1705137540
After the debate, the Chair should dismiss the debaters and have them wait outside while the judges discuss their decision. One aspect that distinguishes Worlds-Style debate from other varieties of debate is that judges make decisions by consensus. In rare situations, only one judge adjudicates a debate. However, more often, two or more judges must agree through consensus on the rankings of the teams and the speaker points for each individual speaker for the debate. Taking good notes is important for judges to make their cases for particular rankings. To facilitate the consensus process, the Chair should lead a discussion to determine each team’s appropriate ranking.
1705137541
1705137542
In the discussion to determine rankings, the Chair has several responsibilities. The Chair should make sure that the discussion happens in a timely manner and should set a timer to help make sure that discussion time does not run overly long. Many tournaments set a time limit of ten or fifteen minutes for such discussion. Generally, the Chair will give the other judges (the panelists) a few minutes to review their notes and independently decide on their own initial rankings. That process is important to help ensure that panelists gain experience making their own decisions about a debate and also makes sure that the Chair’s opinions do not overly influence the other judges. The panelists should share their decisions before the Chair. When first offering rankings, discussion should be brief; areas of disagreement can receive more attention later. Panelists should indicate whether they have uncertainty about any rankings, but by offering their initial impression of the round, they help give direction to the discussion. Because of time limitations, discussion may need to be focused on areas of disagreement, but all positions should be discussed. The Chair should act as a facilitator; the Chair will have his or her own rankings, but should be open to the perspectives of the panelists. During the discussion, the judges must also come to a consensus on the speaker points that each individual speaker receives. Whenever possible, consensus judging is preferred. However, in some situations, rankings will have to be put to a vote. In those situations, the Chair’s vote serves as a tiebreaker.
1705137543
1705137544
All judges, and especially the Chair, should be familiar with the rules of Worlds-Style debate(outlined in Chapter Five). The rules of Worlds-Style debate are not so firmly cast that any particular action will automatically earn a team first or last place. The rankings and the speaker points are an accumulation of the things debaters do to make them more or less persuasive.
1705137545
1705137546
Judges should be open to different types of arguments, even if they were unexpected. Judges should also be as impartial as possible about the topic that was presented. Judges should make their decisions based on the quality of the arguments and responses presented during the debate, not based on their previous beliefs.
1705137547
1705137548
Judges should be unbiased toward any team in the debate and should reflect this behavior during their deliberation. Even if a judge knows that a particular team or a particular university has a reputation for having very good debaters, that knowledge must not affect the judge’s determination of that team’s specific performance in the debate. Good humor during the deliberation and during oral feedback can also help people feel more positively about the decision, even when it might be different from what they originally wanted. Once the judges reach a decision, unless it has been otherwise stated, that decision is shared with the debaters.
1705137549
1705137550
Judges should not assess rankings based on possible refutations and arguments, but should base the rankings on the actual refutations and arguments that each team decided to advance. Decisions should not be based on specific arguments that judges wished they had heard in the debate. A judge might, however, provide debaters with ideas about how to approach a similar topic that they might debate in the future. However, judges are also reasonable people, and, if an argument is too absurd or unsupported to make sense, that argument may be taken out of consideration. Each team must earn their ranking, and no team should automatically receive first or last place because of one argument.
1705137551
1705137552
The deliberation period can be contentious, so a positive attitude helps each judge feel respected and that his or her ideas were heard. Consensus decision-making will mean that some judges may not have their opinions represented by the rankings. However, using supportive non-verbal and verbal feedback will improve how everyone feels about the decision. Judges should listen carefully and stay focused on resolving areas of contention, because time is limited.
1705137553
1705137554
The last responsibility of the Chair is to complete the ballot, which should occur before the oral feedback, whenever possible. A sample typical ballot is provided below. The ballot should include the following information about the debate: judges’ names, round number and start time for the debate, and room for the debate. Then, the ballot should also include a space for a ranking of each team, a space for individual speaking scores for each debater, and a space for team score (which is the total of the individual speaker points for that team).
1705137555
1705137556
Sample British Parliamentary Debate Ballot
1705137557
1705137558
1705137559
1705137560
1705137561
1705137562
1705137563
1705137564
Remember that team rankings must correspond to a team’s combined number of speaker points. If judges are having difficulty reconciling team speaker points with rankings, they may want to reconsider their rankings. Since points and rankings must correspond, it can be helpful to begin by first ranking the highest speaker and the lowest speaker to determine the range within which you are working. The Chair will also record the information on the ballot, and, if available, get the ballot to a volunteer to take back to the tabulation room. If a volunteer is not available, a panelist may need to take the ballot back to the tabulation room in order for the tournament to run on time.
1705137565
1705137566
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132547]
1705137567
22.3 Judge as Educator
1705137568
1705137569
After the decision is made, the Chair should bring the debaters back into the room to announce their rankings and provide oral feedback. All judges should be prepared to offer specific comments both in the decision-making process and in oral feedback. The discussion of rankings and the oral feedback are important moments for the judge to act as an educator. For some debaters, public speaking may be an anxiety-causing process, and a tournament will be better if students feel supported and enthusiastic about the process, rather than defeated or nervous.
1705137570
1705137571
Oral feedback is a valuable moment for debaters to learn more about argumentation and delivery. The judges’ feedback needs to clarify how the rankings were determined and why certain teams were preferred over others. The Chair should lead the discussion of the ranking to the debaters(this discussion should also be timed; five to ten minutes is standard). Clarifying the decision in a concise and thorough manner helps the debaters learn more about debate and helps them feel that their ideas were heard and considered. Good listening, both during the debate and during deliberation, good note taking, and strong communication skills of judges help students understand the decision as clearly as possible. Judges should also be prepared to give feedback to debaters about their manner and delivery that would be helpful for them to improve for future debates, but, because of time constraints, those discussions should occur after the decision has been discussed, and only as time then allows.
1705137572
1705137573
While the Chair leads the discussion during the feedback session, he or she should also include the input of the panelists and, if possible, allow them time to give additional feedback. In the rare circumstance where consensus cannot be met and the panelists out-vote the Chair on the rankings, one of the panelists should lead the discussion of the rankings.
1705137574
1705137575
The Chair usually has the most judging experience, and his or her role is to help lead a productive conversation that respects the opinions of each judge and yet, make decisions when opinions vary. In that moment, judges can learn from one another what arguments they find persuasive and what their thoughts are about argumentation structure and delivery. Remember that variety helps keep debate interesting, and listening with an open mind helps educate judges in different ways of thinking about debate.
1705137576
1705137577
In many situations, judges may suggest that debaters find them later to discuss more specific details. Judges should attempt to make themselves available and keep their notes so they are able to have those conversations. The focus of oral feedback should be on areas that judges find relevant to debating, generally, and judges’ feedback should be constructive and especially encouraging to new debaters who may need additional practice.
1705137578
1705137579
Because many judges are former debaters, they may be tempted to draw parallels between the judging process and debating. In both roles, strong listening and note-taking skills can help to better express an opinion. However, judges are cautioned against seeing the deliberation process and oral feedback periods as “debates.” While certain teams must “win,” the process should be seen as learning and teaching moments. Judges can broaden their knowledge about debate and argumentation by remaining open-minded during the consensus period and by ignoring their preconceptions about certain positions on a topic or about certain teams. Judges may become good friends and strong colleagues by remaining professional and respectful during the deliberation process—this can be a good time to “network” and meet other professionals who are also committed to debate.
1705137580
1705137581
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132548]
1705137582
22.4 Summary
1705137583
1705137584
Oral feedback is an art. Helping students to understand their ranking, and teaching them about the nature of argumentation in a concise way may take practice, but it is a useful skill that can be applied to other group situations, to the classroom, or even to one’s career. Of course, judges who are careful about completing ballots and conscientious about time limits help a tournament run smoothly, and that improves everyone’s experience. A competition cannot happen without the debaters, but a high-quality competition also takes the hard work of thoughtful judges.
1705137585
1705137586
对于裁判来讲，给予口头评价是一门艺术。裁判需要不断练习才能学会如何用简练的语言帮助辩手理解他们的排名，并教会他们论证的实质。但是掌握这种评价的艺术对一个人的团队活动、学业和事业都大有裨益。此外，详细填写辩论评价表，准确计时的裁判会使辩论赛进行得更加顺畅，也会让比赛中的所有人受益。一场辩论赛需要优秀的辩手，而一场高水准的辩论赛也离不开深思熟虑的裁判们的努力和付出。
1705137587
1705137588
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132549]
1705137589
22.5 Terms and Concepts from Chapter 22