Adjudication Guidelines
Lateness
Judges must be at their rounds on time. A judge's tardiness will result in lowering of his/her standing with the tab staff.
If only one team is present in the room fifteen minutes after resolutions are read, that team automatically wins the round.
If neither team is present fifteen minutes after resolutions are read, the judge should report to the tab room.
Leaks
Any judge who discloses any aspect of his/her decision prior to the release of ballots by the tab room will have his/her standing reduced with the tab staff.
Time
Judges are expected to keep time for themselves, and must independently verify whether a speech is over time. Judges should not provide debaters with time signals.
Debaters are allowed a 30-second grace period immediately after the allotted time for the speech expires. After the grace period, judges will start banging loudly until the speaker sits. Anything said after the grace period cannot be considered in deciding the round's outcome.
In addition to the judge's own active time-keeping role, all points of order regarding breach of time rules after grace will be well-taken. If a debater continues speaking after the grace period, the judge may consider that factor in deciding that debater's speaker score. Judges should stop time during points of clarification, as well as while the opposition team briefly chooses its case side when presented with an opp-choice.
Flow and New Arguments
Good debaters are expected to present coherent and well-structured arguments. Typically, this entails responding to the opposing arguments in the order they are given.
Judges should evaluate dropped arguments as if they had been conceded. However, dropping minor points should not be grounds for a loss, especially if the judge decides a debater is increasing the quality of debate by further developing another topic.
A debater should be able to justify dropping major points on the flow. Failure to do so will weigh against his/her team in the judge's decision.
While new arguments are allowed in Member speeches, the Prime Minster can contend that the Member of Opposition delivered too many new arguments to respond to in a five-minute rebuttal. If the judge agrees, he/she may choose to disregard some of the new arguments.
New arguments are not allowed in rebuttals unless the prime minister is responding to new arguments from the Member of Opposition. The judge will not consider rebuttal arguments new unless a debater calls a point of order regarding them. At this point, the judge decides whether the argument is indeed new, and may use this factor in deciding the offending debater's speaker score.
Speaker Scores
The winning team must have combined speaker points equal to or greater than, and combined ranks equal two or lower than, those of the losing team.
In cases where the scoring scale below does not fairly describe a speaker's performance, half-points may be given.
Scoring Scale
28 - An extremely rare speech that is not only flawless in all discernible ways, but it transcends the genre and likely moves the judge to a profound admiration of the person speaking. This kind of speech tends to move the observer deeply, such that many judges will cry, shiver, and/or gape in awe while witnessing it. The judge must defend this score to the tab director.
27 - This is flawless in all describable criteria. The speaker must do the following: provide fantastic class in the round; give outstanding argumentation on all levels; present relevant and insightful content; have perfect organization and domination of the flow; demonstrate amazing skill of words; show expert timing and modulation; and never, ever miss a beat. The judge must defend this score to the tab director.
26 - This speech is mightily impressive, exciting to watch, and has a tremendous impact on the round. However, to an experienced judge it should possess slight room for improvement in one or two criteria (To a less attentive observer, this speech may seem wholly flawless). The speaker may stumble lightly over a couple of words, but with immediate recovery and an otherwise outstanding performance in all criteria, she still earns a 26. Alternatively, the speaker may respond to one point with lackluster (thou not poor) analysis.
25 - This is an average speech. It is a strong and enjoyable speech. It has no serious flaws at all, and it engages the audience effectively. Overall, the speaker should appear skilled and polished in order to earn a 25. However, a discerning judge will note room for minor improvement in approximately three or four areas of evaluation. Speakers frequently earn a 25 by clearly performing competently in all areas while actually excelling in none.
24 - A speech which merits a 24 is unremarkable. The speaker does perform competently in several areas, yet there are also approximately three or four real flaws within the speech. The organization of this speech often seems sketchy. The refutation and analysis provided by the speaker are likely to show superficial treatment of the issue at hand. Speakers who earn a 24 may exhibit satisfactory argumentative skills while regularly falling back on distracting mannerisms such as nervously pacing or saying "um."
23 - To merit a 23, a speaker must commit significant errors in more criteria than not. The flaws of this speech will tend to distract the judge from its better qualifications. This still allows for a decent performance in a few areas of evaluation. It may appear that the speaker grasps the elements of debate without having the skills to execute them well.
22 - This score is assigned when serious flaws are present in just about every aspect of the speech. The speech is unsatisfactory and its flaws are a serious distraction to the judge. This score is too low if the judge can say confidently that the speaker did well in any aspect. Nevertheless, one can still perceive the attempt, however unsuccessful, to approximate the fundamental aspects of debate. For example, the speaker may try to follow some organization, yet this organization will reflect very little of the actual flow of the round. The judge must defend this decision to the tab director to give this score.
21 - Similar to a 22 except that the speaker was also offensive. The judge must defend this score to the tab director.