1705138195
Consensus Judging
1705138196
1705138197
If the tournament is using a “consensus judging” approach (where all judges have to agree on one set of rankings and speaker points for the teams), the Chair should lead the post-debate discussion among the judges. Normally, the Chair should provide a few minutes at the conclusion of the debate to allow all the adjudicators to look over their notes and independently decide on their initial rankings for the teams. When all the judges are ready to discuss the rankings, the Chair can start the discussion by simply asking the judges to announce their initial rankings without discussing specifics about the round. In situations where there are great differences between the judges’ initial rankings, the Chair should lead a productive discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of the teams with the goal of reaching some consensus about the rankings. The Chair may also want to take some notes during this discussion in order to offer productive feedback to the teams. In the rare instances where consensus is not possible, the decisions about final rankings can be put to a vote with the Chair’s vote serving as the final tiebreaker. Note that many tournaments have strict time limits for the deliberation period for judges.
1705138198
1705138199
Criteria for Ranking Teams
1705138200
1705138201
Judges should consider the following criteria when making decisions about how to rank teams in the rounds:
1705138202
1705138203
· Quality of arguments or “matter” (Were the arguments presented by the teams/speakers clearly explained, well supported, and relevant to the topic being debated?)
1705138204
1705138205
· Quality of delivery/rhetorical skills or “manner” (Did the speakers organize and deliver their speeches in a persuasive manner?)
1705138206
1705138207
· Role fulfillment (Did the teams/speakers meet their responsibilities in the debate round?) by teams and individual speakers is considered less important than the matter and manner of debaters’ presentations.
1705138208
1705138209
No Automatic “1” or “4” in a Round
1705138210
1705138211
While judges need to consider the quality of arguments presented during the debate round, they should also understand that no one argument can result in an automatic “1” in the debate round. Individual teams and speakers should be given credit for bringing convincing arguments into the debate, but adjudicators must consider the body of a team’s work when ranking the teams. In addition, no arguments or actions in a debate (short of sexual or personal abuse) should result in an automatic “4” in a debate. Some approaches can and should hurt a team’s final ranking (e.g., a First Government or team that sets up an unclear debate or a second half team that “knifes,” contradicts, or otherwise does not support the opening team on their side), but the judges must still consider the body of a team’s work when deciding on final rankings.
1705138212
1705138213
1705138214
1705138215
1705138216
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132571]
1705138217
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 Appendix E—SAMPLE TOURNAMENT ENTRY FORM TOURNAMENT ENTRY FORM
1705138218
1705138219
DIRECTIONS:
1705138220
1705138221
1. Fill out form by TABBING between cells
1705138222
1705138223
2. Save the form to your computer using your school name as file name by clicking File: Save As…
1705138224
1705138225
3. Print out this form for your own records
1705138226
1705138227
4. Attach the form to an e-mail
1705138228
1705138229
5. Send the e-mail (with attachment) to (insert name & e-mail of host school contact or tournament director)
1705138230
1705138231
All Schools Are REQUIRED to Use This Entry Form
1705138232
1705138233
1705138234
1705138235
1705138236
All entries must be received by (insert date for entry deadline)
1705138237
1705138238
Debate Judges: The following people will accompany our team and will serve as judges (please note any times the judge is not available or other conflicts under “restrictions”):
1705138239
1705138240
1705138241
1705138242
1705138243
DEBATE TEAM ENTRY
1705138244