1705137504
思辨精英：英语辩论-构筑全球视角 [:1705132546]
1705137505
22.2 Guidelines for Speaker Points
1705137506
1705137507
Speaker points do not just represent a speaker’s delivery, style, or mastery of language; they represent the quality of the debater’s arguments and their verbal and non-verbal skills. Individual speaker points represent an equal combination of the manner in which debaters speak and the content of their speeches. Speaker points help show the relative position of debater as well as the quality of that debate when compared to other debates. Thus, judges must think carefully about the points that each speaker receives and should try to be consistent in how they evaluate debaters. A speaker who receives an 85 should be very engaging, well organized, and have sound organization. Such a speaker is a one who the judges believe would be in elimination rounds; 85 is a score that should generally only be awarded in rare situations. A speaker who receives a 65 is considered poor—perhaps he or she was disorganized, lacked support for his or her arguments, and/or did not speak for the complete seven minutes.
1705137508
1705137509
The two tables below, prepared by Professor Eric Barnes, provide more specifics regarding awarding speaker points.
1705137510
1705137511
Table One Guidelines for Speaker Points
1705137512
1705137513
GUIDELINES FOR SPEAKER POINTS
1705137514
1705137515
1705137516
1705137517
Individual points are not as important as team rankings, but they are important in running a fair tournament, and they can only do their job if all the judges at a tournament assign points in a similar way. Frequently, there is a problem of a few judges giving many very high points to the debaters they judge, and this makes the points almost meaningless as a tool for running a fair tournament. The chart below should help you decide what points to assign:
1705137518
1705137519
1705137520
1705137521
1705137522
1705137523
1705137524
1705137525
1705137526
1705137527
1705137528
1705137529
Table Two Speaker Point Range and Frequency
1705137530
1705137531
The range of points is 50-100, but in practice the points are almost never outside the 55-95 range. In fact, about 99% should be in the 60-90 range, and about 95% will be in the range of 65-85. So, that means that you should hesitate for a moment before awarding speakers points under 65 or over 85. Avoid giving extremely high or low points (outside the 65-85 range) unless all the judges are very confident that it was an exceptionally good or bad speech. The average points given at a tournament should be 75, so if the points that you are personally awarding to speakers is averaging more or less than this, there might be a problem. (Of course, some judges will be lucky enough to see more above average debaters and some will end up seeing more below average debaters, so it might be okay that you are awarding more high or low points.)
1705137532
1705137533
1705137534
1705137535
1705137536
1705137537
1705137538
1705137539
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