New Zealand Debating Council's guidelines
Last updated Dec-98 by Colm Flynn

This information has been taken off the Auckland Debating Association webpage and was prepared by Wayne McDougall. For more information please see the ADA Website or email Email to [email protected] It listed as "Proposed guidelines" so I can only assume that these are subject to review.
Click here for a copy of the ADA Marksheet

The New Zealand Debating Council's Proposed Guidelines for Adjudicators

Definition

What is it?

The great majority of topics are not completely self explanatory as they stand, and need further development. The definition specifies the issues which will be fought over in the debate, and forms the basis of the team's argument.

The 'issue based' definition

Pedantic explanations of every word in the topic are usually unnecessary. A good definition takes the topic as a whole, and defines individual words only if they have a key role to play.

Ultimate authority

The ultimate authority for defining a word or topic is common usage. The extent to which common usage would recognise a particular meaning is a matter for a team to establish by argument.

Dictionaries may assist in finding a commonly accepted meaning, or provide a handy explanation of a particular word, but they have no authority to force a meaning to be accepted. Common usage must still be shown to apply; dictionaries do not have the final say.

Where a dictionary is used an edition of the Oxford is probably the most authoritative.

The criteria for definitional challenge

To be acceptable, a definition must be reasonable. This means two things. Firstly, it must be debatable, with two sides to it. Secondly, it must be true to the 'spirit of the motion', by referring to something that the average reasonable person, with no particular preconceived ideas, would take the topic to mean. Challenge to a definition must relate to one of these two points.

A team must always offer a definition that has two reasonable points of view to it, otherwise a debate cannot take place. It is not acceptable to put up a definition that leaves the opposing team with nothing to say.

The definition must refer to issues that the average intelligent person would be prepared, without difficulty, to accept that the topic means. 'Clever' definition, which strain the words of the topic to give it an inappropiate or unusual meaning, are to be avoided. Such definitions are often designed to give one team an advantage (even if only of surprise), or to avoid the issue in the topic altogether, and adjudicators should regard them with suspicion.

The distortion of reasonable moots into bizarre interpretations is not a legitimate tactic in serious debating, and it does not deserve encouragement.

Even if a defintion is technically correct, but refers to an issue that the average reasonable persons would not have taken the topic to mean, there are grounds for challenge. eg "That rape is a problem for us all" can not take rape as the oil producing seed of that name, even though the word does have both meanings.

The definition does not have to be the most common or obvious meaning, but it does have to be an easily acceptable one.

Greater leeway must be shown to metaphorical topics, but the same overall principle applies: was it true to the 'spirit of the motion'; would the average intelligent persons accept that it was a legitimate interpretation?

Both of these criteria have a number of subsets: a topic with no alternative view point can be a truism or a tautology; a meaning that the average intelligent person would not expect can be technically incorrect, or an archaic meaning, or just a silly one. Rather than specify every possible way that a definition can be attacked, these guidelines establish the two basic principles, and leave it up to teams to find ways of invoking them.

Absolute words

Special mention needs to be made of absolute words like "all" and "never". Ideally, these should not appear in topics in the first place, but where they do, both teams must take them in a way that allows an opposing case to be argued, as outlined above. It is up to the affirmative team to find a meaning for such words that makes them debatable; defining them literally, when that would make the topic unworkable, offers the negative grounds for definitional challenge. Most absolute words have legitimate uses as 'near absolutes' or 'majority' words; 'all' can mean 'almost all' or even 'most'; never can mean 'almost never'.

This is not to deny that a specific example may, on occasion, be enough to show that an entire case is wrong; what it is saying is that a team cannot automatically claim that one example is enough to break the opposing case, if that would load the other team with an impossible burden of proof.

Affirmative rights and obligations

The affirmative have the right to define the topic, and the negative must accept and argue their definition unless they can show it is unreasonable under the criteria discussed above.

The negative cannot reject the definition because they prefer a different one. Nor can they argue that their definition is 'better' or 'more reasonable'. They must show the affirmative definition to be invalid.

Where a topic is truly open ended, the affirmative team may define some possibilities out of the debate in order to bring it down to a manageable context. eg. With 'that it is safer in the South' the affirmative team have the right to safe whether the debate will refer to the world or just New Zealand. However, when there is a context already implicit in the wording of the topic, the affirmative team may not place restrictions on it by means of their right of definition. A topic about the education system cannot be defined as referring to tertiary education only, or the motion 'That the user should pay' may not be definied in terms of just the local bus service. The context that the average intelligent person would expect cannot be subdivided.

the affirmative may certainly pin all their hopes on one argument if they choose, but the negative are entitled to use other examples in their own case if they want to.

The only expection to this is the microcosm situation, where one example is truly representative of the whole field. It is rare for a topic to have such a neat subset, and where it does exist the negative would gain little by bringing in other examples anyway.

Options for the negative team

If the negative team feels that their opponent's definition is unreasonable, there are three courses open to them:

Argue it anyway. In this case it is not recommended that the negative team spend much time establishing that the definition is unreasonable. They might mention it in passing but little is to be gained by making a major issue out of the point if they intend to go along with it.

Argue that the definition is unreasonable. They must have good grounds for this, and be prepared to justify their claims by argument. They must then put up an alternative definition and argue a case on it, ignoring the case based on the disputed definition. Such a debate is judged on:

Who won the definition - an important but not over riding factor. The team losing the definition will have considerable ground to make up elsewhere. This is discussed further below; and
Who put up the best case based on their own interpretation of the topic.

Argue that the definition is unreasonable, as above, and put their own case. Also attack the opposing case, based on the disputed definition. There are then three lines being run simultaneously: the definition, the alternative case, and the attack on the affirmative case. This is known as the 'even if' case, as in 'even if your definition was acceptable, your case doesn't stand up.'

This tactic has the danger of committing a team to establishing too much, and it is better left to more experienced debaters. It is certainly decisive when it can be pulled off, but often the better course is to reject the affirmative definition, then just proceed with the alternative.

It is not a contradiction to attack a definition as unreasonable, then go on to argue the case that it is based on it, unless the definitional challenge is made on the ground that the definition does not have an alternative side to it.

An 'even if' debate is judge on:

who won the definition as above.
Who put up the best case on their own definition, with the added factor of the affirmative's case having been rebutted.

Obligations of the negative team

The negative are obliged to run a line that matches the affirmative definition unless they issue definitional challenge. In other words, the negative may not just ignore the affirmative's line and put up their alternative. The affirmative have the right to define, and that right must be wrestled from them by argument. Points made that do not relate to the territory the affirmative team has staked out are irrelevant unless the definition is under attack.

How to handle definitional argument

When a definitional argument is issued, the dispute is to be handled by argument in the same way as any other point. The onus will initially be on the negative to justify their challenge, but the affirmative team have to deal with whatever objections are raised.

The adjudicator must decide who has won the definitional point on the basis of the arguments offered, not on the basis of who the adjudicator agrees with. If the adjudicator feels that the definition was a truism, but that the affirmative argued much better in its defence than the negative did in challenge, the affirmative win the definition. The more outrageous the definition would appear to the average intelligent person, the less argument is needed to establish it as such. But the argument must be present. What the adjudicator actually thinks about the definition is not relevant.

Is definitional argument decisive?

As the definition is the basis on which the entire case is built, it has much more status than any other argument. Failure to establish a definition is a major handicap. However, it cannot be said that loss of the definition is a knockout blow, which renders further argument useless. A team can still gain matter marks for the argument that they build on the wrong premises, and may minimise or overcome the disadvantage of the invalid definition. A strong argument based on a bad definition might still beat a weak argument based on the alternative definition. Manner marks, of course, are unaffected, and may also contribute to the advancement of the team that lost the definition.

Matter Versus Manner

A debate has two halves: what is said, and how it is said. These two divisions are marked separately under 'matter' and 'manner' and the adjudicator must make the distinction in his assessment. Matter is to be assessed as though it were presented on the printed page, devoid of the impact (or lack of it) in the way it was put across. Manner comprises a speaker's style: voice, eye contact, audibility, use of an audience, etc.

Penalities must be taken from the appropriate area: polished but vacuous speakers get manner marks but little for matter; ineffective speakers with good material get the opposite.

The debate as a whole is a combination of these two areas and this must be borne in mind in one's approach to the decision. A poor argument can be shored up with good presentation, and a good case can be lost on poor speaking skills.

Winning a debate is more than winning an argument. Having the upper hand in the logic of the situation is enough to carry the day in disputes where the truth of the matter is of prime importance, such as in a court of law. This principle cannot be carried across to debating. A debate can be lost by those with the best case because they were outclassed in the skills of public speaking. Thus it is possible to say 'you won the argument but you haven't won the debate'.

When one team is better in manner and the other in argument, the decision comes down to how much better one's strength was than the other's. A much better argument overcomes a modest disadvantage a style and vice versa. Each half of the debate carrier equal weight, so a trade off should not be too difficult.

'Knock Out Blows'

This principle is mentioned elsewhere, under "Is definition argument decisive?" and "matter versus manner", but it is important enough to be raised under its own heading. A 'knock out blow' occurs when one aspect of the debate, or one tactical move (like rejecting a definition) is used by itself as the basis for the decision. Thus the adjudicator says 'I didn't think you were entitled to take that line/reject that definition/miss that rebuttal, therefore you must lose.'

This approach is unacceptable. Debates are always a matter of deciding who has accumulate an advantage over all the different aspects of the struggle, and it is never possible to say that one point alone must necessarily give a team a loss.

This is not to say that one thing, when weighed in the balance with everything else, may not be enough to bring the decision down on one side. It is also not to say that one thing, like losing the definition, may not be accorded a lot of weight, so that between well-matched team, it is likely to be the deciding factor. What it is saying is that one blow can not render one party the loser regardless of what happened before and after.

Argument

How to approach it

A fundamental principle of debating, as in any other sport, is that the adjudicator must approach the job with impartiality. The adjudicator may not hold preconceived ideas about what the topic means, or what the most important arguments are, and mark according to whether the adjudicator's line is adhered to. The adjudicator may not be influenced by the adjudicator's own personal beliefs regarding the topic or the arguments offered. The adjudicator may not allow the adjudicator's own particular knowledge of the subject to carry any weight. But these principles, vital though they are, must be qualified in the light of what is mentioned frequently through these guidelines as the 'average intelligent person' criterion.

The quest for impartiality does not render the adjudicator an empty vessel, to be filled only with what the debaters have to offer. As detailed elsewhere, the average intelligent person principle is a crucial part of the adjudicator's approach to definition, argument and rebuttal. What these two apparently conflicting requirements come down to is that an adjudicator brings to a debate the general knowledge and common sense that the average intelligent person would be expected to possess, while eliminating any exceptional knowledge or opinions. This is a fine line to walk, but essential for good adjudication. At every tun, the adjudicator must ask: 'Regardless of what I think or know to be the case, what would the average, iontelligent person, with no exceptional knowlege or viewpoints, say about this point?'

So an argument is marked down if it would strain the credulity of the average intelligent person (though an open mind must be maintained towards anything brought forward in its support). But a personal opinion held by the adjudicator though not necessarily by other intelligent people (eg that there is no God) can not be allowed to have any influence.

In terms of points of fact, an adjudicator may require substantial argument to support a claim with obvious transparencies (eg 'It is well known that Petone's foreshore is this country's greatest tourist asset'), but the adjudicator may not mark down a point of of the adjudicator's own specialised knowledge, eg a lawyer cannot refuse to give marks to argument about points of law the lawyer knows to be wrong.

An adjudicator may not hold up either their specialised knowledge, nor their personal opinions, to judge an argument, other than to the extent that the average intelligent person would do so.

The essentials of argument

Argument is not assertion. Some debaters simply repeat their side of the topic in a number of different ways as though by the force of its repetition it gains momentum. Others make the opposite mistake: presenting a lot of material, without explaining how it relates to the disputed issue. Neither of these approaches is appropriate.

A claim turns into an argument only when a speaker develops it: facts, examples, and above all, logic, are the means by which matter marks are gained, and it is for these that the adjudicator should be listening.

Facts and examples

These carry the most weight when they are properly recognised. The more obscure the example, the greater the burden of argument that exists to establish its relevance.

A fact or example is a prop to an argument, not an argument in its own right. The speaker must explain, for every point brought up, how it relates to the view the speaker is trying to put across.

Examples that are not tied into the overall theme are next to useless. It is the speaker's responsibility to clarify the relevance of the facts that the speaker is bringing up; the audience must not be left to work it out for themselves.

Quotations have the same function: they prop up an argument, they do not make one, and the acceptability of the authority to the average intelligent person determins how much weight the statement carries.

The need for research and published material

Research has a useful part to play in the approach to many topics, particularly the more serious ones. Information that goes beyond general knowledge into specifics often enhances the appeal and credibility of an argument, provided it is relevant and properly developed. A speaker may even produce an authority, in the form of a book or article or other published material, to reinforce a point.

Whether specific information is needed, and whether published sources need to be produced in support of it, depends upon the nature of the claim being made. A reference to a fact that the average intelligent person would know to be true does not need authority produced or even quoted in its support, eg a speaker claiming that 1990 marks the 150th anniversary of the signing of the treaty does not need to be backed up: the avaerage intelligent person wouldn't quibble.

Where a point is less well known, research and published authority have a useful part to play. A speaker talking about last year's butter fat production would make little head way without the latest year book at hand.

The production of published material, or even indication that the speaker has researched the topic, does not score automatic bonus points for the person doing it. The adjudicator must assess whether the argument needed it, and how useful and relevant the average intelligent person would have found it to be.

Logic

The essence of argument. Logic gives all the above a meaning; it shows why the examples, research, etc support a particular conclusion. High marks should be reserved for the speaker who is master of the logic of their arguments: a poor grade should be handed out to those whose argument lacks it.

The need for rebuttal

An argument stands until rebutted, regardless of the adjudicator's opinion of it. The adjudicator must not take issue with it in their own mind, other than to assess it as required below.

How to arrive at a mark

However, the adjudicator must still decide how much weight to give an argument in the marking schedule. A mark is awarded on the basis of how the argument would have appealed to the average intelligent person, who approached it with common sense and general knowledge, but with no specialised knowledge or personal opinions.

Avoiding a formula

The above aspects of judging an argument should not be combined into a formula approach, whereby an adjudicator looks for so many substantive points, with so many supporting illustrations, etc. A good argument can take many forms, and the way in which debators develop their case can not be laid down in rigid principles.

One speaker may develop an impeccably logical conceptual case with the barest reference to actual example, whereas another may make considerable use of quoted fact to win the audience over. Or an entire speech may be devoted, not to a succession of arguments, but to one all important one. The only way to approach a speaker's matter is to ask: 'How would this, taken as a whole, with no consideration of manner, have appealed to the average intelligent person, who laid aside their expectional views and knowledge?'

Rebuttal

The nature of rebuttal

Rebuttal must never be confused with assertion

Rebuttal depends on logic, facts and examples just as much as original argument. A speaker rebuts by showing how something is wrong, not just by claiming it is. All adjudicators should look for what a speaker says to show the speaker's opponents are wrong beyond just saying they are.

Forms of rebuttal

There are a number of different ways that an argument can be attacked:

Showing that it is based on an error of fact, or an erroneous interpretation of fact.
Showing that it is illogical (premises do not equate with conclusions).
Agreeing with it, but arguing that:

it is irrelevant to the proof of the topic;
while true, it involves unacceptable implications, eg a team might argue that euthansia is desirable because of the cost of looking after elderly people. The answer is to concede the cost, but show that many other people would also be done away with if this principle was accepted;
it should be accorded little weight, even though it is correct.

It needs to be emphasised that agreeing with the opposing argument can still lead to entirely acceptable forms of rebuttal, and does not represent a failure to engage the opposition.

Thematic rebuttal

Just as individual points and examples are only props for the overall case, rebuttal does not have to be directed at every line or point or fact a team have put up. It is the case that is the target, and there is no need for every part of it to be answered. Thematic rebuttal, which answers the argument taken as a whole, and uses examples and counter examples only to the extent that it needs to, is perfectly acceptable.

The need for rebuttal

An argument stands until rebutted, and if rebutted badly may still stand. And adjudicator may not regard anything as knocked until unti the opposing team have given the adjudicator grounds for doing so. A ridiculous case needs little rebuttal to show it as such, but it does need something.

Marking poor argument that is not rebuttal

A problem arising from the above is what an adjudicator should do with bad argument that is not rebutted; how does it figure in the debate? The answer is that bad argument gets low marks, but an opposing team that fails to show it is bad gets even lower ones. So bad argument still beats failure to rebut.

This principle must be modified by the position the poor argument had in the team's overall case: if it makes minimal contribution, the opposing team may elect not to spend even minimal time crushing it. But the more importance it possesses, the more the opposing team must be penalised for failing to deal with it.

Roles of Speakers

A speaker's matter mark has a lot to do with his or her speaking position. Leaders must define (or accept the opposing definition), set up the case, do a team split; second speakers must present substantive case and rebuttal; third speakers must rebut. A speech with excellent material which is inappropriate for that speaker's position is marked down, often substantially.

Future drafts of these guidelines will have a fuller explanation of what is expected of each speaker.

A team's total mark should reflect the performance of all three speakers, and should not be overly influenced by one particularly good or bad one. A brilliant third speaker by him or herself is rearely enough to make up for two bad team mates, and a good leader can not carry a team without comparable performances elsewhere.

One Sided Motions

Adjudicators should not make allowances for the team that appears to have the worst side of the topic. Affirmative teams are obliged to offer debatable propositions regardless of the wording of the motion, and a team that is genuninely disadvantaged can take issue with the definition. Otherwise teams should get on with the job without the adjudicator making a special mental weighting in favour of the one the adjudicator feels has a raw deal. Such weightings, if permitted, would open the way for too much influence from the adjudicator's subjective impressions. It would also give advantages to a team that took a weak line when other opportunities were present. Every non-truistic argument has a counter argument; if a team can't find it, that is their problem.

Marking

Benchmarks

In the interests of consistency we recommend the following benchmarks:

A speech marked

in the 50's = Poor
in the 60's = Below average
in the 70's = Average
in the 80's = Very good
in the 90's = Outstanding (eg at nationals this would be reserved for speakers short listed for the New Zealand team).

These marks obviously relate to the grade in which the debate is being held.

The need to make the decision at the time of the speech

Marks should be determined at the time of a speech, and not at the end of the debate, otherwise a speaker will be marked, not as the speaker appeared to the adjudicator at the time, but as the speaker appeared in the light of subsequent argument. However, this is not to rule out the fine tuning of marks that is often necessary to maintain proper relativities between speakers. A mark may be adjusted later to keep the advantage where the adjudicator thinks it should be, but the overall impression of the speaker should be recorded at the time he or she spoke.

The role of marks

An adjudicator should be able to identify reasons why one team won and the other lost above and beyond the arithmetic of the amrk sheet, and should not just add up the marks to find out who won. Marks should refect the adjudicator's decision, under no circumstances should they make it.

Changing the announced result

If it ever turns out that the marks were added incorrectly, and the losing team actually has the higher total the result that was announced shall still stand.

Penalties

Rather than allowing adjudicators to make up their own minds about which flaws deserve to be penalised, we propose that:

Going more than one minute under or over time should attract a small manner penalty. Going under time is also likely to be reflected in the matter marks.
Losing a point of order should not in itself affect a speaker's marks, except insofar as it disrupts the debate. The flaw it refers to should be assessed in isolation of the point of order.
A team loses marks for behaviour which disrupts the debate, such as:

Isolated or repeated points of order which are clearly so spurious their intent is to disrupt;
Interjecting that goes beyond being short and witty and becomes barracking;
Audible team conferences.

Marks should be lost for matter which taken in the context of the debate and the audience would be found offensive by the average intelligent person.
Lack of adherence to the stated team split should be penalised in the team work marks.

The Speech of Adjudication

The last thing any debate needs is a ninth speaker. Adjudication speechs should be like interjections: short, witty and to the point.

Instead of going through the debate speaker by speaker, the adjudicator should offer an overview of what happened, and mention individuals only in relation to some particular high light. It is often appropriate to offer to take up the decision in more detail with the speakers afterwards, if they want to.

The most important responsibility an adjudicator has in their address is to let every body know why the adjudicator called the decision the way the adjudicator did. If one team had a poor definition, but defended it well, and the other team put up a weak case on their own definition, then all of this needs to be said. Complaints about decisions often result from debaters not knowing why they lost; good explanations can avoid a lot of trouble.

ADA, PO Box 3233, Auckland Central, New Zealand Ph +64-9-6252847 Fax +64-9-6252851 Mobile +64-25-962783 Email to [email protected]

Return to main page