Judging Guidelines

In EUDC Galway 2011, we would like our adjudicators to assess the persuasiveness of speakers
holistically and fairly.

What is holistic adjudication?

Judging persuasiveness holistically means that strategy, content and style are interdependent. One
element cannot successfully persuade you without the others.
By this we mean that deploying arguments persuasively is impossible if they are not explained
clearly, if their importance is not emphasised, and if the interest of the audience is not maintained to
listen to them. Without decent argumentation, style is empty rhetoric, a façade which the intelligent
observer would easily see through. As for strategy, brilliantly analysed arguments are unpersuasive if
they are irrelevant to the position that is meant to be advocated or if they ignore the central claims
made by the other side.
Therefore, we believe you should not seek to ‘value’ one of these elements above or below the
others, and should rather judge the three holistically. If you find yourself saying ‘2nd Gov had brilliant
analysis, but terrible style’, pause to think (not for too long, though. We have vicious runners): If you
understood how brilliant their analysis was, then surely their style was not terrible enough as to hinder
their persuasiveness. If you think ‘they had excellent speeches, but rubbish / nonsense / no goodly
points’ (depending on where you are from), then once again: if you saw through their style to realize
how bad their argumentation was, obviously their speeches were not excellent.
Please do not forget that debating is fundamentally about persuasiveness, and should not be
about not the technical fulfilment of various debating guidelines such as ‘have three points’, ‘headline
all your arguments’ or ‘start your speech with rebuttal and follow with constructive’. A speech can be
extremely persuasive without ticking such boxes. If the lack of clarity and order prevents you from fully
understanding a team's reasoning, then the speech is not persuasive, and that is the reason for their
loss, not the failure to adhere to technicalities in itself.

Style
Style will therefore often be very important, but you mustn’t ‘double count’ it: style matters internally
to persuasiveness, but not over and above the extent to which you are persuaded.
Please also remember that there are lots of ways to be stylish: there is no one correct way to
do it. For example, teams should not be penalized for speaking softly, loudly, for not telling jokes, or, as
we might wish the case was with some, for telling jokes.
Examples of things which are unequivocally bad style include (but are not limited to) speaking
too fast to be followed, speaking too softly to get the importance of the point across, or so aggressively
that you want to kill them. Shrouding your claims in evasive and unclear language, constant hesitation,
and sounding bored with your own speech are also examples of what might be considered ‘bad style’.
Speaking with an accent is not bad style and you should allow reasonable leeway for English as a
Second Language teams.
 Equally, if someone is ‘stylish’ in a way irrelevant to their persuasiveness on the issue (for
example, by telling a joke unrelated to the motion at the start), this should not be rewarded. Generally
we believe that style is everything you do in conveying your content to maximize its persuasiveness.
You should not reward speakers for using jargon; equally, you should not penalise them for
using jargon unless it makes their arguments less clear or persuasive. For example, the claims ‘corporal
punishment is inherently detrimental to the youth's self-characterization as a social agent in the post-
modern era’ on one hand, and ‘spanking is always bad to the kid's look on himself as a member of
society in today's world’ are both of exactly the same merit. In this particular case, they both mean
nothing at all.

Content
The content of arguments should help you to assess whether teams have effectively shown their claims
to be true and effectively shown their points to be important to the debate.
In a policy debate, proposition teams win by showing that the policy should be undertaken, all things
considered. Opposition teams win by showing that the policy should not be undertaken, all things
considered. In an analysis debate, proposition teams win by showing that the statement in the motion
is true, while opposition teams win by showing that it is false.
In a policy debate, proposition teams typically argue that the policy will lead to certain desirable
consequences, while opposition teams will typically argue that the policy will lead to certain undesirable
consequences. Most debates contain both disputes about the consequences of a policy and disputes
about whether those consequences are desirable. However, this format of debating does not presume
that only the consequences of a policy matter. For instance, opposition may argue that the policy so
heinously violates moral rules (e.g. those prohibiting the torture of innocents) that it should not be
undertaken, whatever the consequences. Cost-benefit analysis is not the only metric for who wins a
debate. Judges may be persuaded by appeals to justice, fairness, common humanity and other
principles that outrun the consequences.
Effective analysis should not be confused with ‘complication’. Both complex and simple
arguments can be effective; what matters is whether the claims are well-substantiated. Whether an
argument is important to the debate is determined by the motion and by the claims and arguments of
the other teams in the debate.
You should be careful not to reconstruct arguments for the speaker. Usually, if it wasn't said –
then don't treat it as if it was. If a team says ‘it will be much harder to educate children if you physically
hurt them’, you should not be thinking ‘well, it's obvious that they meant that children would be so
terrified of the prospect of physical pain that they will fail to concentrate in class’. Instead you should be
thinking ‘why?’. Debating is about explaining yourself, not hope that the judge you drew happens to
understand you even if you don't.
Knowledge is good, but only insofar as it creates a persuasive case for one side of the motion.
Knowing the exact clause on the EU charter by heart is no more persuasive than understanding its
significance without remembering the wording. You must take care not to let your expert knowledge of
a specific subject effect your evaluation of teams. We expect teams to know what the reasonable,
intelligent European student (of no profession in particular) would know. Knowing that Israel is a
democracy is something we expect everyone to know. Knowing that PM Netanyahu's party did not win
the popular vote in the last Israeli election is something only an Israel, a Middle-Eastern studies student
or an extremely knowledgeable (or perhaps ridiculously bored) person would know, and teams are
allowed to get that wrong without you penalizing them (given that no one in the debate commented on
their mistake, of course).
A team should never be penalized for not running a specific argument. There is no ‘I thought
you should have talked about the environment, so I gave you a 3rd’. You judge the debate based on what
was in it, not on what you thought should have been in it.

Rebuttal and engagement

The differentiation between ‘rebuttal’ and ‘substantive’ points is an artificial one, and aimed at making
the speech clearer for the audience. A point is as important and as valid, regardless of whether it is
labelled ‘rebuttal’ or ‘substantive’. Substantive material can address opposing arguments, and rebuttal
can advance substantive cases.
It is worth distinguishing between damage limitation arguments, and arguments which offer
positive reasons to do or not do a policy. If Prop says ‘this policy will solve world poverty’, and Opp
argue that it won’t completely solve world poverty, Opp have only limited the damage of Prop’s point:
they have not advanced a positive reason not to do the policy. Damage limitation can be important, but
cannot win debates on its own.
As a rule, teams have to engage with each other, especially (but not exclusively, of course) two
teams in the same half of the debate (Opening Government and Opening Opposition, Closing
Government and Closing Opposition). This means that teams must, either in direct refutation or through
their so-called constructive material, respond or deal with the opposing team's arguments. A team that
only puts forth its own brilliant case, and does not pertain to the arguments made by its opponent,
does not fulfill its role in the debate.
Please notice that there is no obligation to rebut each and every argument separately. A team
could very well negate an entire rationale or a basic premise of a case, concede a point, answer all of the
points with a single claim, or even solely focus on the strongest material of a team. In the course of a
debate some claims are sometimes forgotten or deserted by everyone, and a team failing to rebut
negligible points (especially ones that are not reiterated later) is not to be penalized.
In addition, an argument, even one of relevance to the debate, does not get full credit simply by
being unrebutted if it is unpersuasive due to clear logical flaws or a straightforward factual error. the
mistakes will likely not count against the team making them, and the argument will simply not work in
their favour, unless these are pointed out by the opponents. However, if you think an argument was
weak, but the argument is conceded by the opposing team, then your personal opinion does not matter.

Role fulfilment
Role fulfilment is a binary assessment, often used as a threshold criterion to judge a team's
performance. By and large, the various ‘team roles’ in a BP debate are:
Opening Government – Set the context of the debate, show a need for the proposition, present the
proposition and support it.
Opening Opposition – Essentially negate the case of Opening Government
Closing teams – offer an extension to the debate and summarize the debate.
All teams – engage with opponents.
In answer to the question ‘did team X fulfil its role in the debate?’ the only possible answers are
‘yes’ or ‘no’. There is no ‘somewhat’, there is no ‘to an extent’. If closing opposition had a terrible
extension, then they had an extension. If opening government defended their model poorly, then they
defended their model. How well they fulfilled their role is to be judged based on content, style,
strategy as explained above. The important thing is that they did.
Role fulfilment is important because it makes the game fairer for all teams. For instance, if the
closing teams can simply repeat the opening teams’ points without extending, it would be much easier
for them to win compared to the opening teams. A team that fails to fulfil its basic role in the debate,
therefore likely to rank low in the debate. However, there are no automatic last places, ever. This is the
sad truth of our lives: there can always be a team that did worse.

Points of Information
Speakers should accept at least one point of information (POI) at some point during the unprotected
time in their speech. Accepting more than two POIs in a single speech is generally inadvisable, since it
reduces time available for presenting one’s own material, but will not be penalised in and of itself.
Closing teams should, if reasonably possible, accept at least one point of information from the
Opening team on the other side. Not doing so frequently denies the Opening team an opportunity to
defend their case or clear up a misrepresentation. Judges should see this as a sign of weakness.
There is no mandatory penalty for not taking points of information during one’s speech. We
leave any penalty to the judges’ discretion. However, if a speaker took no POI during his speech even
though he was offered numerous POIs in the last minute of unprotected time, then judges should mark
his speech as though he were asked a damaging point of information and then answered it badly. In
short, it will never be to a speaker’s advantage to decline all POIs.
It is acceptable for speakers to preface POIs with “point of clarification”, but only if the POI is
purely a query for additional information about some aspect of the policy or counter-policy.

Motions and 1st Prop Strategy

Debates defined entirely outside the spirit of the motion should be penalised – their arguments don’t
support the motion. If setting a specific model is appropriate, it must be done in Prop’s first speech.
Remember that as this is an international tournament, there is no ‘status quo’ for most motions
– the existing situation will vary from country to country. Neither proposition nor opposition should gain
credit for complaining that other teams’ proposals are ‘status quo’ in their country. The exception is in
debates about an international state of affairs, in which there may well be a single status quo which can
be meaningfully referred to.
Motions are generally meant to have fairly universal application, and where they do not this is
made clear in the wording. If you get the motion THW Ban Plastic Surgery, for example, it should not be
defined as applying only to children. Nor should debates be restricted to one place without good reason.
Motions should also be defined so as to apply to the greatest number of countries consistent with the
motion being plausible and there being common arguments that apply to most instances. For
instance, arguments about penal reform may reasonably be restricted to developed democracies (since,
plausibly, poor countries or authoritarian countries may face very different issues with respect to the
treatment of prisoners), but may not be restricted to the UK or to Norway.
Motions at the tournament are not necessarily policies carried out by the state; they may take
place from the point of view of other actors. For example, if the motion was ‘This House Believes That
EUDC Galway's A-team should have made their adjudication briefing shorter’ would not be about
whether the state should force us to do so or sanction us for opting to instead take as much of your time
as possible; any arguments which hinge on this misinterpretation would be irrelevant. Another
argument which would not be relevant is ‘but they won't do it’. The debate is about whether we should,
not if we should.
Some motions may not be about policies. For example, you might get ‘This House Believes That
adjudication briefings are morally wrong’, or ‘This House Believes That long adjudication briefings are
compensation for lack of social life’. In such cases both sides should argue for or against the truth of the
statement. Proposition need not run a policy, and if they do, arguments for it will only be relevant
insofar as they help to convince you of the truth of the motion.

Opposition Strategy
Opposition teams ought to oppose the Prop’s policy, even if it is not what a reasonable person would
have expected. If, for example, Prop runs a watered-down case, and Opp then concede it and only
oppose the bolder case they were expecting, Opp should be penalized heavily for this. The exception is
when Prop makes the motion undebatable – by running something wildly unfair (genocide is wrong),
tautological (we ought to do x when it’s the best thing to do) or which opposition cannot realistically be
expected to know about (narrowing the motion to the British Virgin Islands).
If neither the motion nor the proposition team says anything about where the debate is set, it is
legitimate for opposition teams to seriously question whether the policy will work well in countries
outside the developed West, and these arguments need not be considered marginal.
Opposition teams may, but need not, offer a policy of their own. If proposition and opposition
agree that there is a problem, it is not legitimate for proposition to demand that opposition solve it with
a policy of their own; opposition only need show that proposition’s policy makes things worse. If first
opposition do counterprop, they need to do this at the start of their case, and the burden on all teams is
now to compare the two policies, not merely to assess proposition’s policy in isolation.

Closing Teams Strategy

Teams on the second half of the table need to introduce some new material in the third speech. This
need not be a whole new idea; it may involve offering further analysis, deeper explanation or new
reasons as to why a contention that the opening team has made is true, or why that contention matters
greatly to the debate
However, this strategy is more effective when it takes place on an issue which has not yet been
won by the speaker’s side. Just giving more reasons why something which has already been proven is
true, is unlikely to give a closing team leverage over an opening team, though it might help them against
teams on the other side. It is not necessary for speakers to explicitly call one of their points an
‘extension’; judges may reward new material at any point in the speech.
Second half teams should strive to be as consistent as possible with opening half teams, but this
is not an absolute requirement in one of two cases. One, if the opening team contradict themselves,
the closing team might have to make a decision to run with one of the two contradictory contentions.
Secondly, a team may ‘knife’ when the opening team ahead of them has argued a case that is plainly
impossible to make convincing to any person in possession of common sense and a conscience. Such
‘knifable’ cases involve glaring mistakes on points of fact (e.g. asserting that the UN already has a
standing army) or egregiously morally abhorrent positions (e.g. advocating genocide). These cases are
very rare, and knifing is almost always ill-advised. In addition, very minor inconsistencies that are not at
the heart of the debate, should be noted, but will likely not decide the debate.
 At some BP tournaments, Opposition teams do not have to be consistent with one another
(unlike the Proposition). This is NOT the policy of Galway EUDC, and both Proposition and Opposition
are expected to hold the same standards of consistency both within and between teams.
Summaries should summarise the debate. They should be a comparison of the two sides, showing why
the speaker’s side’s points win and preferably also why the speaker’s team’s points win.
Prop summaries may introduce new material as rebuttal, but it would always be better for such
material to come out in the extension speech if possible. Opposition summaries may not contain any
new claims or arguments, but can contain new examples, or further analysis of a point that's already
been introduced. As a rule: if the government whip had a reasonable opportunity to understand the
essence of the point (and thus refute it) in the closing opposition's extension speech, and if the
foundation for the point had been previously provided, then opposition whip may provide further
analysis on it. If the point had not been presented previously, or had been presented in such manner
that the government whip could not have reasonable been expected to refute to essence of the point, it
shall be deemed as ‘new material’ if it comes in the opposition whip speech. Please notice that new
material is not to be penalized. It should simply be ignored.
If speakers entirely drop the material of the first team on their side, this means they are not
summarizing the debate. That said, summaries should aim to stress their own team's material, without
ignoring or misrepresenting the opening team on their side. Obviously, it is also crucially important that
summaries (and rebuttal generally) do not drop the best or most important points made by the other
side.

General notes
As a rule (though exceptions are possible), less developed arguments that are at the heart of the debate,
will beat better developed arguments that are irrelevant to or are marginal in the debate.
If one team focuses on one aspect of the debate, and all other teams focus on another, it could
very well be that one team is right and all other teams are wrong. A team does not lose the debate just
by being ignored.
There is no such thing as an automatic 4th or an automatic 1st. Ever. For any reason. A team
could not fulfil its role and have completely irrelevant arguments, but still win the debate, because all
other teams were even worse (and some of our best friends have watched such debates, may their souls
find rest soon, Amen).

The EUDC Galway CA team wishes to thank the Amsterdam EUDC CA team - Leela Koenig, Jonathan
Leader Maynard, Ross McGuire, Doug Cochran – for having written an excellent adjudication briefing
that we could easily, happily base our own briefing upon.
Hope you experience something (positively!) unique,

Ruth Faller, Shengwu Li, Simone van Elk, Steven Nolan, Yoni Cohen-Idov
CA Team EUDC Galway 2011
Speaker Scale
The mark bands below are rough and general descriptions; speeches needn’t have every feature
described to fit in a particular band: our job as judges is to find the best fit. Throughout this scale,
‘arguments’ refers both to constructive material and responses.
Please use the full range of the scale, and do not revel in being a ‘harsh’ marker. There is no
metaphysical truth about what an ‘82’ consists of, the best practice is to mark in line with these
guidelines and the rest of the judging pool or it’s unfair on the teams you judge. Speaker marks
determine many of the breaking teams, and tab finishes can be big achievements for lots of people, so
please give them the moment’s thought they require. If we receive repeated reports of suspiciously low
(or high) marks it may impact upon your judging ranking.

95- You wish to immediately and unreservedly marry the speaker. Plausibly one of the very best
100 debating speeches ever given in this galaxy, which leaves you (and the opponents) virtually
speechless. We reserve the right to alert the speaker and her family. Mazal tov!
90- Brilliant arguments dominate the main issues in the round, that are amazingly well explained,
94 and demand extremely sophisticated responses. The speech is incredibly compelling. Structure
and role fulfilment are executed flawlessly.
85- Excellent, central arguments engage completely with the most important issues on the table and
89 are backed up by deep and compelling analysis; sophisticated responses would be required to
refute them. Delivery is very clear and very persuasive. Role fulfillment and structure probably
flawless.
80- Very good arguments address key issues in the round and are both well reasoned and explained,
84 although may leave avenues open for attack. The speech is clear in almost its entirety and
advocated persuasively.
75- Arguments are almost exclusively relevant, and frequently persuasive. Occasionally, but not
79 often, the speaker may slip into: deficits in explanation, somewhat simplistic argumentation
vulnerable to clever responses or peripheral/irrelevant arguments. The speaker holds one’s
attention, provides clear structure, and successfully fulfils their basic role on the table.
70- Arguments are generally relevant, and some explanation of them given, but there may be
74 obvious gaps in logic, multiple points of peripheral or irrelevant material and simplistic
argumentation. The speaker mostly holds the audience’s attention and is usually clear, but rarely
compelling, and may sometimes be difficult to follow. There is a decent but incomplete attempt
to fulfill one’s role on the table, and structure may be imperfectly delivered.
65- Somewhat relevant arguments are made, but with very rudimentary explanation at best. The
69 speaker is clear enough to be understood the vast majority of the time, but this may be difficult
and/or unrewarding. Structure poor; poor attempt to fulfill role.
60- You wish to immediately and unreservedly choke the speaker. Arguments are rarely relevant
64 and rarely explained. Frequently unclear and confusing; really problematic structure/lack
thereof; some awareness of role. We reserve the right to alert the authorities.
55- The speech rarely makes comprehensible claims. Nearly impossible to follow, little/no structure;
59 no evident awareness of role. Suicide is starting to see rational.
50- It is unclear what this speech has to do with the debate, and is both confusing and confused. No
54 structure or fulfilment of role is, in any meaningful sense, provided. At this point we assume you
are already dead and will replace you in the following round.