How to Properly Adjudicate Debates

In competitive debating, proper judging is often confused with

following the rules laid down during tourney seminars. This is a bad
misconception because first, the seminars primary function is to provide an
opportunity lay out and discuss the tournament policy, not to deal with nittygritty adjudication issues and second, even if the adjudication core allots
time to discuss these issues, the tight schedule does not permit an extensive
discussion. As a result, novice judges often find themselves trying to make
sense of all the information theyve tried to learn in about 2 hours only to
sloppily apply them later in the tournament. Based on my observation, this
could be a product of the training culture among some debate societies
where, due to limited resources, they dedicate more time developing
debaters at the expense of judges.
In this lecture, I will tackle practices that favorably affect a judges
chance of doing well in a tourney. Finally, I will deal with the tricky question
of how judges can condition themselves to assess debates purely from the
perspective of the Average Reasonable Person/Voter. Through this, I hope
to impress upon readers that the judges training should be as rigorous as
the debaters.
Matter Load before tournaments.
Read about current events. Read about pop culture. In essence, read
about topics that may potentially come out as debate topics. Judges who do
not matter load wont be able to keep up with debaters in matter heavy
motions where novel concepts and terms are thrown around. This is a
bigger problem for those who are judging rooms in the lower bracket
because they wont be able to give insights or tips after the round since they
have little to no prior knowledge on the topic to recall.
Experience debating before judging in a tournament
Put yourselves in the shoes of debaters. The best way to understand
concepts such as burdens, constructive rebuttals etc. is by way of first-hand
experience. Debate experience is not indispensable but would help you
understand debates better and is also a good practice for delivery.
Practice speaking
Good delivery incrementally increases your chances of convincing
debaters that you made the right call the same way that their good delivery
affects their chances of convincing you to side with them on the motion. Do
not let your oral adjudication drag on for too long. Choose your words and
be precise, debaters hate ambiguity because it shows uncertainty.

Pay close attention to the seminar.

Most things discussed during the seminar are what comes out during
the test. Besides, its a good refresher of what you already know.
Dont just chill during prep time, try to understand the motions.
Read the motions and try to figure out what they mean. You may find
yourselves hardly keeping up with quick exchanges if you dont. Youre not
prohibited from looking up basic definitions and context during prep time.
Prep time is not just for debaters but for judges too. Ive been with judges
who admit during deliberation that they do not understand the motion.
Dont be one of them.
Listen attentively to the debaters.
Honestly, you wont be able to note down everything debaters say
word-per-word. It is enough to be an active listener. Only note down key
points and commit the rest to memory.
Ditch the mindset that the only valid standard is utility.
You should listen to teams' arguments about what the aims and
principles of the debate should be, and evaluate the claims using them.
Utility is just among the many standards that can be used to assess an
argument. Determining the proper standard is the debaters prerogative,
not yours.
Relax and decide the way an average reasonable person or voter would
decide.
Remember that parliamentary debates simulate actual legislative
debates. Meaning they recreate situations in congress or parliament when
legislators debate contentious topics, policies and bills. After everyone had
the chance to express their opinions and defend their positions, they
proceed to voting. With this is mind, as a judge, you assume the position of
a voter.
a. An ARP/V is someone who reads the front pages and world section
of
a high quality newspaper regularly.
This is an attempt to set a standard by using an example. Ideally, you
must be informed of topics of national and international importance. A
comprehensive general knowledge is important because in the end, the only
information you can use to discredit a factual claim are those that are
generally available and accessible.

b. An ARP/V cannot use specialized knowledge to judge the round.

This begs the question of what specialized knowledge means given
that information is easily accessible nowadays.
The test is that if you have to specialize in a subject, take a course, or
read a specific book, article or journal in order to have that knowledge, its
most likely specialized.
To reach a point where youll have to assess whether you should be
using something you know to decide a win isnt a good sign. As much as
possible, you should only decide based on the information the debaters give
you.
c. An ARP/V is impartial.
While in real life, voters are not expected to decide without biases, debate
judges are expected to solely decide based on logic, reason and evidence.
You shouldnt decide based on the conclusions debaters reach but by the
quality of their analysis. Just because they conclude with Freedom of
choice or other appealing conclusions doesnt mean that the analysis is
good. As much as possible, judges should vote without allowing personal
or ideological biases to affect their decision making.

Do remember that this isnt an excuse for judges to not matter load. Its still
best to matter load as much as you can. However, you should be conscious
of the extent the information you know is affecting your judgment.
Take time to structure and organize the way you will deliver your decision.
To do this, ideally, you should do the following:
First, refresh your memory about the main arguments raised and their
corresponding rebuttals. Give special attention to the first few speakers as
they get easily forgotten as the debate develops.
Second, after determining the winner, write down the key points of your
explanation/ oral adjudication. For Asians, the key points should ideally be
issues and for BP, a comparison of teams contributions.
Third, you might realize at some point that there are things that you need to
point out but arent relevant in deciding the win such as a general lack of
engagement, loose standards etc. Do note them down.

These are only a few things that novice judges tend to miss. Judging really
takes a lot of practice to perfect (if theres even such a thing) but with the
right mindset and adequate preparation, youre guaranteed to do well.