key voting issues in the round – a biased summary of the round. No new arguments can be made.

2nd Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR – 3 minutes): The affirmative should provide the key voting issues – a biased summary of the round. No new arguments can be made.

Prep time (4 minutes each): Each debater has four minutes of running prep time throughout the debate, which they can use whenever they want.

New arguments are not allowed to be brought up in the 2nd negative rebuttal or the 2nd affirmative rebuttal. If an argument is made by one side, and is not responded to by the opposing side in their next speech, responses are no longer allowed to be considered.

(For example, if the 1st Affirmative Constructive argues outer space colonization allows us to escape overpopulation, and the 1st Negative Constructive doesn’t respond to it, the argument is considered true for the remainder of the round. If the 2nd Negative Rebuttal chooses to directly respond, it should be disregarded.)

Do not worry about making the incorrect decisions, but you should not be swayed by race, gender, or appearance – you should evaluate the round solely based on the content and clarity of the round.

Speaker points – refer to this scale below:

30 – This individual would crush the gods of Mount Olympus in every debate and North Korea would instantly give up its nuclear program if this person was sent to argue our position tomorrow. There is literally nothing that could have been done better.

29.8 – This is the best speech that I expect to be made at any similar tournament this year. Based on this round, I expect this individual to win top speaker at national tournaments.

29.5 – Based on this round, I expect this individual to win top speaker at this tournament.

29.0 – Based on this round, I expect this person to win a speaker award at this tournament

28.6 – Based on this round, I expect this person to be in the top half of speakers at the tournament but not win a speaker award.

28.4 – Based on this round, I expect this person to be in the bottom half of speakers at the tournament.

28.2 – This person made a legitimate effort, but is one of the bottom speakers at the tournament.

28.0 – This person showed little to no effort or understanding in the round.

< 28 – This person did something extremely rude or disrespectful.