Embedded Files
Introduction to Judging Speech & Debate
Introduction to Judging Speech & Debate
Judging is one of the most essential and impactful roles in debate and speech. As a judge, you are not just scoring performances—you are shaping the educational experience of students, fostering growth, and reinforcing the values of argumentation, empathy, and respectful discourse. Whether you're an experienced coach, a classroom teacher, a parent, or a university volunteer, this guide will help you judge debate and speech events effectively and confidently.
Core Principals:
No matter the format or event, strong judging is grounded in a few key principles:
o Educational Focus: Judges are teachers first. Your comments should help students learn, improve, and feel supported—even when they lose a round.
o Fairness and Objectivity: Personal beliefs about a topic, argument style, or delivery method should not influence your decision. Be conscious of any biases that might impact judging and try to approach the speech or debate round and the speakers neutrally.
o Consistency: Apply your judging criteria equally across rounds and competitors.
o Clarity: Be clear and specific in both your oral and written feedback.
o Cultural Awareness: Especially in international or online formats, be mindful of accents, idioms, or delivery styles that may differ from your local norms.
Written Feedback & Ballots
Feedback is an important part of the judging experience. Students improve over the course of their careers thanks to meaningful feedback provided by judges. Feedback is most valuable when it is:
o Constructive: Include actionable suggestions (“Work on signposting,” “Try pausing after major points”).
o Balanced: Acknowledge strengths and note areas to improve.
o Professional: Avoid sarcasm or overgeneralization.
Sample comments:
o “Excellent clarity and eye contact; try to link your impacts more directly to reasons why I should vote for you (voters).”
o “Great use of transitions. Work on slowing down in rebuttal for clarity.”
o Don’t just write “great job” or “more energy”—be specific so students can learn, and coaches can guide improvement.
Common Pitfalls to Avoid
Some common judging pitfalls to avoid include:
o Bias: Favoring confident speakers over those with better content or judging based on accents or style differences.
o Over-Intervention: Deciding based on what you wish had been argued instead of what was or rejecting arguments based on personal beliefs or understandings of the topic.
o Minimal Feedback: A score with no written notes leaves students and coaches with nothing to improve on.
Judging World Schools Debate
Judging World Schools Debate
World Schools Debate (WSD) is a globally recognized format blending prepared and impromptu motions.
Structure of a WSD Round
o 3 speakers per team (although the team may include up to five students), each giving an 8-minute speech
o Alternating government and opposition speeches
o No formal cross-examination; instead, Points of Information (POIs) may be offered during opponent speeches during which students may interrupt to ask questions. POIs are not required to be answered.
Key Criteria
o Matter (Content): Quality of arguments, examples, and evidence.
o Manner (Style): Delivery—voice, engagement, confidence, and clarity.
o Method (Structure): Organization of the speech and strategic positioning in the round.
Points of Information
o POIs are short interjections (questions or challenges) allowed between minutes 1–7.
o Judges evaluate how well speakers offer and handle POIs.
o Judge Tip: Strong debaters offer well-timed POIs and handle them with composure and strategy.
World Schools Judging Philosophy
o You are expected to be a lay but informed adjudicator—not a policy expert.
o Focus on the round's internal logic, not your personal beliefs.
o Holistically assess both argumentation and presentation.
Feedback Tips:
o Highlight strengths in style, structure, and substance.
o Suggest how speakers can enhance engagement, deepen arguments, or manage POIs more effectively.
Judging Public Forum Debate
Judging Public Forum Debate
Public Forum (PF) debates focus on current event topics and are designed for accessibility to a “citizen judge.”
Structure of a PF Round
o Two-person teams
o Alternating constructive, rebuttal, summary, and final focus speeches
o Crossfires (questioning periods) between speeches
Key Criteria
o Clash and Refutation: Did each team respond directly to the arguments of the other? Did each team consistently extend and explain their own arguments throughout the debate?
o Evidence Use: Are claims supported with reliable sources and clear warrants?
o Organization: Is the round easy to follow? Are arguments grouped logically?
o Delivery and Persuasion: Are speakers clear, confident, and respectful?
Judging Best Practices
o “Flow” the round: Take notes on each argument and how it’s answered. Pay close attention to which arguments are extended in each speech and which arguments fade into the background.
o Weigh arguments: Consider which issues were most important and which side addressed them better.
o Write detailed feedback: Focus on argument clarity, impact analysis, and speaking strategy.
o Declare a winner with justification: Students should understand why you voted the way you did.
o Judge Tip: Avoid intervening. Don’t inject your own knowledge—decide the round based on what was said and defended.
Judging Original Oratory
Judging Original Oratory
When judging original oratory, you should think through the following considerations:
o Content: Is the speech well-written, with clear thesis, reasoning, and evidence?
o Organization: Does the speech have a clear introduction, body, and conclusion? Are transitions smooth?
o Delivery: Does the speaker maintain eye contact, use gestures effectively, and control their tone, pace, and volume?
o Impact: Is the message compelling? Did the speech connect emotionally or intellectually?
o Judge Tip: Reward depth over theatrics. Strong oratory should feel like persuasive conversation, not overacting.
Judging Impromptu Speaking
Judging Impromptu Speaking
When judging impromptu speaking, you should think through the following considerations:
o Structure: Even in limited prep, does the speaker organize their thoughts clearly? (e.g., intro–main point 1–main point 2–main point 3–conclusion)
o Creativity: How effectively did the speaker interpret the prompt?
o Delivery: Did the speaker maintain composure, pacing, and logical flow? Did they use gestures effectively, maintain eye contact, control their tone, pace, and volume?
o Judge Tip: Be understanding of the time pressure, but reward students who clearly outline and develop ideas.
Judging Interpretation Speech Events
Judging Interpretation Speech Events
Interpretation (Interp) events include Dramatic Interpretation (DI) and possibly Poetry, Prose, or Program Oral Interp (POI) in certain leagues.
In DI, students perform an excerpt from a published work with a focus on character, emotion, and narrative control.
When judging DI, you should think through the following considerations:
o Characterization: Can you clearly distinguish the characters? Are voice and posture consistent?
o Emotional Impact: Does the piece evoke a response?
o Pacing and Clarity: Is the story easy to follow? Are tone and timing used effectively?
o Technical Precision: Is the performance memorized and smoothly delivered?
o Judge Tip: Don’t judge based on the emotional content alone—evaluate the student’s technical and artistic control of the performance.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse