Judge training

Second Speakers: Contributions

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

​

​

​

• Second speakers should advance the debate by introducing a new, independent, well-explained argument that acts as a unique path to victory for their side. If a second speaker chooses to introduce a new argument, they MUST ensure that it is given enough time and consideration to be fully and properly analysed.
• Alternatively, second speakers can further develop arguments introduced by their first speaker by offering new reasons to explain why an argument is true, new impacts to existing arguments, new examples/illustrations that substantiate existing arguments, or new ways of weighing and evaluating an existing argument.

Whatever the approach they employ, they must ensure that they are “moving the needle” on the key issues of the debate.

Second Speakers: Ranking Contributions

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

​

​

Not all case continuations are equal. Some contribute more substantially to the debate than others. In a typical round, where 1Ps/1Os have fulfilled their roles reasonably well, and teams have had a successful prep, the order of substantiality for a second speaker is as follows:

• New arguments >
• New strands of logic in existing arguments, New Impacts, or New Weighing >
• New Illustrations/examples

​

​

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

Third speeches must not introduce new arguments - but must introduce new rebuttal, and may evolve prior argumentation.

​

Third speakers are permitted to, and should, evolve existing arguments in their speeches. So long as the idea being developed can be clearly traced to a development in the debate (such as picking up on an earlier response, deepening a given substantive, following on from what first or second speakers established, or pursuing a similar analytical direction), it is not considered prohibited new material. This can include:

• New reasoning
• New impacts based on existing analysis
• New illustrations

​

​

Third Speakers: Impermissible vs. Permissible Material 1/2

Third Speakers: Impermissible vs. Permissible Material 2/2

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

Third Speakers: Third Opposition

​

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

It is particularly important to note scenarios in which the First Opposition (1O) and Second Opposition (2O) do not respond to important material from First Proposition (1P) that is pivotal to the Proposition case. Third Opposition then spends their speech thoroughly responding to this material. In this scenario,

• It is permissible for 3O to respond thoroughly to a previously ignored argument from 1P. In theory, this response may win the debate for the Opposition, assuming that this argument was Proposition’s only well constructed path to victory. However, this does not fully erase the earlier neglect by 1O and 2O when considering speaker scores.
• Nevertheless, in the majority of cases this late engagement often comes at the cost of not responding as thoroughly to other well-constructed Proposition arguments.

Speaker Roles: Reply Speeches

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

Reply speakers cannot introduce new arguments and new responses. However, they should nonetheless contribute new material to the debate. They can, and are encouraged to:

• Make new observations
• Use new examples
• Introduce ways to ascertain the importance of clashes

They can definitely swing the result of a debate.

They are especially decisive when:

• The debate is close, and the reply speaker offers the cleanest comparative framing;
• The third speaker on the opposing team is high quality and introduces new rebuttal or reframes prior material;
• The reply consolidates material that otherwise appears fragmented or weak.

Judge Briefing

PANAMA WSDC 2025

Characteristics of the Model Judge

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

The Model Judge

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

​

​

• Hypothetical ‘ordinary intelligent voter’ (‘average reasonable person’); basic facts, logic, persuasion
• Impartial: Doesn’t judge teams they have personal bonds with (nation of affiliation, teams they coached, etc.).
• Unbiased: Has no prior idea who is going to win the debate. They set aside their personal opinion about the motion or specific arguments. They don’t expect teams to argue their preferred arguments or discount arguments they don’t like. They judge the debate that happened before them. They are thus willing to be convinced by the debaters who provide the most compelling case for or against a certain policy.
• Observant and diligent: Listens carefully to what debaters say and doesn’t construct ideas that haven’t been explained well. They look for substantiation and evidence equally from both teams. They track arguments, responses, and POIs – and are able to fairly and accurately summarize the debate (not necessarily to the debaters, even just to themselves) before evaluating it. PERCEPTION
• Possessing general knowledge: Take on the role of an average, intelligent listener and is aware of current affairs and basic facts without letting specialist knowledge interfere with the debate.
• Expert on the rules: Knows WSDC debating rules well and understands the words in the motion and the roles of teams/speakers.
• Accountable & Constructive: Can justify their decision based on a sound understanding of issues in the debate and the criteria for judging & gives debaters constructive and concrete feedback after the result of the debate is announced.

​

​

The Model Judge

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

​

​

Judges SHOULD NOT:

• Use extremely specific knowledge on a certain topic. A judge should never say:

→ adjudicators judge the debate as it happened.

• Assess the content in the debate based on the arguments a team could have made. A judge should never say:
• “I penalized you because you didn’t bring an argument about the economy, even though I think that is really relevant in the debate.” → adjudicators can not penalize teams for not bringing certain arguments. They can, however, give this as explicit feedback for teams to improve. Not as a legitimization of the call for the given debate.
• Assess the content based on refutation the judge is able to think of against an argument. A judge should never say:
• You explained your arguments about violence pretty well, but I thought of 3 different ways to rebut it which is why I penalized you on content. → Judges only take into account what has been said, not what could have been said in the debate.
• Fill in the gaps in analysis or rebuttal that a team has themselves. A judge should never say:
• “You tried to explain why this policy harms minorities, and even though you didn’t give the right reasons, I do agree with ou that it’s an important argument because of reason X, Y and Z. This is why I awarded you on content.” → Judges only take into account what has been said, not what could have been said in the debate. They can only give such advice during feedback for improvement purposes, if teams want to know how to make their argument(s) stronger, not as a justification of awarding marks.

-

WSDC Judging Criteria

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

WSDC Judging Criteria

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

Content (40%)

• Is what is argued - the quality, depth, and relevance of the material to the motion burden, including arguments, rebuttal, and responses to POIs.
• Even if material is not explicitly flagged as rebuttal, it may be responsive to the other side’s material.
• If an argument or rebuttal is weak / poorly developed, it is generally a content weakness.

• Is how that material is delivered - clarity, and choices in language and delivery that help the judge follow and be convinced by the speech.
• Style does NOT include Accents. A speaker’s accent (foreign-ness or familiarity of an accent, or perceived harshness or pleasantness of an accent) should never be consideration when scoring for style.
• Style is NOT about immutable characteristics of an individual’s voice - perceived to be a harsh vocal tone or pitch.
• Style also does not include the format speakers choose to organise and deliver their speech (palm cards, sheets of paper, etc.)
• Style includes body language and hand gestures (if applicable), pace of speech, volume and tonal variations, choice of vocabulary (too technical or too lay? Emotive or dry?), eye contact maintained, or fixated on notes? (if applicable), variation of pace, volume, and so on.
• Bad style typically hinders the intelligibility or persuasiveness of the argumentation offered, and could include mumbling, shouting too loudly, or speaking too quickly to be understood.

• Is why material is selected and structured the way it is - prioritisation of issues, clash engagement, framing and weighing, time allocation, when/how many POIs are taken, and how the speech fits into the team’s overall approach.
• Strategy points are awarded when a speaker identifies and addresses the right issues in the debate, even if they don’t analyse these issues very well.
• Good strategy can be independent of good content, and is intrinsically tied to good engagement.

• In BP, analysis and style are not separate criteria on which an argument is assessed.
• Style and analysis thus do not independently generate persuasiveness, but describe the necessary collective elements that make an argument persuasive.
• Being persuasive is also not just about making arguments that are, considered entirely on their own, persuasive. Persuasion in debating also rests on detailed engagement with other teams, and comparatively demonstrating why one’s own arguments are better than, defeat, and should be preferred over other arguments.

BP Judging Criteria

Style (40%)

Strategy (20%)

POI adjustment (from -2 up to +2): used to adjust scores when the POIs offered by a speaker differ significantly in quality (content/style/strategy) from their substantive speech (i.e. not applicable for Replies). Speakers whose POIs are approximately of the same quality as their speech should not be penalised/rewarded in this column, regardless of how terrible/fantastic those POIs may have been. Responses to POIs within a speaker’s speech should not be scored in this column, but as part of Content/Style/Strategy.

Points of Information

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

​

​

Track POIs asked, and reward speakers who ask good POis.

• Everything that happens within the 8 minutes of a speech is marked within the 3 categories of Style, Content and Strategy. Therefore, answers to POIs will be factored into one of these three categories.

​

POI adjustments can only punish or reward speakers based on whether they’re already very below average or highly above average respectively

• You cannot add two points where a speech is already excellent, and you cannot subtract to points where the speech is already below average.

​

​

WSDC Judging Process

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

WSDC: The Judging Process

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

Initial verdicts + tentative scores

Conferral discussion

OA preparation

OA delivery

Individual feedback delivery

5 min

15 min

2-3 min

8 min

~10 min

This entire process should not take more 45 minutes

Done individually

Done as a panel

Done by Chair or panelist from majority

Done individually

Done by Chair or panelist from majority

Final vote; filling ballots

5 min

Done individually

Tracking Debates

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

​

​

• Note-taking is an essential judging skill. While styles vary from judge to judge, what matters most is that you track the debate in enough detail to evaluate it accurately. Good notes don’t just record what was said - they also help you follow how the debate evolves, which arguments were responded to, and what remains standing at the end.
• Take notes during every speech, missing as little as possible, tracking argumentation and rebuttal.
• NOT verbatim - use shorthand, use bullet points, have CLEAR HEADINGS.
• Include your thoughts where possible, ideally in a different colour.
• Begin to write out emerging clashes in a separate sheet, with short bullets of what material goes in.

​

1. Identifying Issues

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

​

​

An individual judge begins arriving at a decision during the debate itself by tracking areas of clash and evaluating how they are resolved.

​

What are the main issues in a debate?

• The clashes/issues most discussed?

​

How do you identify main issues in a debate?

• Debaters do it for you!
• With no clash – you track and evaluate arguments and engagement.

.

​

How do I do that?

• What does the motion require teams to prove? E.g., THW abolish standardized exams
• What were/became the most important issues raised in the debate?
• Who won those issues effectively through arguments and evidence provided?

​

Always use the words the debaters have used themselves.

​

​

B. Weighing Issues

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

​

​

Once you’ve resolved each major clash in favor of one team or the other, your final task is to determine: Which clash (or combination of clashes) decides the debate?

Not all clashes are equally important. A team may win one or two minor clashes, but still lose the debate if they lose the one that most directly determines the motion as argued and determined by the teams.

• Debaters should have already done this work in the debate, particularly through later speeches.
• However, if teams do not do this job well, or if both sides leave weighing implicit, judges must interpret how that implicit weighing translates, and in the worst case, use reasonable inference and principles of good comparison to determine which material carries the debate. This (especially at WSDC) is an incredibly rare occurrence, and the majority of debates include at least some implicit explanations as to how to evaluate between clashes.

WSDC Judging Process

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

• Debate ends, debaters leave the room
• Judges take a few minutes to review notes and come up with initial call
• Chair asks panelists for their call and mediates the discussion
• Panel reaches a decision by consensus/vote
• Judges can dissent from the majority
• The chair fills in 1 ballot after consulting the panel.
• Chair delivers OA, if in majority.
• If the chair is dissenting, a panelist gives the OA.
• Teams are welcome to ask the panel for individual feedback.

• Debate ends, debaters leave the room
• Judges take a few minutes to review notes and come up with a decision
• Chair mediates a brief conferral discussion - everyone should be given a chance to speak; highlight points of agreement or disagreement so this can be reflected back to teams, clarify rules and content of the debate.
• Each judge fills in their ballot, individually (not consensus)
• If decision is unanimous or the chair is in the majority, the chair should deliver feedback; if the chair is dissenting, the chair has the option to appoint a panelist in the majority to deliver feedback
• In cases of dissent, the judge giving OA should include dissenting views as well.
• All members of panel should make themselves available for individual feedback.

WSDC

British Parliamentary

WSDC: The Judging Process 1/2

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

Arrive at preliminary verdicts

Discuss; cast final votes

OA preparation

OA delivery

Deliver individual feedback

5 min

15-20 min

2-3 min

8 min

~10 min

This entire process should not take more 45 minutes

Done individually

Done as a panel

Done by Chair or panelist from majority

Done individually

Done by Chair or panelist from majority

WSDC: The Judging Process 2/2

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

1. Conferral begins: The chair opens discussion after tentative private calls are made, by asking for calls from the panel, summarising core clashes, then inviting judges to explain their reasoning
2. All judges contribute: Each judge shares their reasoning based on where/how the Chair invites input, or if there are important additions they have to existing discussion. CHAIR PROVIDES STRUCTURE.
3. Clarifications happen as judges explain reasoning�Judges may ask specific questions to the rest of the panel as they explain their reasoning. Similarly, they should expect other judges to test their reasoning with targeted questions.
4. Brief discussion of marking ranges: Judges broadly express what the quality of the debate is, and what range they're marking speakers within, but not individual scores
5. Final decision for the debate is made: Judges may hold, adjust, or change their call, and announce their now final vote to the Chair
6. Judges independently fill in their ballots and submit them.

1. Arriving at a preliminary verdict

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

​

​

• Track the debate closely through good notes and identify issues as they emerge in the debate.

​

• Evaluate who won the issues you have identified.

​

• Decide the importance of each of the issues to the debate.

​

• Determine a winner.

​

​

​

2. Confer with panel and make final decision

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

​

​

• Use the opportunity to clarify any questions you may have about the debate
• Clarifications around the WSDC rules; e.g., can the reply speaker bring new rebuttal?
• Clarifications about more subjective elements of the debate round; did you find the style persuasive?
• Clarifications about what happened in the round; e.g., what were the impacts of the 1st arg?

​

• Participate in identifying and tracking issues as a panel
• Chairs will facilitate the discussion to arrive at the crucial issues within the round and an understanding of the quality and closeness of the round.
• Wings will contribute to the discussion by articulating how their view of a clash each.
• Chairs should also have a conversation on the quality of the room, in terms of speaker scores. This does not mean speaker scores are decided from consensus, but that there is clarity on the quality of the debate, and hence speaker scores.
• Reevaluate your decision based on the new information and perspective you receive
• Take into account the discussion, recheck your notes, and make your final decision. Inform the Chair judge in the room of this decision.

​

​

3. Fill in Ballot INDEPENDENTLY

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

​

​

• Scores and categories (Content, Style, Strategy) become most relevant at this point:
• Content, Style and Strategy are the criteria used to review the performance of each team and assess scores to each speaker. Rather than rigidly seeing them as discrete elements, these are three mutually reinforcing areas that help a judge score a particular speaker within a debate.
• The speaker scores are a mathematical expression of your decision and your view of the debate/speaker quality and not the other way around.
• At the same time, since the scores are also an expression of your perspective on quality, you can award the highest speaker score to someone on the losing team to reflect the quality of their speech should it stand out.

​

​

WSDC Marking Range

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

Scoring Categories

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

​

​

• Content, Style and Strategy are the criteria used to review the performance of each team and assess scores to each speaker.

​

• Rather than rigidly seeing them as discrete elements when determining speaker scores/which team won, these three areas should help a judge understand what team did a best job during the debate overall, i.e. which team won the debate.

​

• We are using the full range at Panama WSDC 2025.

Speaker Scale

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

• Substantive speeches are theoretically scored out of 100, but the range in use is 60-80: substantive speeches cannot be scored below 60, and not above 80.
• The average speech is 70 (28, 28, 14)
• Half marks (0.5) are the lowest fraction allowed.
• The minimum increment for speeches and category scores is 0.5. For example, a speech can receive 28.5 for content, but it cannot receive 28.25 for style.
• Judges are expected to fill in scores for each category
• Reply speeches are marked out of 50%.

​

WSDC

Overview

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

WSDC Scale Conversion to BP, Australs and AP

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

Contextualising Speaker Scores

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

Distribution of Substantive Speaker Scores (panel averages) at WSDC 2024, Preliminary Rounds

The top speaker averaging ~74 does NOT mean that someone must be the top speaker to score 74, just that they would be in contention if they can average that.

Scoring Substantive Speeches

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

Scoring Substantive Speeches

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

Scoring Reply Speeches

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

Scoring and Margin

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

​

​

Margins between teams:

• 0-2 pts – very close debate
• 3-5 pts – close but rather clear
• 5-10 pts – one team clearly better, but not dominating
• 10-20 pts – winning team dominated the debate
• 20+ pts – winning team “shredded” the losing team

Continuing with the Oral Adjudication..

3. Oral Adjudication Preparation

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

​

​

Only one member of the panel will deliver an OA reflecting opinions from all the judges.

• In most cases, the Chair judge will deliver the OA to the Teams.
• Where there is a split with the Chair in the minority, the Chair may request a member of the majority to deliver the OA.

Make sure your OAs factor in dissenting opinions in their OA

• Take notes as the conferral decision is shaping up the win/loss.
• Request judges on your panel to provide you key points of divergence, and frame the OA to cover those.

​

​

4. Oral Adjudication Delivery

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

​

​

​

• Deliver the OA
• Start with the verdict.
• Introduce the issues, and go through them one by one.
• Name initial contributions from both teams under each issue.
• Explain how the material from the rest of the debate interacted with it, and how that issue evolved over time.
• Conclude the issue by summarising which way it falls and its contribution to the overall debate.
• Keep the OA within 8 minutes, and do not reveal any speaker scores! Please time your OAs!
• Be comparative and specific.
• When explaining the decision, stick to what happened in the round. Use phrases and language from the speakers. Offer suggestions for improvement later.

​

5. Constructive Feedback for Teams/Speakers

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

​

​

Judges should make themselves available for individual feedback that usually takes place straight after the OA. In this role, you are an educator and not just an unbiased judge. In feedback, you should provide more in-depth feedback per speaker. This includes:

• Comments on their execution of their role and on strategic and stylistic choices. Cover two things:
• What they did well: Pick up their language/points from the debate to show this.
• What they can do better: This should not be theoretical. Illustrate this - if you say they need improved characterisation, give them an example of what they could have been in the debate, and what they did.
• [Low priority] Arguments/model points they could have run, in cases where teams missed the debate or strong material. Discuss these succinctly, without spending the majority of the feedback session on "how you would have run" the case if you were that team.
• Offer responses to any questions they may have, this may include case feedback, team feedback or individual feedback.

Keep it friendly and constructive - do not single out speakers for doing poorly.

Important Guidelines for Conferral

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

​

​

• Enter the discussion with openness.
• Be specific in your questions.
• As much as is possible, any clarifications should be targeted and specific, rather than open ended.
• Use language that makes space for, and facilitates discussion.
• Phrase sentences that indicate that you are sharing opinions, rather than sharing objective fact. Avoid statements such as: “This clash clearly went to X”, or “This is such an obvious win to Y”.
• Spend more time on (i.e. prioritise) contentious, important areas.
• Avoid arguments/heated back and forths!
• Chairs please lead the discussion
• It is your responsibility to structure the conferral discussion, and to guide it!
• Panellists should not spend more than 2 minutes each when contributing to a discussion.
• If something has already been mentioned, just add that it has been covered and move on to another part of that discussion. It is ok if your contribution has already been discussed and you have nothing else to say.
• While trainees do not submit ballots, they should be involved in the conferral discussion nevertheless
• Remember to be comparative
• Debates are not won or loss in a vacuum. Always compare the contributions of both teams.

Conferral v. Other Formats

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

Administrative Responsibilities for Chairs

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

Feedback

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

Feedback: Team on Judge

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

Question 1: Did this Judge: (tick all that apply)

• Provide an Oral Adjudication
• Give you Feedback after the Round
• Neither

Question 2: How would you rank this adjudicator overall? [1-10]

• Very Poor (1): This judge demonstrates a severe lack of understanding of debate rules and principles, frequently misinterprets arguments, and struggles to follow the debate flow. Additionally, they are unable to provide coherent feedback, with their comments being irrelevant, confusing, or lacking any meaningful analysis of the debate.
• Poor (2): This judge has difficulty applying debate rules consistently, often making errors in reasoning and struggling to articulate reasons for decisions clearly. Their feedback is vague, lacks depth, and does not effectively communicate reasons for decisions or provide constructive criticism.
• Below Average (3): This judge shows some understanding of debate rules but often misapplies them, resulting in inconsistent decision-making that may not align well with debate outcomes. Their feedback is somewhat relevant but lacks clarity and specificity, failing to effectively highlight key points for improvement or key reasoning in oral adjudication.
• Average (4): This judge understands basic debate rules but occasionally misinterprets or overlooks key aspects, leading to generally reasonable but inconsistent decision-making. Their feedback is generally relevant but may lack depth or specific examples, making it adequate but not particularly insightful.
• Satisfactory (5): This judge demonstrates a solid understanding of debate rules and principles, making generally sound judgments though they may lack depth in analysis or consistency in applying rules. Their feedback is clear and identifies key strengths and weaknesses, though it may lack nuance.

Feedback: Team on Judge

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

• Above Average (6): This judge shows a good understanding of the WSDC format and consistently applies rules appropriately, with generally fair and well supported decision-making. Their feedback is insightful, helping debaters understand their performance better, with clear and constructive communication.
• Good (7): This judge exhibits a strong grasp of debate rules and principles, making well-reasoned decisions based on a balanced assessment of arguments and adherence to rules. Their feedback is detailed and insightful, identifying nuanced aspects of the debate and effectively conveying feedback to debaters.
• Very Good (8): This judge demonstrates a high level of proficiency in understanding and applying debate rules, with highly objective and well-supported decision-making. Their feedback is highly constructive, detailed, and helps debaters understand their performance comprehensively, with clear and insightful communication.
• Excellent (9): This judge shows exceptional understanding and application of debate rules, with thorough, fair, and deeply informed decision-making that reflects a comprehensive understanding of the debate mechanics and flow. Their feedback is exceptionally detailed and insightful, providing precise guidance that is invaluable for debaters' improvement.
• Outstanding (10): This judge exemplifies flawless understanding and application of debate rules, with impeccable and thoroughdecision-making that demonstrates outstanding impartiality and expertise. Their communication of feedback is comprehensive, precise, and insightful, significantly aiding debaters in their development.

Question 3: Do you agree with the Judge’s call?

• Yes
• No
• I don’t know

Feedback: Team on Judge

Speaker & Judge Briefing

Panama WSDC 2025

Question 4: Was this judge in the majority decision?

• Yes
• No
• I don’t know

Question 5: Do you believe they should move from the role they fulfilled (for example be moved from panellist to chair or some other movement)?

• Yes
• No
• I don’t know

Question 6: Please provide a detailed justified explanation for the scores given about (mandatory)

[Comment here]

• Provide reasons for your agreement or disagreement?
• Was this judge open and willing to provide feedback and an understanding of the result?
• Was the judge’s reasoning and explanations clear, comprehensive, and helpful? Please elaborate.