Tips: Oral Adjudications

Oral adjudications occur when the adjudicators call the debaters back into the room to give them the decision and explain the reasons for the decision. Many teams also view this as a valuable lesson on how to improve so judges should put a little thought into their oral adjudications so the teams come away feeling that they understand (if not agree with) the decision and feel they have learned how to correct their mistakes.

The chair of panel should give the decision (unless dissenting). Other judges should stay quite until after the oral adjudication is complete.

Oral Adjudications should be done in the following order:

• Announce team rankings
• Give the reasons behind decision
• Give some constructive criticism (to all teams)
• Don’t exceed 10 minutes (particularly at lunch time).

If the adjudication is closed (i.e. no oral results) judges should be guarded in the feedback they do give as it is very difficult to give constructive feedback and not to reveal the result.

If you queries and require further clarification approach the judges but be polite and non-confrontational. Remember that often a debater will think they gave an excellent speech but the judges may disagree. Once the judge has explained the reasons for the decisions there is little to be gained in attacking them. Is it at all possible that your self-belief is bigger than your ability?

If the team believes that it was a terrible adjudication then they should fill out adjudicator evaluation form. The adjudication team read all feedback and all complaints will be followed up.

For a more detailed guide to oral adjudications click here

Tips: Adjudicating & judges

There are pages and pages of rules and guidelines on how to adjudicate. The best guide is available at : - Guide to chairing and adjudicating a Worlds Debate

However to highlight some key general points of the adjudication process

1. Take time to review your notes if you wish so that you are able to participate in the discussion. Some people can go straight into a discussion. However in a tight debate it is well worth taking a few minutes to go over your notes. If your chair wants to push straight into a discussion don't be afraid to ask for a couple of minutes to review what was said especially by the early speakers who you saw almost an hour ago.

2. Panels come to a consensus (not necessarily unanimous) decision. If it is clear that a majority of the judges are firm on one result then there is nothing wrong on returning a split decision. There is no need to hold up the entire competition trying to come to a unanimous decision. However that does not mean you can simply vote at the start and accept that as the decision. There should be adequate time given to discussing and evaluating the debate as a whole.

3. All members of the panel have the right to have their opinion considered. Chair judges cannot override their panel. Panels are constructed with more than one judge because people will put different strengths on different arguments. It is only fair that all those opinions are considered.

There have been cases where chair judges have overruled their panels. This has even happened in some high profile cases at Worlds. The judges in question were generally severely dealt with and did not chair again.

It is trusted that the chair judge will have the ability to win their panel over their way of thinking or if not then they can explain to the adjudication team that they were out voted and why they think it was wrong thus potentially impacting on the ranking of judges that made the incorrect call. However that is not to say that chair judges should be vindictive. The chair should be mature enough to know the difference between a valid result which they can understand but disagree with and a completely incorrect result. I have been out voted (it doesn't happen often as generally I can talk the judges over to my side) however in these cases I can see the reasons behind the result even if I found other arguments more believable.

4. The Chair of the panel has to fill in ONE speed ballot and ONE detailed form. More on this in a later post.

5. Finally I'm going to focus on something that isn't mentioned in official guides but is on the minds of many judges. The concept of judge "ranking" and "breaking". I've been through the process from both sides. I broke to judge the final of my first Europeans but I went to 3 worlds before I broke. I was also DCA at worlds in Stellenbosch and a key role of the adjudication team is to manage the rankings of hundreds of judges. Therefore I know how it feels to be in the scramble to break and I know how difficult it is to manage that scramble.

If you are just starting off as a judge and feel you have no chance of breaking don't forget that your performance and feedback at one worlds could stand you in good stead at the next worlds. Rankings and notes on judges are generally passed from one worlds to the next. We had a profile and history of over half our judges at worlds in Stellenbosch before they even set foot in South Africa. We didn't rely entirely on it because judges can improve (or not) over time. At worlds judges will be asked to fill in their experience (don't lie, detailed records are available and may be checked), sit a test on the rules and judge a video. All this information combines to give an initial ranking.

During the tournament the debaters give feedback on the chair judges and the chair judges give feedback on the panellists. A good adjudication team will read every feedback form and use these to adjust rankings.

In some cases judges rise in ranking and can do from panellist to chair to breaking. One judge did that at Worlds in Stellenbosch. We had an initial ranking from him based on feedback from other IVs. Between the video and constant good feedback from chairs and debaters he rose to be the first reserve judge in the break. When another judge didn't turn up he made it onto a panel.

In another case a judge who considered himself a top judge in his country could not understand why he was not rising up the rankings. In this case the feedback from a previous worlds was average, video adjudication he did was terrible and the feedback from chair judges was not good. Finally in another example we had a series of complaints from a number of debaters about unacceptable conduct of a chair judge. Once we verified what happened the judge went from certain break to effectively a 3rd panellist.

The best way to rise through the rankings is to participate in the adjudication process to the best of your ability. State how you see the result and crucially be able to explain and back it up. Remember that as a panellist you are being ranked by the chair judge and the best chair judges (who have most influence with the adjudication team) aren't looking for "yes men" they are looking for people who can give well reasoned adjudications.

If you go from being a chair judge to being a panellist this does not automatically mean your ranking has fallen. It could mean you are being "watched" by the chair judge. The most experienced judges are often given specific people on a panel with the aim of assessing them with a view to breaking. Also for round 9 of Worlds the critical "bubble" rounds are generally filled with strong panels. Being demoted to panellist along side a well known judge for round 9 means you are being trusted with one of the critical break rooms.

Complaining to the adjudication team about your "demotion" or the quality of the teams you are seeing (or the food, accomodation, entertainment and such like) isn't going to do your chances of breaking any favours. The adjudication team at worlds are suriving on around 3 hours sleep a night and managing a very stressful event. If you add further misery to their lives then remember one of the few things they can completely control is your ranking and after 9 hours sleep over the previous 4 days they are perfectly within their rights to become vindictive.

I hope that clarifies some of the mystery around how judges break. There are some judges who will go into a tournament certain to break based on their experience and proven ability (Ian Lising is one prime example). But there are more slots available than people generally realise. Factors such as regional representation do play a part BUT the main factor is performance during the tournament.

Hart House BP Invitational

The Hart House (University of Toronto) Debates Committee is pleased to invite you to our BP Invitational, taking place October 19-21, 2007.

Debating Style & Format
We will be featuring 5 rounds of British Parliamentary debate using the standard speaking times at Worlds (7-7-7-7-7-7-7-7), with a break to Semi- Finals. All resolutions will be tight-linked and will include a wide variety of topics at the standard of knowledge expected at Worlds. There will be 3 rounds of Public Speaking, breaking to the top 5 speakers.

Judging
We are intensely pleased to announce Joanna Nairn as our Chief Adjudicator. A DCA for the upcoming Worlds in Thailand, she is -among other things -a WUDC World Champion, CUSID- APDA North American Champion, CUSID Nationals finalist, and Cambridge champion. Our Deputy Chief Adjudicator will be Jason Rogers (Worlds Quarterfinalist, Nats Finalist, and more).

Awards
Awards will be given to the top 8 teams (semifinalists), top 10 speakers, top 5 public speakers, top novice team, and top novice speaker. All semifinalists and finalists will receive an engraved beveled glass plaque, speakers will received something likewise engraved and classy, and public speakers will receive a prize both staid and saucy. Excitingly, the top team will be receiving high-quality bathrobes embroidered with Top Team BP Champs 2007. The Top Speaker will be receiving a smoking jacket, also embroidered with their honour, and the top public speaker will be receiving silk pyjamas. Fit for the public speaker should not be a problem as all participants will be asked to give their size (S, M, L, XXL, etc.) at registration; this information will be kept confidential and, of course, you are not required to give it, though the bathrobe might not drape quite right.

Eating & Partying
We will be serving a pasta dinner on the Friday night. On Saturday, we will be serving breakfast and pizza lunch; at night, there will be a banquet in the Great Hall with live jazz band and wine service, as well as a cash bar for those of you with more varied tastes. Sunday Morning will be offering a full brunch (lox, homefries, sausages, eggs...) in the Great Hall.

Like last year, we will endeavour to have socials that are private so that we can all unwind after long rounds of debate comfortably. All socials will be all-ages. The Friday night social will be at The Last Temptation in the every-trendy Kensington Market. There will also be a social on the Saturday night after the banquet at a bar that is to be decided.

Accommodations
We have worked out a deal with the Howard Johnson- Yorkville (89 Avenue Road). For a single King-Bed room, the price will be $99 per night ($109 double); for two double beds, it will be $119 - triple, 129-quad.TO make a reservation, call HoJos at 416-964-1220 and say you are booking under the Hart House group deal. Billeting is guaranteed for those coming from out of CUSID Central. For all others, billeting will be arranged on a first-come-first-served basis.

Fees & Judging Requirements
Reg is $130/team, $65/judge. We will be implementing a judging requirement of n/3. The requirement will be waived by the Chief Adjudicator on a case-by-case basis. Teams in financial need should contact the TD. Please register with #of teams, #of judges, meal requirements, and billeting requirements Due to past banking issues, all teams with accounts in American Banking Institutions must pay by credit card.

Please email with any questions. We look forward to having you at our tournament.

Cheers,
Christina Veira
christina.veira@utoronto.ca

Botswana Worlds Website Launched!

The University of Botswana Debate Masters Association is pleased to announce our bid website to the rest of the world debating community

The website is www.botswanaworlds.com, more information will be put on the website in due course. All questions and comments should be emailed to debatemasters@yahoo.com or debate@botswanaworlds.com

We will be realising more information about the bid soon. And hopefully we will be welcoming you to Botswana next year.

Justice Motlhabani
On behalf of the organising committee
Cell: +267 72467417
Email: jmotlhabani@yahoo.co.uk

ESU Korea Debate Championships

Greetings All,

I would like to share the results and motions of the English Speaking Union (ESU) Korea Debate Championships held over the weekend here in Seoul. Many thanks to all the student adjudicators, volunteers, debaters and crazy fans who made this happen. Also, a big thank you to sponsors ESU Korea, Joong Ang Newspapers and Dr. Kil Jeong-Woo, Secretary General of the ESU Korea.

It was an awesome tournament, culminating in an exciting final debate on the topic of Adultery in Korea, held in the Korean Chamber of Commerce, followed by an awesome closing dinner (and even more closing drinks!!).

On behalf of Sumi Kim (ESU), Kim Ju Ho (Convenor & DCA), Andrea Choi (DCA) and Logan (CA).

Results >>

Champions : EDiS 1 (Nurliana Kamaruddin, Chung Yoo Jin, Kim Ah Young)
Runners Up : Hanyang 1 (Lee Ji Hoon, Park Su Mi, Cho Hyung Gu)
Semifinalists
EDiS 3 (Park Inyoung, An Hee Jin, Choi Selim)
Hanyang 2 (Jun Joon Sub, Lee Won Mo, Lee Ji Soo)

Top 5 Speakers
1. Nurliana Kamaruddin (EDiS 1)
2. Kang Jee Soo (Korea 1)
3. Ye Jing Zhi (DAE 1)
4. Kim Ah Young (EDiS 1)
5. Lee Ji Hoon (Hanyang 1)
5. Choi Jong Min (Korea 2)

Motions >>

Prisoners : Round One

This House Supports exchanging prisoners to free hostages from terrorist organizations
This House Believes Prisoners on facing life imprisonment without parole should be allowed to choose the death penalty
This House would use electronic bracelets to monitor paedophiles after release from prison

Life : Round Two

This House Believes that All States Should Grant the Right to Citizens to Have Dual Citizenships
This House Believes That New Migrants Wishing to become Citizens Should be Required to Pass a Language and Values Test
This House Believes Flag Burning Should Not Be a Crime

Sports : Round 3

This House Believes That only countries with good Human Rights Records should be allowed to host the Olympics
This House Supports the use of Performance Enhancing Drugs in Sports
This House Believes That female athletes at the Olympics should get the same amount of TV Time as Male Athletes

Free : Round 4

This House Believes that Drugs created from Research funded by the Government should be free of copyright
This House Believes that Governments should only use free open source business software
This House Believes that Once we Find the Cure for AIDS we should give it out for Free

Quarters : International Organizations

This House Believes that International Government Aid should only go to Non-Governmental Organizations
This House Would Ban Rogue Nations from the United Nations
This House Believes the European Union should Abolish all preferential trade agreements with former colonies

Semis One : That Country

This House Believes that China Should Float its Currency
This House Believes that China should intervene to support the people of Burma/Myanmar
This House Believes that China's dominance of global manufacturing brings more harm than good

Semis Two : Schooling

This House Believes that Pregnant High School Students should be allowed to take maternity leave
This House Would teach ethnic relations in schools to promote national unity
This House Believes that homosexuality should be included as part of compulsory sex-education programs

Finals : Women

This House Believes Adultery Should Not Be Illegal
This House Would Abolish all Women Only Universities
This House Would Allow Late Term Abortions of Fetuses with Disabilities

CUSID Central Novice Championships

Top Team: Hart House - Giorgio Traini and George Trotter

Finalists:
Queen's - Adam Hetherington and Meagan VandenHof
Marianopolis - David Rudin and Michael Stepner
HH - Kalim Kassam and Doug Sarro

Semifinalists:
McGill - Sean Stefanik and Nicole Gileadi
Queen's - WuDi Wu and Yiran Zheng
HH - Santiago Vega and Darryl Koh
York - Jeremy Larkins and Jeric Kison

Top Speaker: McGill - Sean Stefanik
2nd: Marianopolis - David Rudin
3rd: Marianopolis - Michael Stepner
4th: Queen's - Adam Hetherington
5th: Queen's - WuDi Wu
6th: HH - Giorgio Traini
7th: McGill - Nicole Gileadi
8th: HH - George Trotter
9th: HH - Raj Pattani
10th: Queen's - Megan VandenHof

Fall Open 2007

Hello All,
It's my pleasure to invite you all to this year's Fall Open at the University of Calgary. The tournament will take place on October 26-28, 2007.

The Tournament
There will five preliminary rounds of BP debate with a break to semi finals. We will also be using the training modules once again as an educational tool for novice debaters. These modules will be 10-15 minutes long and each module will be done by one of the attending universities. This is a pro-am tournament; therefore all teams must have at least one novice debater (someone who has not debated in a CUSID tournament in previous years). School hybrids are allowed, novice-novice teams will be allowed but are discouraged.

Team Cap:
There will be an initial tournament cap of 80 teams with school caps starting at 15 teams per school.

Judging:
Over the last few years, the UCDS has worked hard to develop a stable and reliable judging pool by holding judge training seminars and drawing on expert judges. We plan to continue this tradition and will continue to develop our judging pool and training methods. Judging for the first four rounds will be open adjudication followed by the last round with closed adjudication. There will be an n/2 judging requirement for the tournament. To ensure that our judging pool is as diverse as possible we will be enforcing this rule. Exceptions will not be made except in the most extreme circumstances.

Tabs:
A Microsoft Excel based program will be used to calculate results for the tournament. All tabulations will fall in line with WDUC norms. Our Tabs director will be Michelle Zalmanowitz.

Cost & Registration Policy
The cost of the tournament is $100/team. Registration deadline is October 22nd. No teams will be permitted after this date unless it is in the best interest of the draw. Also, debaters may cancel prior to this date without penalty however cancellation after October 22nd will result in forfeiture of the registration fee. Judges are welcome to come out to the socials, however a fee of $25 / judge will be required for additional costs.

To register please contact us at debate@ucalgary.ca, If you have any questions feel free to contact us via email, or even carrier pigeon if you are so inclined.

Tournament Staff:
CA/TD: Christopher McMillan TD: Teale Phelps Bondaroff

Introducing Smooth Tournament

Introducing Smooth Tournament: Your Private Tabbie Installation Online

Smooth Tournament (http://www.smoothtournament.com/) allows you to get your own password protected installation of Tabbie BP Debating Tab Software online. If you like the idea of running the most stable and fair Tab system around but couldn't get to installing it locally, this may be for you. Or, you can simply use it to check out the latest developments in Tabbie - data for a 150 team demo tournament is available. Simply use one of the open demo's on the site, or install your own in less than a minute. We're currently in Beta testing, so don't use it for a tournament in the coming few weeks, but further than that should be fine.

Don't know what Tabbie is?
Tabbie is Tab Software for British Parliamentary Debating Tournaments. It calculates the fairest possible draw for you, based on the official WUDC rules. It has an easy to use Web Interface, allowing input from multiple computers. Tabbie is very stable - it's been around since the NTU Worlds 2004 and is the software of choice for Bangkok Worlds 2008. Tabbie is Free (Open Source) Software. More information on Tabbie itself can be found on the new website: http://tabbie.wikidot.com/