The

World Universities Debating

Championships

Debating and Judging Manual

Table of Contents
Introduction: Rules and Guidance .............................................................................................2
1. The Core Rules of British Parliamentary Debating at Worlds ................................................5
1.1 The Basic Format of BP Debating: Four Teams, Eight Speakers ......................................5
1.2 Length of Speeches ..........................................................................................................5
1.3 Roles of the Four Teams .................................................................................................. 6
1.4 Points of Information .......................................................................................................6
1.5 Before the Debate............................................................................................................8
1.6 Breaches of Order ............................................................................................................9
1.7 Tournament Structure ...................................................................................................
10
2. Debating and Judging at Worlds ..........................................................................................12
2.1 Winning a Debate ..........................................................................................................12
2.2 What is persuasiveness? ................................................................................................13
2.3 Rebuttal, Engagement, and Comparisons .....................................................................17
2.4 What determines the burdens?.....................................................................................18
2.5 Role Fulfilment ...............................................................................................................21
2.6 Defining the Debate .......................................................................................................22
2.7 Opposing the Debate .....................................................................................................27
2.8 Extending the Debate – Member Speeches .................................................................. 28
2.9 Summarising the Debate – Whip Speeches ...................................................................
29
2.10 POIs, Timing and Equity ...............................................................................................30
3. Additional Notes for Judges .................................................................................................
33
3.1 Deciding the results .......................................................................................................33
3.2 Managing the deliberation ............................................................................................35
3.3 Filling in the ballot..........................................................................................................36
3.4 Announcing the Result ...................................................................................................
37
3.5 Feedback on Adjudicators..............................................................................................38
3.6 Some Pitfalls to Avoid in Decision-Making and Feedback .............................................38
3.7 Some Advice on Setting Motions ...................................................................................40
Appendix 1: The Worlds Speaker Scale ...................................................................................44
 Introduction: Rules and Guidance
This World Universities Debating Championships (͚WUDC or ͚Worlds ) Debating and Judging
th
Manual was initially compiled in advance of the 35 World Championships in Malaysia. In
the three and a half decade history of Worlds, there has not been a single authoritative
document, beyond the WUDC Constitution, which specifies how debating and judging takes
place at the World Championships. This is a problem, making debating less accessible and
more confusing by raising the barriers of entry for new institutions who lack long years of
experience at Worlds and cannot find a clear go-to document for guidance. It also makes the
judging of debates more inconsistent and random – without a clear statement of the shared
norms of Worlds debating and judging, judges necessarily rely more on personal intuition
and their local debating norms to reach a result. And it makes the competition of debating
more unfair: with so much ͚insider knowledge unspecified and uncodified, talented new
debaters without expert coaching or experienced peers are at an inescapable disadvantage,
because there is no identifiable document which explains the rules and principles which
their speeches should follow, and by which they will be judged. The first compilers of this
manual (we hope there will be future editors and amenders), think these problems are
serious enough to warrant an effort at codification.

That is not to suggest, however, that this manual has been written from scratch. Successive
adjudication teams at the World Championships and major regional tournaments have
produced an increasingly detailed and helpful set of guidelines, rules, norms, and
clarifications to make debating and judging at Worlds more consistent, fair, accessible, and
understandable. This manual is much more of an integration of those documents than it is a
replacement of them. As such, it has not one author but dozens – and we hope all of them
would approve of this effort to integrate what they have produced.

The important bit: Rules and Guidance

This manual is divided into three chapters. Chapter One explains the fundamental format
and operation of debates in the British Parliamentary (BP) format used at Worlds. The main
chapter, Chapter Two, explains how judges should evaluate debaters and, consequently,
how debaters ought to debate. Chapter Three offers some additional notes for judges,
covering issues like how the deliberation process works, speaker marks, giving feedback,
some pitfalls to avoid, and so on.

Ultimately, everything in Chapters One and Two of this manual can be divided into two sorts
of statement: Rules and Guidance. Rules are obligatory requirements of BP debating, most
of which are found in the WUDC Constitution – breaching these rules is impermissible,
though in many cases the infraction might be small, not especially reprehensible, and easily
remedied. Many rules strictly prohibit certain practices: for instance, it is not permitted to
offer a POI later than six minutes into a speaker s speech. A very small number of such
breaches of the rules – offering a POI after six minutes, speaking for longer than 7 minutes
and 30 second, or bringing props into a speech, may require intervention by the Chair of the
debate (though ideally swift and minimal intervention) to stop the speaker breaching the
rules (the chair may, for example, instruct the maker of a POI or the current speaker to sit
down and stop talking). We call these ͚breaches of order – see section 1.6.
Other rules handle how a Chair should assess features of speeches in determining the
relative persuasiveness of teams. Many of these are found in their seed form as
Constitutional rules, but have been developed by longstanding practice and common
acceptance into complexes that have elements of both rules and guidance. Examples
include appropriate handling of failures to take POls, consideration of off-putting stylistic
features, and assessment of whether an argument has actually been logically persuasive.
Breaches of these rules will rarely if ever require any intervention by a Chair, instead they
are considered in the judge s assessment of how persuasive a speaker was when it comes to
adjudicating the debate. ln other words, the rules specify what can and cannot be done in
debaters efforts to win debates. They are not optional, though in the vast majority of cases
violations of them are small mistakes and should be treated as such, rather than being
deemed an outrageous attempt to cheat.

But at several points this manual makes statements which are not rules but guidance – we
have tried to always be explicit it stating that something is guidance rather than a rule.
Guidance is general advice on how to succeed in debating. For example, it is sensible, if you
want to be persuasive, to structure your speech in certain ways: to explicitly label your
points, and to use examples from a range of different cases, for instance But one doesn t
need to do any of these things to be persuasive or win a debate, and there is no reason why
someone who labels their points should necessarily be deemed any more persuasive than
someone who doesn t Explicitly labelling points will usually help a speaker convey their
argument to the judges – but there may be other ways to do this or circumstances in which
explicit labelling is unnecessary. Guidance thus constitutes general advice from the authors
of this manual to debaters or judges – much like the tips or advice a coach would give –
which they are free to follow or abandon as they wish. Crucially, a team should never be
penalised, in the judging of a debate, for failing to follow any guid ance offered in this
man u al si mp l y “b ecau se i t s th e gu i d an ce o f fered i n th e manu al ” Put
another way: judges have to judge how persuasive teams are according to the rules, not
how well the teams follow our guidance.

The Future
We are alert to the danger of people treating any codification of the rules of debating as an
attempt at some final definitive ͚setting in stone of how debating works That is not our
intention. We do hope that this manual will continue to be used by future World
Championships and will provide a consistent set of rules and guidelines regarding debating
and judging. Radically changing the content of the manual every year would undermine any
benefit it provides for the debating community. But we assume that this manual should
ultimately be an evolving document – one which can be modified by future Worlds
Adjudication Cores (the set of designated senior adjudicators responsible for managing
judging and motion-setting at the World Championships) in response to new developments,
challenges, and shifts in debating norms.

Above all, we hope this manual helps make the World Championships more accessible, fair
and, above all, enjoyable for all participants.
 Some of the Authors

The Malaysia Worlds 2015 Adjudication Team

Shafiq Bazari, Jonathan Leader Maynard, Engin Arıkan, Brett Frazer, Madeline
Schultz, Sebastian Templeton, Danique van Koppenhagen

Past Worlds Chief Adjudicators

Michael Baer, Sam Block, Doug Cochrane, Lucinda David, Harish Natarajan, Sharmila
Parmanand

The Manchester EUDC 2013 Adjudication Core

Shengwu Li, Andrew Tuffin, Joe Roussos, Filip Dobranić, Dessislava Kirova, Omer Nevo

And with thanks to Sam Block, Jonathan Leader Maynard and Alex Worsnip, for their original
work on the Worlds Speaker Scale.
 1. The Core Rules of British
Parliamentary Debating at
Worlds
1.1 The Basic Format of BP Debating: Four Teams, Eight Speakers
Each debate will contain four teams, each team consisting of eight speakers.
Government Bench Opposition Bench
There are two teams on each side of the debate.
On one side are Opening Government (OG) and
Closing Government (CG), on the other side are Opening Opening
Opening Opposition (OO) and Closing Opposition Government (OG) Opposition (OO)
(CO). The two sides of the debate are sometimes
called ͚benches – as in, ͚the Government bench
and ͚the Opposition bench The first two teams in Closing Government Closing Opposition
the debate (OG and OO) are sometimes collectively (CG) (CO)
called the ͚opening half , whilst the third and fourth
teams in the debate (CG and CO) are sometimes
collectively called the ͚closing half Fig. 1 – The four teams in a BP debate

In the order specified below, speakers from the four teams give their speeches, with each
speaker giving one speech:
1. First speaker (the ͚Prime Minister ) from the OG team,
2. First speaker (the ͚Opposition Leader ) from the OO team,
3. Second speaker (the ͚Deputy Prime Minister ) from the OG team,
4. Second speaker (the ͚Deputy Opposition Leader ) from the OO team,
5. First speaker (the ͚Government Member ) from the CG team,
6. First speaker (the ͚Opposition Member ) from the CO team,
7. Second speaker (the ͚Government Whip ) from the CG,
8. Second speaker (the ͚Opposition Whip ) of the CO Team.

The debate is presided over by a ͚Chair , a designated individual who oversees the
proceedings of the debate, calling on speakers to speak and enforcing the rules. At Worlds,
the Chair will usually be one of the judges – the individuals who will ultimately decide the
result of the debate. In the Grand Final of the tournament, the Chair might be a designated
Master of Ceremonies or another designated individual not judging. Each debate will also
usually have a timekeeper, who could be the Chair, another judge, or another individual
entirely, who times speakers speeches.

1.2 Length of Speeches

Speeches should last for 7 minutes. Time signals (usually a bang on the table, ring of a bell,
or clap of the hands) will be given by the timekeeper to indicate when 1 minute, 6 minutes
and 7 minutes (often indicated by a double clap/bang) have elapsed. Though speakers
should ideally finish their speech by 7 minutes, they may legitimately continue to speak in
order to finish their sentence or wrap up a conclusion. As a general rule, this shouldn t take
more than a further 15 seconds. If a speaker tries to use this leeway to make any additional
points, judges are no longer permitted to take this into account. Beyond 7 minutes and 15
seconds, judges are no longer permitted to take anything the speaker says into account. The
Chair or timekeeper of the debate may, at their discretion, bang the table or clap three
times at 10 second intervals after 7 minutes 15 seconds to remind the speaker that they are
now well beyond their time limit. If the speaker continues speaking past 8 minutes (which
should never happen), the Chair of the debate should ͚call order (see section 1 6), and
instruct the speaker to sit down.

1.3 Roles of the Four Teams

Each team has a role to play in the debate, and the speakers from that team should attempt
to fulfil that role effectively:

(i) OG should define the motion, advance arguments in favour of their side, and
rebut arguments made by teams on the Opposition side of the table.

(ii) OO should rebut OGls case (i.e. the general set of arguments they have offered)
and advance constructive arguments as to why their side of the table should win
the debate.

(iii) CG must provide further arguments and analysis in favour of the motion, which
are consistent with, but distinct from, the substantive material advanced by OG,
as well as refuting the analysis of the Opposition teams. The Government Whip
must summarise the debate as a whole on behalf of the Government bench, and
should not add new arguments.

(iv) CO must provide further arguments against the motion, which are consistent
with, but different from, the arguments advanced by OO, as well as rebutting
arguments made by the Government teams. The Opposition Whip must
summarise the debate as a whole on behalf of the Opposition bench, and must
not add new arguments.

More detail on these roles can be found in Chapter 2.

1.4 Points of Information

The first and last minute of each speech is known as ͚protected time , during which no
Points of Information (POIs) may be offered to the speaker who is making their speech.
During the intervening 5 minutes (i.e. between 01:00 and 06:00) points of information may
be offered.

A POI is a formalised interjection from any speaker on the opposite side of the table to the
speaker who has the floor. A POI may last up to 15 seconds. It can take the form of a
comment or a question to the speaker who has the floor. It is up to the speaker who has the
floor to decide which POIs to accept (i.e. allow to be made) or reject (i.e. not allowed to be
made). Each speaker should accept at least one POI, and ideally accept two (they may
accept more if they wish, though this is not generally advisable). To offer a POI a speaker
should stand and say “point of information”, “on that point”, “sir” or “madam” They
should not offer a POI by uttering anything which reveals the content of the POI before it
has been
accepted (by saying, for example ͞on the law or ͞not at all! ) If the POI offered is refused,
the speaker who offered it should sit down immediately.

POIs may not be offered after the 6 minute mark in a speaker s speech, and at 6 minutes all
speakers currently standing (to indicate that they have offered a POI) should sit down. It is
acceptable for a POI which was offered and accepted before the 6 minute mark to continue
to be made past the 6 minute mark – it should continue until the debater offering it has
been cut off or concluded their POI. It is also acceptable for a POI offered before 6 minutes
to be accepted by a speaker dead on the 6 minute mark and then be made – the speaker
getting their acceptance of the POI in just as the debater offering the POI is sitting down, in
other words. Once all speakers are sitting, though, there are no POIs currently being offered
and no more may be offered or accepted since the clock has passed 6 minutes.

Cutting Off: Interrupting a debater who is giving a POI is known as ͚cutting off . A speaker
may legitimately cut off a POI after 15 seconds and resume their own speech – ideally by
addressing the POI offered to them. Speakers should not cut off a debater who is giving a
POI before 15 seconds has elapsed, unless the question being asked is fully clear at that
point. Chairs should consider, in assessing a speaker who has cut off a POI prior to 15
seconds, whether the speaker has properly engaged with the point of the POI. One factor in
assessing this may be whether the speaker asking the POI has at this point expressed a
complete question and is attempting to include a second, separate, question in that time.
Regardless, whenever a debater delivering a POI is cut off (rightly or wrongly) they must
stop speaking, and sit down. Obviously if a debater giving a POI finishes their POI in under
15 seconds, a speaker is not cutting them off when they then resume their speech.

Barracking/Badgering: After a POI has been offered to a speaker and rejected by them,
another POI should not be offered within the next ten seconds by any debater. Persistently
breaching this rule, i.e. continuously offering points of information to a speaker in quick
succession, is known as barracking or badgering. This is not permitted, as it is disruptive to
the debate and unfair to the speaker.

Points of Clarification: Debaters sometimes offer points of information with the phrase
͞point of clarification , usually to the Prime Minister s speech, to indicate that they wish
to ask a question about how the Prime Minister is setting up the debate, rather than make
an argument against their case. This is permitted – but points of clarification otherwise
function entirely as any other point of information. Speakers are not obliged to take a POI
just because it was labelled as a point of clarification. Taking a point of clarification does
͚count as taking a POI – because it is a POI. Points of clarification have no special status in
the rules whatsoever, speakers offering a POI are simply allow to use the label ͞point of
clarification when offering their POI

POIs do not initiate a dialogue. Once the POI has been made/cut off, the debater making it
sits down. They must offer a new POI if they wish to interrupt the current speaker again.

The choice of which team(s) the speaker chooses to take a POI from should be integrated
into the judge's consideration of whether or not a speaker has engaged well with other
teams. This judgement is also likely to be affected by how active teams were in offering
POls. lf, for example, the OG team offers a CO speaker plenty of POls, which are
continuously refused, and then CG, who have not offered any POls, offer one some minutes
into the CO speaker s speech and it is accepted this may be symptomatic of CO trying to
ignore or ͚shut out OG. This does not suggest a confident willingness to engage with their
arguments. Speakers may not demand that certain speakers or teams stop offering POls –
all debaters have the right, throughout the debate, to offer POls to speakers from the other
side.

N.B. lf a speaker does not take a POl but was not offered more than one or two POls,
particularly later in their speech, this will not usually reflect negatively on their engagement
with other teams and as such should not normally be penalised. A speaker in such
circumstances may explicitly ask for a POl, and doing so will demonstrate a willingness to
engage with arguments even if no POl is subsequently offered.

1.5 Before the Debate

The Motion: Each round has a specific topic, known as the ͚motion . The motions are set by
a team of senior judges at the tournament known as the ͚Adjudication Core (or sometimes
͚AdjCore for short). The Adjudication Core will announce the motion for each round of
debates along with the ͚draw (showing all the rooms in the tournament and the positions
in which each team in the competition will be debating in each room) to all participants 15
minutes before the debates begin. lf debaters are uncertain about the literal meaning of a
word in the motion, they may ask a member of the Adjudication Core to define it for them.
They may not ask anyone other than a member of the Adjudication Core to explain any
words in the motion. They may also not ask for any further assistance from the Adjudication
Core beyond a simple definition of the word they are unfamiliar with.

Preparation Time: Judges should call debaters into the debate room 15 minutes after the
motion is announced. During these 15 minutes teams should prepare their speeches. Teams
may only prepare in their teams – i.e. the two speakers in a team must confer solely with
each other while preparing. Receiving assistance from anyone else during prep time, such as
coaches, other members from their institutions, or anyone else, is strictly prohibited –
teams spotted doing this should be reported, and may be penalised by disqualification from
the tournament. Teams may not use any electronic devices to aid them in their preparation,
with the exception of stopwatches (the use of mobile phones is allowed only insofar as the
phone is used as a stopwatch) and electronic (off-line) dictionaries – unless they receive
1
authorisation in advance from the Adjudication Core due to special circumstances.

1
We hope that no team at Worlds breaches these strict prohibitions. However, if you are a debater, and you
witness another debater preparing with someone other than their partner or illegitimately using electronic
devices, you should report this to a member of the Adjudication Core, or if they are not available, to any Chair
judge or, if no Chair judges can be found, to any other judge. A judge informed about this should try to visually
confirm that the team in question is indeed illegitimately preparing with outside assistance/illegitimately using
electronic devices (ideally, they should also get another judge to witness this). They should then ask the team
to provide their team name, and explain that preparing with someone other than your partner/using
electronic devices for purposes other than timing or as an electronic dictionary is strictly prohibited.
They should then (either immediately or after that round of debates is completed) inform a member of
the Adjudication Core about the issue.
Teams must be ready to enter the debate room once the 15 minutes has elapsed. Late
teams risk being replaced by a ͚swing team (a special ad hoc team created to replace them,
which is not a fully participating team at the tournament), which will be summoned if they
are not ready to enter the debate room after 15 minutes of preparation time. If the
summoned swing team has reached the debate room, and the debate has begun, before the
actual team has arrived, then the actual team will not be allowed to participate in the
round, and will score zero points for that round.

Iron-manning: Occasionally, a speaker may fall ill or otherwise be unable to speak in a

debate even though their partner is able to debate. In such circumstances, at the discretion
of the Adjudication Core, the available speaker may still be allowed to participate in the
debate on their own giving both their team s speeches – this minimises the disruption to
the tournament (and the available speaker) caused by one speaker being unavailable. This is
known as ͚iron-manning . From the perspective of other teams in the debate, and the
judging panel, this team of one speaker giving both speeches functions just like a normal
team – they may receive any rank in the debate from first to fourth, and will receive two
speaker marks, one for each speech, and other teams in the debate will be awarded the
other ranks as normal. In the ͚tab (the tabulated results for the tournament, maintained
round on round and used to determine the break), however, the iron-manning team will
receive zero team points, the absent speaker will receive zero speaker points, and the iron-
manning speaker will receive a single speaker score, the higher of the two speeches they
gave.

1.6 Breaches of Order

For the debate to be able to proceed properly, and for all speakers to have a fair chance to
deliver their speeches, all debaters (and anyone else in the debate room) are required to
refrain from disrupting the debate. Any of the following activities are considered to be
disrupting the debate:
• talking beyond eight minutes
• barracking/badgering
• when not delivering a speech or a POI, talking in an audible volume or otherwise
generating distracting noise
• engaging in other highly distracting behaviour
• offering POIs in any way other than those described in section 1.4
• using props (any physical object, diagram, etc.)
• continuing to offer a POI after being cut off by the speaker speaking or by the Chair.

These are not only breaches of the rules and/or appropriate debate conduct as it is
commonly understood but are also breaches of order. Unlike other breaches of the rules
(which simply damage a team s chance of getting a good result in the debate) breaches
of order should be enforced by the Chair of the debate by calling order.

Calling Order: When the Chair of a debate utters ͞order it is a demand that all speakers
immediately cease any of the breaches of order listed above. This should not happen
often. Provided debaters adhere to the call to order, no further action is taken. A Chair
should never call order for a breach of the rules which is not a breach of order.
Stopping the Clock: In exceptional circumstances the Chair is entitled to clearly say ͞stop
the clock ; in which case the current speaker should immediately halt their speech, and the
timekeeper of the debate should pause the stopwatch being used to time speeches. This
measure should only be used in response to severe obstacles to the debate proceeding
which need to be addressed urgently and cannot wait for the current speaker to finish their
speech – for example, one of the debaters or judges fainting or suffering a medical
emergency; or a severe and persistent disruption to the debate, such as a constantly
heckling audience member, a technical failure in sound equipment that might be being used
in the debate, and so forth. In any such instance, the key objective of stopping the clock is to
protect the welfare of all those involved in the debate, and to allow the obstacle to the
debate proceeding to be dealt with as swiftly as possible (this may involve abandoning the
use of any sound or recording equipment, having someone take an ill debater for medical
attention, removing an unruly audience member from the room, and so forth). This will only
very rarely be necessary in response to a breach of order, and is more commonly required
due to an external interruption to the debate. Once this has been done, the Chair should
check that the speaker is ready to resume the speech, call for the clock to be restarted, and
allow the speaker to continue their speech from the point at which the clock was stopped.

1.7 Tournament Structure

The World Universities Debating Championship is structured in two halves (see the diagram
below). The larger bulk of the tournament usually taking place over the tournament s first
three days, consists of a number of preliminary rounds (often termed ͚in-rounds ) in which
all debaters at the tournament take part – historically there have been nine such in-rounds.
Most of these rounds are ͚open , meaning that teams find out the results of the debate, and
receive feedback from judges, at the end of each round. The final few rounds, however, are
͚closed – results and feedback are not immediately given to speakers, but can be
2
obtained from judges once the ͚break (see below) has been announced.

After the in-rounds, the best performing teams in the tournament advance to a final set of
knock-out rounds (often termed ͚out-rounds ) whilst the remaining teams do not – this
process is known as ͚the break . Teams are ranked in order according to the total ͚team
points they have accumulated over the in-rounds (3 points for each first placed finish in a
debate, 2 points for a second placed finish, 1 point for a third, and 0 points for a fourth),
with teams tied on total team points ranked according to their total ͚speaker points (a mark
out of 100 each speaker on the team receives for their speech in each room). At current
Worlds, 48 teams progress through to the ͚Open Break (for which any team at the
tournament is eligible), usually 16 teams progress through to the ͚ESL Break (for which only
teams with two ESL or EFL speakers are eligible) and usually eight teams progress through to
3
the ͚EFL Break (for which only teams with two EFL speakers are eligible). A team that
makes the Open Break may not also participate in the ESL or EFL Breaks, and a team in the
ESL Break may not also participate in the EFL Break. Those teams that make it into the three
breaks then participate in three separate knock-out draws, progressing towards an Open
Final, ESL Final and EFL Final, the winner of which becomes the World Champion in that
category.

2
This postponement in giving the results ensures that teams do not arrive at the break with sure knowledge
of whether they will advance to the knock-out stages or not.
3
This is assuming that the constitutional requirements for these breaks are met – the WUDC Constitution
requires a minimum number of ESL and EFL eligible teams participate in the tournament for each stage of
ESL
or EFL finals to be included. If, for example, a smaller number of ESL teams are present, the ESL break may
only be to Semifinals (eight teams); if a larger number are present, the break may be expanded to include
Octofinals (32 teams).
 2. Debating and Judging at Worlds
2.1 Winning a Debate
Teams in a debate are all aiming to win the debate. For both debaters and judges, the
central statement on how teams win debates is as follows:

Teams win debates by being persuasive with respect to the burdens their side of the
debate is attempting to prove, within the constraints set by the rules of British
Parliamentary Debating.

There are two important comments to make about this central statement:
(i) One could stand up in a debate and be persuasive about anything, but this will
not help to win a debate unless it is relevant to the burdens teams are seeking to
prove.
(ii) The rules of debating constrain legitimate ways to be persuasive. For example, in
the absence of rules, the Opposition Whip could often be very persuasive by
introducing entirely new arguments, but the rules prohibit this. As such,
elements of a speech can only help a team win a round if they are both
persuasive and within the rules.

Judging who wins as the ‘ordinary intelligent voter’

In most walks of life, persuasiveness is highly subjective – the degree to which we are
persuaded by something reflects our existing beliefs, our personal aesthetic or stylistic
preferences, our particular interests, and so forth. It would be problematic if debating was
judged so subjectively – outcomes would hinge as much on whom the judges were as on the
debaters performance with one side of the debate becoming much harder to win from
because the judges were predisposed to disagree with it.

Consequently, as far as is humanly possible, judges assess the persuasiveness of speeches

according to a set of shared judging criteria, rather than according to their own views
about the subject matter. In particular, judges are asked to conceive of themselves as if
they were a hypothetical ͚ordinary intelligent voter (sometimes also termed ͚average
reasonable person or ͚informed global citizen ). This hypothetical ordinary intelligent voter
doesn t have pre-formed views on the topic of the debate and isn t convinced by sophistry
deception or logical fallacies. They are well informed about political and social affairs but
lack specialist knowledge. They are open-minded and concerned to decide how to vote –
they are thus willing to be convinced by the debaters who provide the most compelling case
for or against a certain policy. They are intelligent to the point of being able to understand
and assess contrasting arguments (including sophisticated arguments), that are presented
to them; but they keep themselves constrained to the material presented unless it patently
contradicts common knowledge or is otherwise wildly implausible.

As can perhaps already be intuited from the above paragraph, the ordinary intelligent voter
is quite unlike most, or perhaps any, real world people. But the concept of the ͚ordinary
intelligent voter is a useful way of revealing a set of important characteristics that judges
should aspire to in order to ensure that all teams receive a fair hearing in any debate. As
such, the term ordinary intelligent voter will be used as a shorthand in this manual, to
describe the expectation that judges should:

• avoid utilising personal knowledge that they have of the topic, unless they concern
knowledge that could reasonably be assumed to be held by someone of decent
intellect and active news-media consumption (e.g.: ͞Syria is in the Middle East or
͞Russia is a major oil producer is clearly acceptable knowledge, but the details of
Iraqi government troop movements is unlikely to be);
• give little credit to appeals merely to emotion or authority, except where these have
rational influence on an argument;
• avoid presuming a geographic, cultural, national, ethnic or other background when
assessing arguments;
• avoid preferencing arguments or styles of speaking that match personal preferences;
• assess the merits of a proposed policy, solution or problem separate from any
personal perspectives in relation to it.

Thinking as the ordinary intelligent voter does not absolve us from our responsibilities to
actually judge the debate – to evaluate the logical flow of arguments, determine the extent
to which teams have seemed to win them, and ensure that they have done so within the
rules. We should not say ͞while that was clearly irrational rabble-rousing, the ordinary
intelligent voter would have fallen for it . This not only leads to irrational conclusions, but
also, generally, overestimates how much cleverer we are than an ordinary intelligent voter.

We emphasise that a key reason for judges to imagine themselves as the ordinary intelligent
voter is to avoid relying on their subjective tastes as well as their subjective beliefs. Many of
us debate a lot, and we develop aesthetic preferences about speaking as well as in-jokes
and references which we find terribly funny. This is natural, but distracts somewhat from
debating. As voters we are much less likely to credit policies for being advocated in a
͞sophisticated or ͞funny way. Judges should remember that they are not aiming to
evaluate who was cleverest, neatest or funniest, but who best used their cleverness,
neatness and funniness to persuade us that the policy was a good or a bad idea. The
best way to do that is for judges to simply address themselves towards debates as if
there are real policies or controversies at stake and then see who best persuades them
that the motion should or shouldn't be supported.

2.2 What is persuasiveness?

Judges judge debates by assessing, without prejudice, which team in the debate was most
persuasive. The persuasiveness of an argument, in BP debating, is rooted in the number of
plausible reasons that are offered to show that it is true and important (which we term
͚analysis or ͚matter ), and the clarity and rhetorical power with which these reasons
are explained (which we term ͚style or ͚manner ).

It is crucial to understand that in BP debating, analysis and style are not separate criteria
on which an argument is assessed. In particular, BP debating does not consider it possible
for an argument to be persuasive merely because it was stylish. There is nothing persuasive
in speaking a sentence clearly and powerfully if that sentence is not in fact a reason for an
argument. And equally, reasons for an argument that cannot be understood by a judge
cannot persuade them. Good style is about conveying a speaker s analysis of arguments
effectively to the judges. Style and analysis thus do not independently generate
persuasiveness, but describe the necessary collective elements that make an argument
persuasive. The fact that we discuss them, below, in separate sections should not detract
from this.

Analysis
The analysis behind an argument consists of the reasons offered in support of it. Reasons
can support arguments in a number of different ways, none of which is, in itself, ͞better or
͞more important . Reasons might:
• logically explain why an argument is true
• present empirical evidence for an argument
• describe causally why a certain outcome will come about
• identify widely shared moral intuitions in favour of an argument
• expose a damaging logical implication of a contrasting argument
• identify an emotive response that encourages us to care about a certain outcome
or do various other things that encourage the ordinary intelligent voter to believe that an
argument is true and important to the debate. Reasons themselves may be stronger or
weaker according to a number of important criteria, including: the precision of what the
speaker says; the detail with which relevant logical claims, empirical evidence, causal
processes, moral intuitions, logical implications or other elements are explained; and so
forth.

Beyond these ways of identifying reasons within a speech that support arguments the
speaker is making, judges deploy very minimal standards in assessing the degree of support
a reason gives, whether the reason itself is plausible, and whether it therefore makes the
speaker s argument persuasive. Seriously implausible claims (such that any ordinary
intelligent voter would not believe its logic and/or premises) provide weak, if any, support
for an argument. And inconsistency is always considered relevant and problematic: teams
should not contradict other speakers on their bench. Internally inconsistent teams cannot
simultaneously get credit for two areas of mutually exclusive argument. Judges may,
depending on the circumstances, disregard both arguments as being rendered unpersuasive
by the conflicting analysis, or disregard only one, or consider both to be
weakened/restricted in their scope.

Certain things do not matter (in themselves) in evaluating how good a speaker s analysis
was:
• the number of arguments the speaker makes,
• how clever/innovative the argument was,
• how interesting the argument was.
What matters, once an argument is made, is how important its conclusion seems to be in
the debate with respect to the burdens that each side is trying to prove, and the extent to
which it seems to be analysed and responded to (and how well it withstood or was
defended against such responses). Judges do not consider how important they thought a
particular argument was, in the abstract, but rather how central it was to the overall
contribution of any team or teams in this particular debate, and how strong the reasons
speakers offered to support the claim that it was important/unimportant were.

Style
Arguments can be stylistically impressive in a range of ways – crucially ͞good style should
not be equated to ͞the sort of style admired in my debating circuit/culture Speakers do
not have ͞bad style because they don t speak with the particular idioms mannerisms
coded references or established phrases used in the country their judge is from.

Above all else a ͞strong accent is not bad style Everyone in the world has their own
particular accent, and they all have their own accent strongly! When people talk about mild
or strong accents, they mean how strong or mild the accent is compared to the accents with
which they are familiar. This sort of subjective measuring is not a valid basis for judging
certain styles as superior. There is only one legitimate way ͞accent can be a problem for a
speaker at Worlds, and that is if judges genuinely cannot understand what the speaker is
saying despite their very best efforts to do so. This is a problem in the same way that
speaking too fast to be understood is a problem – judges have to understand the words a
speaker says in order to evaluate them. This is a problem that could afflict any accent in
principle – it is not just a problem for an ͞ESL or ͞EFL accent Worlds is an international
tournament, and speakers may find themselves judged by people from any nation. There is
thus an obligation on all speakers to make themselves comprehensible to all judges and a
burden on judges to do everything they can to understand a speaker s words and meaning
The tournament aims to be as inclusive as possible to speakers of all languages, but Worlds
4
is inescapably an English-language-based competition. If judges cannot, despite their very
best efforts, understand an argument, they cannot find it persuasive.

So, as suggested, one basic point underpins the judging of style at Worlds: there is wide
global variation in what makes for an aesthetically pleasing style, and subjective judgements
of good style should not carry any weight in judging BP debating at an international
tournament. But this does not mean style is irrelevant. Worlds sets down a minimal number
of principles to guide effective style that we take to be of fundamental and international
applicability. As already noted, good style is about conveying reasons effectively. Reasons
are thus more compellingly delivered to the degree that:
• They are comprehensible. As noted speaker s claims must be comprehensible to the
judges to be evaluated. Technical jargon, speaking too fast, speaking too quietly, slurring
words, or jumbling sentences could all make an argument impossible to understand, and
therefore unpersuasive.
• They clearly and precisely convey the speaker s meaning. Vagueness, ambiguity and
confusing expressions necessarily make judges uncertain over the nature of the reasons
the speaker is offering and how they support the speaker s argument The more clearly
and precisely speakers can convey their reasoning, the more persuasive it is. Intelligent
use of language may make a speaker more able to communicate their precise point, and
as such may have a persuasive effect, though it should not be rewarded just because it
͞sounded intelligent
4
WUDC welcomes the establishment of partner World Championships in other languages, of which the
Campeonato Mundial Universitario de Debate en Espafiol {World Universities Debating Championship
in Spanish) is a pioneering example.
• They effectively convey the emotional, moral, practical or other significance of the
speaker s claim Blandly informing an ordinary intelligent voter that a certain policy will
cause ͞a rise in subsistence level deprivation amongst lower decile groups does not
communicate a real world effect, and doesn t make as many normative appeals explicit,
as a statement that ͞this policy will push some of the most impoverished and neglected
individuals into society into life-threatening poverty It is beguiling but erroneous to
think that arguments in debating can be assessed through pure, cold, emotionless logic
unaffected by language or tone. Making and assessing arguments is impossible unless
one attaches a certain significance to outcomes, principles or claims, and appropriate
use of language and tone of delivery can efficiently convey such significance.

Facts, Knowledge and Special Language

The ordinary intelligent voter has the sort of knowledge you'd expect from someone who
reads newspapers frequently and in depth, but who does not read technical journals,
specialist literature, or the like. They are, in short, a smart person who has a good deal of
knowledge that is broad rather than deep. Imagine a bright and reasonably well-read
university student who is studying a subject completely alien to any topic that would help
them understand the debate in question. Debaters may certainly make reference to
examples, facts and details the ordinary intelligent voter is not aware of, but they should
explain rather than cite these examples, facts and details. While they may not know much
on a specific topic by some debaters standards, the ordinary intelligent voter is genuinely
intelligent, and understands complex concepts, facts or arguments once they're explained.
Where such examples are not explained beyond name-checking a country, judges should
discount material they do understand that the ordinary intelligent voter would not. Judges
should be bold in applying this rule: it is unfair on other teams in the room not to.

Importantly, the ordinary intelligent voter comes from nowhere, not where a particular
judge comes from. So there are no ͚domestic examples requiring less explanation for the
ordinary intelligent voter, even where everyone in the room comes from that country.
Wherever you are from, assume your judges are from somewhere else. This is an English-
language competition, so our voter understands English. There are, however, multiple
Englishes, and one should not use terms one does not expect international English-speakers
to understand. This does not mean you must pitch your speech to someone who has only
some English, but rather that you should recognise that an Australian English speaker has a
different vocabulary to a British English speaker, who has a still different English to a
Chinese English speaker. It is a good thing to make your English accessible. It is also part of
the rules of this tournament that domestic slang does not count as comprehensible, unless
our ordinary intelligent voter would be able to work out its meaning without trouble from
the context.

Following on from the above, the ordinary intelligent voter does not know technical terms
that one would require a particular university degree to understand. They can be assumed
to possess the sort of generalist vocabulary that comes from a university education of some
sort, but probably not from your specific degree. They do not have the sort of halfway-there
economic or legal jargon that we as debaters have become familiar with either. Saying
͞Laffer curve to most people is equivalent to making some clever sounding noises.
Similarly, using terms like ͚economic efficiency will lead to their being understood only as a
layperson would grasp them, losing any technical specificity. Judges should judge
accordingly and speakers who wish to make use of the extra specificity that technical terms
convey should take the time to explain the connotations of the terms they wish to use.

2.3 Rebuttal, Engagement, and Comparisons

If speakers make arguments and supporting reasons that are not wildly implausible or
contradictory, they are at least somewhat persuasive and should be credited by judges
unless they are successfully rebutted by other teams in the debate. If arguments are
seriously implausible and fairly marginal to the speech of the speaker making the claim,
then it is reasonable for a team to decide to focus their rebuttal time elsewhere, particularly
where there is other stronger material in the round But speakers can t expect judges to
refute claims for them, even if the claims were seriously implausible. If a team bases its
whole case around an implausible argument, that argument should be rebutted by teams on
the other side of the debate.

Rebuttal consists of any material offered by a speaker which demonstrates why arguments
offered by teams on the other side of the debate are wrong, irrelevant, comparatively
unimportant, insufficient, inadequate, or otherwise inferior to the contributions of the
speaker s own side of the debate Rebuttal need not be explicitly labelled ͚rebuttal (though
it may be sensible for speakers to do sol, and it may occur at the beginning, end, middle or
through the entirety of a speech. Material labelled as rebuttal can be constructive as well as
rebuttal, and material labelled as constructive can also function as rebuttal. Rebuttal does
not, therefore, denote some special sort of argument or analysis – it simply refers to any
material that engages directly with arguments raised by the other side.

Being persuasive is therefore not just about making arguments that are, considered entirely
on their own, persuasive. Persuasion in debating also rests on detailed engagement with
other teams comparatively demonstrating why one s own arguments are better than,
defeat, and should be preferred over their arguments. Judges have to assess, comparatively,
which teams did this best, and do so in part by tracking important arguments in the debate
to see whether they were adequately responded to by teams on the other side. If not, these
arguments provide considerable reasons to be persuaded by the team that made them –
but of course, they need to be assessed comparatively with arguments made by other
teams, that also may not have received adequate responses. So if, for example, OG make
arguments whose conclusion is ͞we should do the policy which everyone ignores, they
don't lose because ͞the debate moved on from them . Rather, their unrebutted arguments
are still as true in the context of the debate as they were when presented, and should be
weighed as such. In fact, teams like this very often should beat the teams on the opposite
bench. Ignoring or failing to hear key arguments made by other teams is often an
explanation for why teams who think they have done well in a debate actually receive a
much lower ranking that they were expecting.

Where teams have a chance to rebut each other, assessing relative contributions in this way
is easy. Judges should track the argument and assess, given their responses to each other,
which team's contribution was more significant in furthering their cause to logically
persuade us that we should do the policy, or that we should not.
But where teams don't get a chance to rebut others, determining who was more persuasive
is trickier. This happens fairly often, for example:
• between teams on diagonals
• when the Opposition Whip explains something in a new way
• when opening teams are shut out of POIs

In these circumstances judges are forced to perform some more independent assessment of
the ͚robustness of the arguments teams made. In other words, the judges are forced to
assess how well the arguments would have stood up to engagement, had engagement been
possible. More robust material is, all other things being equal, a greater contribution than
less robust material. Ideally, assessing robustness will involve a comparison with material on
the table, or very minor extensions thereof. For instance, when judges compare two teams
on a diagonal (for example, OG and CO), they should first ask whether anything in the
earlier-speaking team s case is inherently rebuttive. Did the later-speaking team being
assessed deal with this material? Check whether they allowed the diagonal team in on POIs,
to give them an opportunity to engage. Deliberately shutting out engagement from a team
whose material is relevant is often obvious and very unpersuasive.

It should be emphasised that such consideration of robustness is a last resort. Judges are,
ideally, expected to assess only the comparative reasoning put forward by teams in the
debate; and if teams have provided that analysis, it is problematic for judges to substitute
their own.

2.4 What determines the burdens?

As stated earlier, there is no value in being persuasive about an argument that is irrelevant
to the debate. In assessing what contributions are relevant, it is helpful to consider the
͚burdens a team has to meet in the debate Burdens are often misunderstood and
misattributed by teams within a debate, attempting to push unrequired burdens onto their
opponents – judges should be cautious of falling into the same trap. Burdens cannot be
created simply by a team asserting that they exist and that their opponents must meet
them. However, there are two key ways that a burden can legitimately be attributed to a
team (and speakers may legitimately point out such burdens, and explain why they or other
teams need to meet them).

First, a burden may be implied by the motion itself. If, for example, the motion is ͞This
House would prioritise the vaccination of law-abiding citizens in the case of major
epidemics , government teams need to demonstrate that in major epidemics the
vaccination of law-abiding citizens should be prioritised. Government teams do not need to
demonstrate that vaccinations of law-abiding citizens should be prioritised in general
(outside of major epidemics), or that only law-abiding citizens should be vaccinated (law-
abiding citizens should simply be prioritised). The way OG defines the motion (see section
2.6) may affect these burdens, however. Opposition teams need to demonstrate that
Government are wrong: that the policy of prioritising law-abiding citizens for vaccination in
major epidemics should be opposed (see section 2.7). They do not necessarily need to show
that law-abiding citizens should not be prioritised in any way under any conditions (though
the fact that we do prioritise law-abiding citizens in other cases might be used as a reason
by Government teams to argue that it is also legitimate to prioritise law-abiding citizens in
this case).

Second, burdens can also be set by specific arguments teams take up. For example, if the
motion is ͞This House believes that assassination is a legitimate tool of foreign policy , the
Opposition Leader may initially argue that assassination is a severe breach of international
law. For this to be relevant to the debate, OO have a burden to show that illegality matters
for illegitimacy. This burden is especially strong if the Deputy Prime Minister then states that
they accept that assassination is illegal, but argues that they believe that many acts
technically illegal under international law can still be legitimate, and provides arguments
towards this conclusion. Unless Opposition teams now provide superior reasons to think
that the illegality of an act under international law is a reason to deem it illegitimate, it is
not relevant to the burdens they need to prove to merely keep pointing out that
assassination is illegal, or provide more detail on how it is illegal. Both sides now agree
that assassination is illegal, and continuing to agree with this achieves nothing. What the
sides now disagree on is the implications this has for assassination s legitimacy, and it is
this which they have a burden to prove.

Criteria for Good or Bad Policy

As this all implies, what constitutes a good/bad policy is itself debatable, and the claims
teams make on this issue can also shape their burdens. Teams are allowed to debate what
criteria should be used to assess whether a policy is good as part of arguing that it is, in fact,
good. Judges should adjudicate this debate about criteria – they should not just apply their
own preferred criteria. One common form of this mistake is to assume a utilitarian
framework (͞what leads to the best consequences ), and assess the debate in that way. If
this is disconnected from a team arguing for a utilitarian framework (or presumed by a team
without supporting arguments, despite other teams disagreeing), it is wrong. It is also wrong
to disregard principled argumentation about which effects are particularly important,
potentially for non-utility maximising reasons. Sometimes, of course, all teams in a debate
agree on the framework to use, perhaps implicitly. In these cases, the judge should accept
these consensus assumptions.

So, judges should listen to teams arguments about what our aims and principles should be,
and evaluate the claims of harms or benefits in that context. This can make the claims about
how we should determine the right policy particularly vital, and they may fundamentally
reshape team s burdens in the debate For example if in the debate ͞This House would
invade North Korea Opposition successfully shows that ͞war is always wrong, regardless of
the practical benefits Government s claims about the practical benefits of invading North
Korea are of little relevance (though are not completely irrelevant, see below) until they
offer reasons to believe that a practical calculus is relevant. Note that there is no sense in
which Opposition s argument here is too ͞generic to gain any credit. There is an absolute
requirement that arguments be relevant to a debate and its burdens. There is absolutely no
requirement that arguments pertain only to that debate and its burdens.

Judges should generally be wary of considering an argument completely irrelevant. It is very

unlikely that any team will ever prove their view of the appropriate criteria to be completely
and undeniably true and that, consequently, arguments which do not fit those criteria
should be dismissed out of hand. It is thus often more appropriate to treat arguments as
less persuasive when they rest on criteria which another team have suggested are not
relevant, rather than ruling them out completely.

Types of Motion
Motions can come in a few different guises, often hinted at by the words used to introduce
the motion (͞This House would… ͞This House believes that… ͞This House supports… ) and
again, this can affect the burdens teams face. Adjudication Cores do not use these
openings so consistently that we can set hard and fast rules on what they tell us about the
motion, but here are some general guidelines:
• motions of the form ͞This House would [do X] almost always involve Government
enacting some sort of policy, X – a concrete course of action that they wish to convince
the judges should be implemented. Such motions are about whether the House should
do X – with Government teams arguing that they should and Opposition teams arguing
that they shouldn’t. These debates are not about whether the entity the House
represents (usually but not always state governments) will do the policy in question in
the real world, or whether they are doing the policy at present. As such, it is never a
valid line of opposition to such motions to state that ͞but the government would never
do this or more subtly ͞but politicians would never pass this law For the purposes of
the debate, the Government teams are that government and the politicians that make it
up, and the debate is about whether they should or should not do a policy, not whether
their real world counterparts will or will not;
• motions that open ͞This House believes that [X generally do not involve Government
enacting a policy, but instead require Government teams to argue for the truth of the
statement represented by X, whilst Opposition teams argue that X is false. Governments
could still offer a policy as a manifestation of their belief in X – for example, if the
motion is ͞This House believes that all individuals are entitled to a minimum standard of
living Government could productively specify a policy they would enact to provide for
this entitlement Some ͞believes that motions are more explicitly about policies,
including motions of the formulation ͞This House believes that [actor Y] should [do
action X] .
• motions that open ͞This House supports [X also usually need not involve Government
proposing a policy (though again, they may choose to do so). Instead, the Government
teams need to argue that they would symbolically, politically, materially or in some
other manner support the person, group, institution, cause, value, or statement
expressed by X. Opposition need to argue that X should not be supported.
• motions that open ͞This House would, as [Y , do [X are somewhat special. These
motions take place from the perspective of the entity expressed as Y about what they
should do, with all teams arguing from actor Y s perspective. So if, for example, the
motion is ͞This House would, as Turkey, intervene in the Syrian Civil War , this debate
should take place from the perspective of Turkey, as both the proposed agent to
S
intervene in the Syrian Civil War and the proposed target of argumentative appeals. To
put it in the language of the ordinary intelligent voter, in such motions, the ordinary

S
By contrast if the motion is ͞This House believes that Turkey should intervene in the Syrian Civil War the
motion does not take place solely from the perspective of Turkey – instead, the debaters are simply trying
to convince the judges of the truth of the statement.
 intelligent voter takes up the position of Turkey in deciding what to do This doesn t
strictly rule in or out certain arguments or appeals to the debate – the ordinary
intelligent voter imagining themselves as Turkey is still an ordinary intelligent voter, and
can, as Turkey, be persuaded by various moral appeals, predicted consequences, claims
about Turkey s key interests and so forth But the arguments of the sides in the debate
and the burdens they need to prove, are orientated around actor Y – and a team cannot
plausibly stand up and say ͞Turkey should intervene in the Syrian Civil War, because it
will be very good for American businesses , without explaining why what is good for
American businesses ought to be a reason for Turkey to do something.

2.S Role Fulfilment

Different debating traditions have different understandings of role fulfilment in BP
debating. Role fulfilment, in brief, is the name given to the particular duties given to each
team on the table, by dint of their position, above and beyond the general duty to ͞make
persuasive arguments . These duties exist to ensure fairness – specifying additional
constraints on the debaters beyond what the ordinary intelligent voter would find
persuasive.

In football ( soccer ) a team wins the game by scoring the most goals – but they must do so
within the constraints of the rules. A football team doesn't win the game by keeping the ball
inbounds more frequently or by exemplary conduct, but the rules of the game will define
which attempts to score and prevent goals count . For example, a footballer who picks the
ball up and carries it into the opposing team s goal will not be credited with a goal. Similarly,
a debater who gives an excellent fifteen-minute speech, or submits a persuasive essay or a
set of visual aids, will not be entitled to credit for doing so, regardless of how persuasive
these would have been in conveying their reasons for affirming or rejecting the motion.
Doing so involves breaking the rules, and cannot entitle them to credit. Role fulfilment is the
necessary but not sufficient condition for a team to make persuasive arguments.

The duties associated with role fulfilment are as follows:

(1) For the Prime Minister, to define the debate (explained in section 2.6).
(2) For the Member speakers (Government and Opposition Members), to extend the debate
(explained in section 2.8).
(3) For Whip speakers (Government and Opposition Whips), to summarise the major
contributions of both teams on their side of the debate (explained in section 2.9).
(4) For the Opposition Whip, not to add new arguments (explained in section 2.9).
(5) For all speakers, to ensure that their arguments are consistent with all other arguments
made by themselves, their teammates, and the other team on their side of the debate
(contradiction is often referred to as knifing ).
(6) For all speakers, to take at least one point of information during their speeches and to
offer points of information on a regular basis (explained in section 2.10).
(7) For all speakers, to speak within the time frame allotted (explained in section 2.10).

We emphasise here that there is no such thing as an ‘automatic fourth’. A team that
breaches an element of role fulfilment may still be sufficiently persuasive in other parts of
their speeches to beat other teams in the debate; particularly, but not exclusively, when
multiple teams in the debate have role fulfilment issues.
It is not a role-fulfilment requirement for the Deputy Prime Minister or Deputy Opposition
Leader to add new material (whether arguments, analysis, rebuttal, etc.) to the debate. OG
and OO teams are within their rights to concentrate all their constructive arguments within
their opening speeches and leave the Deputy Prime Minister and Deputy Opposition Leader
to reiterate, reconstruct, reword or summarise the Prime Minister or Opposition Leader s
contributions – this is not breaking the rules, and judges should not punish teams for doing
this in and of itself. But such a strategy is generally very inadvisable. Since BP debating
involves four teams, judges are centrally tasked with comparatively assessing the extent and
importance of the persuasive contributions made by each team. Merely repeating or
reconstructing a partner s material whilst of some value is rarely if ever more valuable than
actually adding new arguments or analysis. In addition, it makes the closing half team s job
much easier, by leaving them far more material to use as a potential extension. Whilst it
might be the optimal approach in some other debating formats, teams should be cautious
about not contributing significant new material in Deputy Prime Minister and Deputy
Opposition Leader speeches, given the nature of the BP debating format and the way it is
judged.

2.6 Defining the Debate

The Prime Minister defines the debate. This means they tell the rest of the people in the
room exactly what will be debated. They need to say whether there is a policy (i.e. whether
someone is doing something) and what that policy is, if there is. The detailed description of
a policy is often called the model . Debates are about the motion as defined by OG, not
about what other debaters or judges in the room thought the words in the motion meant.
The definition forms the subject matter of the debate. If the motion ͞This House would
privatise education is defined as ͞making all universities independent companies , (a fair
definition) then that is what the debate is about for the remainder of the eight speeches.
Teams would still be entitled to make general arguments against privatisation (e.g.
͞privatisation of all public services is bad ) provided that those are still relevant to the
model. General arguments, like any arguments, must give the judge reasons to support or
oppose the policy. To the extent to which they do so, they are successful. In some cases,
merely stating the motion can constitute sufficiently ͞defining the debate . On the other
hand, the definition might involve a many-pointed model or some extensive
caveating/parameter setting. It may be that the same motion could be usefully defined in
either of these ways, producing different legitimate debates.

Debaters should debate at the level of generality implied in the motion. It is legitimate for
OG to exclude anomalous examples (͞we re banning cosmetic surgery like the motion says,
but not for burns victims ). It is not legitimate to include only anomalous examples (͞we re
banning cosmetic surgery like the motion says but only for children ). If adjudication teams
wish a debate to be narrowed down in some specific and radical way, they will state this in
the motion.

Given the purpose of OG s duty to define the debate a definition can be flawed in two
ways: it could be vague or it could be a squirrel
Vague de!initions: A vague definition does not clearly answer certain vital questions about
what is meant by the motion or what will happen under the policy OG are defending. A
definition cannot specify everything and OG are not expected to be exhaustive. But
common points of vagueness include: exactly what groups of people a policy applies to, the
circumstances where it will be implemented, the agent who will implement the policy, or
the consequences for those who resist or defy it. A definition can be vague to different
degrees. Crucially, a vague definition is not an invalid definition – it just undermines the
persuasiveness of OG to the degree that it is unclear exactly what they are proposing to do.
The proper response from Opposition teams is to ask, via POls or in the speech of
Opposition Leader, for clarification on exactly what Government means by its policy. The
Deputy Prime Minister can then provide more detail on what government plans to do
(though this does not eliminate the fact that it would have been better had the Prime
Minister done so). Beyond prompting requests for clarification from the opposition, or
criticism from them for the policy being vague and unclear, there is nothing more that
should arise from a vague definition. Opposition might choose to argue that, given that the
motion has been vaguely specified, a certain reasonable consequence or interpretation
might be inferred from it. But they are not permitted to ignore the definition that was
made, replace it with a preferred definition of their own choice, or claim that since they
haven t defined the motion clearly, OG are committed to defending very unreasonable
applications of their policy.

Worked Example: ͞ This House would allow prisoners to vote

Example 1:
Prime Minister ͞We define this motion as allowing prisoners the right to take part in
elections
Opposition Leader ͞The Prime Minister has failed to confine this motion to adults in prison.
Thus we must assume that children who are imprisoned will be allowed to vote, which is
wrong as children are unfit to vote
Deputy Prime Minister ͞That's clearly silly. Obviously child prisoners won't be allowed to
vote
The judge should conclude: The Deputy Prime Minister is correct. The assumption made by
the Opposition Leader is unreasonable and must be rejected. The OO team may be
penalised for making a frivolous challenge. They certainly receive no credit for their
challenge.

Example 2:
Prime Minister ͞We define this motion as allowing prisoners the right to take part in
elections
Opposition Leader ͞The Prime Minister has failed to tell us which sorts of prisoners are
allowed to vote. This definition is illegitimate because it doesn't tell us which - and that
might include murderers
Deputy Prime Minister ͞That's silly! Of course our model doesn't extend to murderers and
the like, that would be completely unreasonable!
The judge should conclude: Neither the Deputy Prime Minister nor the Opposition Leader
are correct. There was nothing wrong with the Prime Minister's definition, it merely left the
opportunity for the Opposition teams to make arguments about why allowing murderers to
vote would be a bad idea. It is not obvious that murderers were excluded from Prime
Minister s definition nor is it clear that they should be

Squirrelling: A squirrel is an invalid definition of a motion. A definition is only invalid in one

of two circumstances. The first is if it is literally inconsistent with the words of the actual
motion that was set. If for example the motion is ͞This House would place tolls on all
roads and OG suggest they would place tolls only on major motorways, this is clearly
invalid, since the motion specifically says ͞all roads . Such blatant deviations from the
motion are uncommon. The second circumstance that leads to a definition being invalid is
where it excludes a large number of cases to which the literal reading of the motion would
appear to apply, whether by caveating them out, or narrowly setting the policy to catch only
a small number or certain type of those cases. Such definitions may seriously unbalance the
debate to the advantage of Government. For example if the motion is ͞This House would
use community service as a punishment in place of prisons and the Government bench
states that it will only do this for young non-violent offenders, this is a severe restriction of
the motion, excluding the considerable majority of cases to which a literal reading of the
motion (which mentioned no limits to specific categories of prisoner) would seem to apply.

A common form of squirrelling is called placesetting – where the motion is restricted to

one particular location (such as the United States of America, South Waziristan, or European
capital cities). Worlds is an international tournament, and such narrow placesetting is
prohibited – motions should be assumed to apply to at least the bulk of the world s states
unless the motion specifies otherwise. However, many motions may be considerably more
relevant in some states than others: for example if the motion is ͞This House would allow
citizens to sell their votes to others this is only going to have application in states that are
minimally democratic, and OG may specify this without being accused of placesetting.

A much less common form of squirrelling is timesetting – setting a motion in some

particular time. For example, if the motion is T͞ his House would allow abortion , OG cannot
define the debate as being about whether the judges in the key US case of Roe v Wade
should have reached the decision they did at the time of that case. Unless directly
implicated by the motion, timesetting is also an invalid definition of a motion, and motions
should be set in the present day. However, proposing a specific time scale for a motion does
not constitute time-setting provided it keeps implementation reasonably close to the
present day. So saying ͞we will allow a two year transition period for businesses to adapt to
the proposed changes our policy creates before we proceed to full implementation is
legitimate whereas saying ͞we believe this policy should eventually be implemented
perhaps in one or two decades, once all countries will have fully harmonised to its
requirements is not

Challenging the Definition

If the definition provided by the OG is invalid then it can be challenged. This must be done
during the 0pposition Leader s speech, or in a POI to the Prime Minister s speech. As stated,
the only grounds for claiming that a definition is invalid is if it meets one of the two
squirrelling circumstances outlined above. It is not enough for a definition to not seem ͞in
the spirit of the motion , or for a definition to have not been expected by other teams in the
debate.
If a team challenges the definition, they must argue that the definition is illegitimate and
explain why. In challenging the definition, the Opposition Leader has two choices:
(1) Firstly, they can complain about the motion having been defined in an invalid way
but proceed to debate it anyway. This is preferable if the motion proposed is not a
fair reading of the motion but is still debateable.
(2) Secondly, they can challenge the definition and redefine it. They should tell the judge
and the other debaters what a proper definition would be and should then proceed
to argue against that case. Where a team takes this option, it is advisable (though
not required) for them to present even-if analysis engaging with the 0G s definition
of the motion and the material that stems from that definition, as well as their own.

Judges do not punish teams just for having a definitional debate . This might be boring, but
being boring doesn't automatically imply that a team loses. However, teams that
unnecessarily quibble about reasonable definitions may be effectively penalised by virtue of
wasting time on unpersuasive material at the cost of relevant arguments. Only if a position
is tautologically true or untrue, or unconscionable or impossible to argue, should anyone
else change the debate after the 0pposition Leader s speech (and in such cases, one would
hope that the Opposition Leader would have challenged the definition!). Such cases are
exceedingly rare. If the definition is thus challenged, judges must weigh the contributions
teams made to the debate as they found it at the time they gave their speeches. That is, if
OO won very strongly the debate OG ran, having made a hugely significant contribution to
it, but CG successfully challenges the definition based on the fact that it is tautologically
untrue and make a significant contribution to this ͞new debate, judges must compare 00 s
contribution to the debate they were involved in with C0 s contribution to the one they
were. Judges do not disregard 00 because ͞the debate became about something else –
this is not their fault. Of course, it may be that moments where OO and CG engage directly
(say, on POIs) may be particularly important to the comparison.

Please bear in mind that definitional challenges are incredibly rare and more a last resort
than a first-line of defence against a Government case. Where a definition falls within one of
the circumstances outlined above, it is often still advisable for a team to debate the motion
as it has been defined, and avoid the procedural complexity of a definitional challenge
taking away from their time to present substantive arguments.

Worked Example: ͞ This House would allow prisoners to vote

Example One:
Prime Minister: ͞We will allow all prisoners to vote in elections who have less than one
week remaining in their prison sentence.
Opposition Leader: ͞This is clearly unfair as a definition of the motion as it unduly narrows
the scope of the debate, but we'll oppose it anyway.
The judge should conclude: The Opposition Leader has made a correct challenge to the
motion and the Prime Minister should be penalised.

Example Two:
Prime Minister: ͞We would allow all wrongfully-accused prisoners to vote, having released
them from prison.
Opposition Leader: ͞This is a completely unacceptable narrowing and twisting of the
definition to the point where government have not argued that real prisoners should be
allowed to vote. Since what they need to prove is that actual prisoners should be allowed to
vote, that is what we will be arguing against. We oppose such a policy for the following
reasons…
The judge should conclude: The Opposition Leader has done the right thing by
replacing the unworkable definition with a workable one. Teams should follow the
Opposition Leader s lead and debate the motion as they have set forth.

The need to avoid vague definitions and squirrelling should never be taken to restrict OG s
legitimate right to define the scope and application of the debate in ways which do not
render it unclear, inconsistent with the motion, or unfair. OG has the right to exclude
marginal or especially extreme cases from the debate if they can provide clear criteria on
which cases are excluded and a compelling justification for doing so, and if such exclusions
do not unfairly disadvantage other teams in the debate. This is intelligently defining the
debate, not squirrelling. Common forms of legitimate restriction include explicitly limiting or
focusing the debate onto broad sets of cases where the motion seems particularly
applicable or would most plausibly be implemented. For example, restricting a debate to
͞Western Liberal Democracies , to the ͞developed or ͞developing worlds or to ͞elected
officials might be appropriate given a certain motion. Again, the question in all cases is one
of fairness and consistency with the original motion. This is ascertained by asking whether
the definition excludes a large number of cases to which the motion seems to apply, and in
doing so unbalances the debate. If not, the definition is likely to be legitimate. Still, as a
general rule, it is sensible for OG teams to avoid restricting and limiting motions too much.

Note that a definition cannot be attacked merely for being ͞the status quo . Most motions
will ask Government to defend the implementation of some sort of policy, which is likely to
involve changing the world from the way it is at present. As such, if OG actually propose
something which is identical to the status quo, this might be symptomatic of them failing to
define the motion properly. But as Worlds is an international tournament, with motions
presumed to apply to many different countries which each have different existing policies,
the mere fact that a definition is ͞status quo in some context is not a problem with the
definition. For example if the motion is ͞This House would only have unicameral (single-
chamber) legislatures , and OG propose that all democracies should have a single chamber
parliament elected through a mix of constituency representatives and proportionate party-
list members, they have proposed a policy which is the status quo in New Zealand. However,
this would be a radical change for many democracies. Defining a debate in a way that
happens to be status quo somewhere is not in and of itself a problem.

Whether a definition is valid or not, it is not the job of the judge to attack the definition, and
judges should only worry about the definition if teams in the debate do. If the definition is
successfully attacked as being vague, OG should be penalised only to the extent to which a
lack of detail prevents teams from making arguments. Judges should give other teams the
benefit of the doubt relative to OG where such a deficiency poses a problem and allow
other teams to read-in any fair and reasonable assumption about the definition that OG
hasn t fully spelled out.
2.7 Opposing the Debate
So, Government argues in favour of what the motion requires them to do or say is true.
What about Opposition? In a debate about a policy, the Opposition must say that we
shouldn t do it; that is, that something is better than doing this policy. So, as with definitions
of the debate by OG, the position Opposition choose to defend can be the status quo in
some countries, it can be something which is currently done nowhere, or it may be
described as ͞doing nothing rather than ͞doing the policy (though naturally, teams doing
this don t necessarily recommend wholesale government inaction, but are running the
comparative line that ͞whatever other broadly sensible relevant policies one is carrying out,
the addition of this one makes things worse ).

Counterpropping
So long as Opposition provide reasons not to do the policy, this is fine. It is not Opposition s
burden to commit themselves to a specific alternative course of action to the Government
policy. However, they may commit to defend an alternative policy or course of action if they
wish – this is often referred to as a counterproposition or counterprop . Just as only the
OG has the right to set out a model for the Government side and must do in the Prime
Minister s speech, only the Opposition Leader may set out an alternative model for the
Opposition side. A counterprop which is not mutually exclusive with the Government
model/case is not in itself invalid, but is likely to be unhelpful in explaining why the
Government policy should not be adopted – as intuitively, both could be done side-by-side.
An OO that elects to present an alternative model should explain not only why their model
is preferable to that of the OG, but also why it would be preferable to adopt their model to
the exclusion of that of the OG.

Wo rked Examp l e ͞ T h i s Ho u se wo u ld in vad e Syria

Example One:
Prime Minister: ͞We believe that the United States should invade Syria at once and install a
new government.
Opposition Leader: ͞We believe that the United States should invade Syria at once, but they
should also give economic assistance to a new Syrian regime
The judge should conclude: OO's counterprop is not mutually exclusive with 0G s and
indeed accepts the premise of the 0G s case 00 is not actually opposing the motion.

Example Two:
Prime Minister ͞We believe that the United States should invade Syria at once and install a
new government
Opposition Leader ͞Rather than invading the US should give military aid to rebel groups
within Syria
The judge should conclude 00 s counterprop is not strictly mutually exclusive with the
0G s case but they have set it up as an alternative (in effect saying that ͞we suggest the
policy of a) not invading and b) giving military aid ) Depending on the arguments that
follow they may be able to successfully show that their policy is preferable to 0G s

If OO do not counterprop, it is not legitimate for Government teams to demand that they do
commit themselves to a specific alternative – 0pposition s role is simply to defeat the policy
proposed by Government, not solve the problem Government have identified (Opposition
may even argue that there isn t a real problem that needs a solution here). However, if the
Opposition accepts that a problem exists, it will be difficult for them to do well in the debate
without either showing that the 0G s action will make the problem so much worse that
inactivity is preferable; or demonstrating that some alternative and preferable solution(s)
exists. Opposition has the right to point to a variety of possible superior alternatives without
committing to one alone but it may in practice be difficult to prove that the 0G s policy is
inferior without directly comparing it to at least one of those alternatives.

2.8 Extending the Debate – Member Speeches

The Government Member and Opposition Member are each responsible for contributing an
extension to the debate. An extension is defined as anything that hasn't yet been said by
that side of the debate. An extension can take a number of forms including:
(1) new arguments which have not yet been made in the debate, whether additive to
their own case or responsive to material raised by the other side,
(2) new examples,
(3) new analysis or explanation of existing arguments,
(4) new applications of existing argumentation (e.g. if the Member points out that one
of their opening half s arguments is able to defeat a new argument from the other
side).
In short, saying almost anything other than a word-for-word repetition of first-half's
material will in some sense constitute an extension. In that sense, role fulfilment here
is fairly easy and most extension speakers will succeed in fulfilling the bare minimum
requirements of their role.

However, a closing team can only get credit for their contributions to the debate that go
beyond what has already been contributed by their opening half. A closing team that
contributes only the most minimal of extensions is unlikely to have contributed more
persuasive material than other teams in the debate. As a result, closing teams do not defeat
their opening half team merely by ͞having an extension (any more than OG teams win the
debate for ͞having a model ). A winning extension will bring out material that is most able to
persuade the judge that the motion should be affirmed or rejected.

If certain arguments have already been convincingly won by the analysis of an opening half
team, a team which merely adds new analysis to those arguments may be able to, on the
basis of that analysis, defeat the teams on the opposing side, but is unlikely to have
provided good grounds on which to beat the team ahead of them.

Kniting: As noted in section 2.5, Member speeches (and also Whip speeches) need to be
consistent with earlier speeches made on their side of the debate – indirectly contradicting
other teams/speakers on their side of the debate or flatly stating that their arguments were
6
false is termed knifing Teams should receive little if any credit for arguments that
contradict the claims of earlier speakers.

6
It is also possible, but obviously rarer, for the Deputy Prime Minister or Deputy Opposition Leader to
knife their own partner – the Prime Minister or Opposition Leader. This is no less illegitimate than had a
Government or Opposition Member or Whip knifed.
Making an even if argument (along the lines of ͞even if 00 were wrong about this we re
going to show that this motion should still be defeated ) does not constitute knifing.
However such even if arguments are unlikely to provide good grounds for a closing team
to beat their opening unless they actually improve the bench s persuasive position A closing
team that substitutes a strong opening half line for an inferior alternative to believe their
side of the debate, or who advances an even-if argument when the probability of the if is
very low, is unlikely to beat their opening half team on the basis of that material.

2.9 Summarising the Debate – Whip Speeches

Whip speeches should summarise the debate from the perspective of their side. A good
Whip speech will note the major disagreements in the debate (points of clash) between the
two sides and will make use of the best arguments from each team on their side to make
their case that the motion ought to be affirmed or rejected. A Whip who makes effective
use of arguments that were introduced in the first half should receive credit for doing so, if
those arguments are employed successfully. A Whip who ignores or minimises arguments
made by their opening half team where they remain relevant to the debate is not effectively
fulfilling their role However a Whip speaker may in line with their team s need to
contribute more persuasive material to the debate than their opening, aim to explain why
their own team s contributions are the most persuasive or important on their side though
they should do so without rejecting or denigrating their opening half s arguments

It is not the role of either whip speaker to add new arguments to their side. This is
strongly prohibited in the rules of Worlds for the 0pposition Whip, since no one will have a
chance to respond to that speech. New material is officially permitted in Government
Whip speeches, but new arguments raised there should still really have been raised in the
Government Member speech, and do not help the Government Whip to summarise the
debate persuasively. Both Whip speakers have the same fundamental role – to summarise
the debate, rather than add new arguments.

What counts as a new argument ? Debates are about doing things, or arguing that things
are true. Therefore, entirely new reasons to do things, claims that new things will happen,
or claims that new moral truths are the case, constitute new arguments. The following
things do not count as new arguments in this sense, and are permissible for Whips to
engage in:
• new defences of arguments already made.
• new explanations of previously-made arguments.
• rebuttal
• new examples to support existing arguments
• anything the other side can reasonably be expected to understand that team intended
from their Member speech.

At times, it's difficult to assess the difference between new rebuttal and analysis (which is
permitted) and new arguments (which are not). Judges should consider whether or not the
making of the claim raises a new issue or approach to winning the debate on an existing
issue, to which the other side has little if any ability to respond. If a team does make a new
argument in the Whip speech, judges should simply ignore it (or attach limited importance
to it, if in the Government Whip speech), and not afford it any credit. Adding new
arguments shouldn t be penalised beyond this

2.10 POls, Timing and Equity

The seven role-fulfilment duties included in section 2.5 include accepting and offering POls,
and speaking within the time allotted. As with other role-fulfilment duties, keeping to these
duties does not generate persuasiveness – a team is not more persuasive because they had
better timing, or offered lots of POls.

Points of lnformation
The nature of POls and how they are offered is discussed in section 1.4. lt is important for
teams to both offer and accept POls. As mentioned in section 1.4, each speaker is expected
to take two POls – accepting one is a minimum requirement. Judges should not force
debaters to take POls by intervening in the debate if they do not, but failing to take any POls
(provided a reasonable number were offered during their speech) constitutes a severe
failure to engage with other teams and should be viewed by judges as undermining their
confidence that the speaker s arguments could successfully survive attacks by the other
side. ln assessing the failure to take POls, a judge should also consider whether other
engagement done by the team – through rebuttal, for example – has been sufficient to
restore that confidence. A speaker who has both failed to take POls, and has engaged in
only minimal rebuttal – or avoided particular arguments from the other side – is likely to be
viewed very negatively by the judge.

Failing to take a POl has sometimes been suggested to be equivalent to taking a very
damaging POl – this is not an appropriate way to assess this failure. A judge should never
give teams credit for arguments that they have not made, even where other teams in the
debate have role fulfilment issues. However, it is appropriate for the judge to consider
failing to take a POl as being indicative of poor engagement with the best material on the
other side, especially where the speaker has not otherwise addressed that material.

Which POls speakers choose to take should ideally bear a very loose resemblance to the
relative activeness with which teams are offering them. That is – if the Government Whip,
for example, is offered ten POls in the first half of their speech by the speakers from the OO
team, and refuses them all, then takes the first POl offered by the CO team, who have
offered no POls until now, this looks suspiciously like the speaker is trying to shut out OO
from the debate, at least if they do not subsequently take any POls from OO. Depending on
the context, this may constitute a failure to engage effectively with the OO – but, in some
contexts (for example, where the CO has clearly made stronger contributions to their side of
the debate than the OO), it may be acceptable tactics.

Time Limits
As stated in Chapter 1, at Worlds the official time limit for speeches is 7 minutes, although
speakers are traditionally allowed around fifteen seconds of leeway beyond 7 minutes
where material can still be considered by judges to finish their speeches. Speeches need not
be penalised for being over-time material past the time limit should simply be disregarded
– the speaker is wasting everyone s time by delivering it. Should any speaker continue to
speak past 8 minutes, the Chair judge should instruct them to sit down, in order to keep
debates to schedule.

Equity
As well as following the rules of BP debating, Worlds also requires that all participants
adhere to the tournament Equity Policy Judges have no authority to enforce the equity
policy. Judges may not cut off a speaker for a perceived breach of equity except in the most
extreme of situations, where an equity violation is severe enough to already have disrupted
the round and intervention is required to restore order. Nor should judges take the fact that
they believe an equity violation has occurred into account when assessing who won a
debate, or what speaker points to award. Judges are there to judge the debate, and should
only penalise equity violations to the extent to which they make a speaker unpersuasive
and/or are unfair on other teams or speakers. Judges cannot award a speaker zero speaker
marks or give their team an automatic fourth on the basis of a breach of equity

To resolve equity violations formally, debaters and/or judges should report them to the
equity team who, in consultation with the Adjudication Core, will decide what course of
action, if any, needs to be taken. However, being an objectionable speaker is generally not
persuasive to the ordinary intelligent voter. A speaker who engages in, for example, racist
behaviour is likely to be rendered less persuasive overall as a result of that material.

Equity violations are not a standard part of debating that should be expected from time to
time. On the contrary, they should never occur at a tournament. Debating is here for the
enjoyment of participants, and not really worth people falling out with each other over.

Debaters – don’t be conceited!

Though not an equity violation, debaters shouldn t assume that they have a superior
understanding than the judges of how the teams in the debate should have been ranked. A
debater cannot make a reliable judgement call on what the right result should have been
in a debate they competed in. This is not just due to the inescapable bias a debater has
towards their own team. Debaters also cannot hear everything that is said in the debate in
the way the judges do: debaters have to spend time conferring with their partner, writing
their own speeches, coming up with POls, thinking of rebuttal, and a host of other activities.
They are thus likely to miss considerable sections of the debate. Moreover, debaters, when
making their own arguments, know exactly what they mean to convey – judges do not, and
have to judge based on what the speaker conveyed to them, which may not always perfectly
match the debater s intended meaning And, focused on winning the debate from one side,
debaters thinking towards every argument from the other side is orientated towards seeing
its weaknesses and deficiencies. Even the very best judge could not reliably judge a debate
they themselves were debating in.

This is particularly important where debates have been very close. ln those circumstances,
judges are unlikely to have overwhelming reasons for some teams beating others – by virtue
of the closeness of those positions. Debaters should remember that sometimes very small
issues end up being all that separate teams. They should also avoid assuming that the final
ranking was the unique responsibility of the Chair of the debate. This is not, in practice, how
judging decisions are arrived at. Results are produced by panels, not individual judges, and
debaters should treat them as such.

So if, as a debater, you are disappointed with or disagree with a call that s OK. Judges are
not omniscient, and Adjudication Cores need feedback on how well judges explained the
results of the debate. However, teams should take the time to listen openly to the reasons
given for a result by judges, rather than treating unexpected results as being wrong ; and
they should take their concerns to the Adjudication Core via the feedback process, rather
than behave aggressively or dismissively towards the judges in question.
 3. Additional Notes for Judges
Most of the information on how to judge debates and determine results was provided in
Chapter 2 – as such all judges must read Chapter 2 of this manual for guidance on judging.
This section simply focuses on a few additional issues of a largely administrative nature for
judges: such as how to actually engage in the judging deliberation, fill in the ballot, deliver
feedback to the debaters, and so forth.

3.1 Deciding the results

Once the debate has finished, the debaters should leave the debate room, and the judges
should collectively rank the four teams in order: first, second, third and fourth. Judges do
this through a discussion (or deliberation ) aimed at consensus – they do not simply
each make up their minds and then vote or engage in a battle with each other to win
the
discussion. Judging panels are a team, and all members of the panel should view themselves
as such – their job is to cooperatively decide on the best way to rank the four teams in the
debate. Debates cannot result in a draw one team must take the first one team the
second one team the third and one team the fourth

To repeat the core BP debating criterion on winning debates: judges assess which teams
were most persuasive with respect to the burdens their side of the debate is attempting to
prove, within the constraints set by the rules of BP debating. Judges should determine which
team did the best to persuade them, by reasoned argument, that the motion ought to be
adopted or rejected. The judges do so as the ordinary intelligent voter within the meaning
outlined in section 2.1, and their assessments are always holistic and comparative:
considering all the contributions each team made to the debate in aggregate, and
comparing these to other teams. Teams cannot win or lose debates for isolated things they
did, like setting up the debate well or contradicting another team on their side. Crucially,
t h ere are no su ch th i n gs as au to mat i c f ou rth s or au to mati c f i rst s . This
is a matter of logical necessity: however good or bad something a team does is, another
team could always do exactly the same good or bad thing and do something else that
made them even better or even worse.

The outcome of the debate should obviously depend on what the teams do and don't say.
Judges must not insert themselves into the debate. Don't invent arguments for teams, don't
complete arguments and don't rebut arguments. Judges often speak about a speaker
͞getting at a good point even if ͞they didn t quite get there . This is just an excuse for a
judge to invent an argument they d like to hear. Don't do it As we don't do teams rebuttal
for them, we don't consider claims invalid just because we disagree, or because we can see
holes in their arguments, nor do we ignore arguments that were made just because they
were ignored by other teams in the debate.

Judges can and must assess how well-substantiated arguments are. This will inevitably
involve some assessment of the quality of the supporting reasons offered for arguments;
and, as noted in section 2, seriously implausible claims may constitute weak support for an
argument in the eyes of the judges. But judges must exercise the minimum of personal
evaluation in making such claims, and even seriously implausible arguments cannot be
disregarded by the judge if they haven t been rebutted – though they may have little
persuasive value In an ideal world teams will engage in extensive responses to each other s
well-detailed points. In most of the debates that occur in the actual world, teams will often
talk past each other and leave each other s points unchallenged Under those
circumstances, the judge will have to assess not only which arguments are most important,
but equally which are most clearly proven. Unrebutted points that require the judge to
make some logical leaps are often more persuasive than thoroughly-rebutted points and are
always more persuasive than no points at all, but are not preferable to a well-reasoned
argument which rests on fewer unsubstantiated assumptions. What is and is not rebutted is
therefore of vital importance to judging debates. Note that speakers don't have to use the
word ͞rebuttal to respond to an argument. It may be tidier if they do, but judges should
not ignore material that adequately deals with an argument just because the speaker
doesn t point out that it does.

Equally, this doesn t mean speakers should be ͞punished for not refuting everything: some
claims do not do any harm at all to the opposite side. For example, in a debate about the
legalisation of drugs if the government say ͞pink elephants are cute because they have
those nice ears and are a pleasant colour , this flawed argument can be safely left
unrebutted as it isn t a reason to legalise drugs. There is, therefore, no need to point out
that blue elephants are obviously more tasteful So too if they said ͞some drugs are less
harmful than others , this could also be ignored. While it is clearly more related to the
debate than the cute pink elephants argument, it is pre-argumentative – that is, it has not
yet been given sufficient surrounding words to actually provide a reason to do or not do the
policy. The other side can quite happily say ͞yes, some drugs are more harmful than others
and move on, or just ignore this argumentative non sequitur. Often as a judge, it can be
tempting to complete arguments for teams that are interesting but pre-argumentative.
Don't.

Each judging panel will comprise a single Chair and a number of additional judges termed
Wings (or Panellists ). It is the responsibility of the Chair to manage the deliberation
between the judges in a manner that allows all judges to participate fully in the discussion,
and produces a consensus decision and completed results sheet (known as a ballot ) within
the deliberation time limit: 15 minutes at this Worlds. Chairs of panels must manage their
time accordingly, and recognise that the rules require a vote if no consensus has been
reached early enough for the adjudication to complete in 15 minutes. Taking into account
the time taken to decide on individual speaker points, this means you should consider a vote
around 12 minutes into a discussion.

The opinions of Wings count just as much as the opinion of the Chair: the main difference is
simply that Wings are just not tasked with chairing (i.e. managing) the discussion. Wings
should treat the Chair with respect, and not interrupt/speak over them unless they feel they
are not being allowed to meaningfully participate in the discussion. In return, Chairs should
respect the opinions of Wings and give them sufficient opportunity to contribute to the
discussion. If the panel cannot reach a consensus after 15 minutes they may (depending on
the degree to which the tournament is on schedule!) be granted another 5-10 minutes of
time to discuss by the Adjudication Core (or, more likely, the Adjudication Core s
representatives near to the debate room – these representatives, whose key task is to
deliver ballots back to the Adjudication Core, are often called runners ). After any additional
time has elapsed, the judges must vote on the rankings they disagree over, with the
majority, in each disagreement, determining the result. If a panel has an even number of
judges, and the result of a vote is tied, the Chair s casting vote breaks the tie (i.e.
whichever side of the tie the Chair was on is the final result).

Trainee Judges: Some judges in the tournament may be designated as trainees Trainee
judges function exactly like Wing judges in every respect except that they do not get a
vote in the eventual determination of the round s results Trainee judges do still get to
participate in the deliberation, and should follow, make notes on, and declare their
views/rankings of the debate. Chair judges should give them equal opportunity to voice
their views and other judges should engage with them in discussion directly. But the trainee
does not get a say in deciding on the ultimate results of the debate. Trainee status is
intended to be temporary – after one or two rounds (especially if they receive good
feedback from other judges) most trainees will have their trainee status removed, and be
used for the remainder of the tournament as Wing or Chair judges. Being designated a
trainee should not be read as indicating that the Adjudication Core thinks a judge is bad
More usually it reflects that either the judge has limited judging experience, or that the
Adjudication Core lacks information on the judge.

3.2 Managing the deliberation

In close rounds, it is to be expected that the judges on the panel may have different views
on the debate. Therefore, achieving consensus and filling in the results ballot in 15 minutes
is a difficult task, requiring careful management by the Chair. Here we sketch some
suggestions for how this could be managed. These are not strict requirements – it is up to
the Chair to manage the discussion in an effective way.

The Chair should begin by asking each Wing to give either a full ranking of the four teams or,
at least, some indication of which teams they considered better or worse than each other.
This is not binding, it is a working hypothesis which will evolve as the discussion progresses.
Wings should not !eel any pressure to agree with one another or the Chair in their initial call,
as there is no negative consequence or in!erence !or changing your call. Judges should have
some opinion of the debate as soon as it is done, and should share their leanings along with
their uncertainties. Having no idea whatsoever until five minutes of note-reading has passed
does not bespeak an active following of the debate, although it may be reasonable to take a
couple of minutes to organise notes and confirm opinions individually prior to starting
discussion. The Chair should then assess the level of consensus which exists. There are
thousands of possible combinations, but thankfully a few scenarios crop up fairly often.
(1) Everyone has exactly the same rankings – celebrate (but briefly). Even though there is
agreement, the panel should still have a short discussion to ensure rankings are the
same for similar reasons, and accurately take into account the full contributions of all
four teams. They should then move on to filling in the ballot.
(2) Everyone has the same rankings except one person. The Chair should ask them to
defend their position. The discussion should be specific, tailored to the difference
between the minority and majority opinion. If it is a difference over one team, the
discussion should focus on that team, etc. Judges should not assume that someone is
wrong because they are in the minority.
(3) There is similarity in rankings (the judges agree on where one team is ranked or on some
relative rankings – for example, everyone agrees OG is better than CG) but also some
crucial differences. The judges should begin by establishing which discussions need to be
given the most time (i.e. there is disagreement about whether OO beat OG). Consolidate
the consensus that exists, and use this as a platform to break deadlocks.
(4) Chaos. There is no similarity between the rankings. The Chair should guide a discussion
of each team s arguments, or, depending on what makes sense to the panel in context,
of the clashes between particular pairs of teams.
- These debates often hinge on how one argument was evaluated, so your aim is to
detect such differences in interpretation. The initial discussion is intended for the
panel to inform each other of their perspectives and find some level of common
understanding.
- If two judges believe different arguments are central, the Chair should frame a
discussion about their relative priority. The Chair should get each judge to explain
their position, and attempt to establish a metric for the importance of arguments in
the debate.
- After this brief discussion, the members of the panel should each rank the teams and
compare again. If the panel has achieved some overlap, they should move on to the
suggestions under (3) above. It may eventually prove necessary to vote.

In all deliberations, judges should not feel under any obligation to stick to their original call
just because it was their initial view – flexibility and open-mindedness in the discussion is
crucial, and deliberations should always aim at consensus. Such consensus is not, however,
an ideal that is to be placed above the right result As such judges should not trade results
in order to each get their own views somewhat represented in the final ranking – this is
likely to produce a result that is impossible to coherently justify. If a judge believes that a
team placed first and the other judges disagree, the former judge should try to advance
their reasons. All judges must be flexible and willing to be persuaded, but if they are not
persuaded, they should stick with what they believe to be right.

3.3 Filling in the ballot

Once a ranking has been decided upon, the Chair should lead the panel in filling in the
ballot This involves recording the rankings and assigning speaker scores – a score, from 50-
100, for each speaker in the debate. The speaker point scale, with guidelines on how to
award speakers, is attached as an appendix to the end of this manual. There are a few
important rules about awarding speaker scores:
• Speaker scores should reflect the majority decision of the judges, not be a compromise
between various opinions i e don't say ͞we think OG wins, but we can make sure the
speaks reflect your different view . If the majority doesn't think a relative ranking is
close, there is no reason that the speaker scores suggest otherwise.
• The combined speaker scores for the two speakers on each team must be compatible
with the ranking they received. i.e. the team that placed first must have a higher
combined speaker score than the team that placed second, the team that placed second
must have a higher combined speaker score than the team that placed third, and so on.
Teams cannot be given the same total speaker score – there must be at least a one point
difference in the total speaker score of each team.
• Speaker points are important. They are used to determine where teams with the same
total team points rank after the in-rounds. As such, many teams may break, or fail to
break, on the basis of the speaker points they have been awarded. There are also
various speaker prizes. Therefore, judges should consider the awarding of speaker points
carefully, and endeavour to stick as closely as possible to the speaker point scale. Chair
judges must ensure that sufficient time is left to award the speaker points with care.
• Speaker points only successfully distinguish in the final rankings if the overall pool of
judges uses them with some consistency. There is no metaphysical truth about what an
82-scoring speech, for example, looks like – judges must stick to the standards of the
overall judging pool, as represented in the speaker scale, rather than to their own
personal standards.
• At Worlds, we would generally expect to see some marks awarded in every bracket of
the speaker scale. The average standard of speech at the tournament is meant to
receive a 75, and the majority of marks will fall in the 70s, high 60s and low 80s. But at
most Worlds we would expect there to be a number of marks in the high 80s and low
60s, and a very small number of marks in the 50s or 90s. Judges should not be afraid to
use the full range of the scale where it is warranted – but speeches should be
exceptionally good, or exceptionally weak, to achieve markets in the very top and
bottom brackets.

3.4 Announcing the Result

The Chair delivers the adjudication sometimes called the oral adjudication or reasons for
decision In the case that the Chair loses a vote in deciding the result they should ask one
of the Wings who voted in the majority to deliver the adjudication, at least as far as the
teams on which they differ from the majority are concerned. If their decision differs
sufficiently from that of the majority, it may be advisable to have one of the Wings give the
entire adjudication.

The adjudication should distinguish between the reasons for the decision and advice for
teams: judges may give both. The reasons should be about what did happen; while advice is
about what didn t happen, but perhaps should have. The latter cannot be a basis for the
former. The primary aim of an adjudication is to convey to the teams the reasoning of the
panel in ranking the teams as they did.

The adjudication should therefore present a reasoned argument for the ranking, using as
evidence the arguments made in the debate and how they influenced the judges. While
there are many theories about how to approach debates – from problem-solution
discussions to deconstructions of persuasiveness into sub-concepts – these should not
determine or explain a result, although judges may wish to use such concepts in offering
advice. The extent to which a team conforms to the way a particular judge would train or
coach them to debate has no relevance in judges decisions; although it is, of course,
possible that whatever it is that the team has done or failed to do has, in its own right, had
an impact on the persuasiveness of their arguments.

The adjudication should, in general, be structured as followed:

• announce the ranking of the teams,
• go through the teams in an order that makes sense, comparing pairs of teams and
explaining why one beat the other,
• summarise and invite teams for more detailed feedback.

Comparing teams involves more than making isolated statements about Team X and Team
y and saying ͞so x clearly beat y . It requires that the judge explain the interaction between
the teams to establish who had the better arguments. The judge should be specific and be
detailed – the vague application of adjectives is not sufficient judging. Identify arguments,
whether and how they were responded to, and what the impact of the remainder was.
Identify which teams get credit for what, and how this influenced the decision about
whether or not we should do the policy.

One way to give feedback is to discuss the teams and their contributions in chronological
order – discussing first the OG, then the OO, and so on. Another approach is to begin with
the team who has come first and work down, or the team who came fourth and work up. In
some debates, it may be appropriate to discuss the benches, or the halves. Whichever
approach the judge giving the adjudication adopts, they are required to be comparative and
specific. Advice should be separated from the reasons for their decision, lest they confuse
teams about which is which.

There are a number of broad areas of advice you may want to give as a judge, including:
• general advice on how to improve
• suggestions of reasons why things identified in the adjudication happened
• what might have been run (although it is often advisable to minimise this unless asked,
to avoid confusing teams about why they lost the debate).

3.5 Feedback on Adjudicators

Adjudication Cores want to know how judges are doing, for two reasons: first, to ensure
they provide the fairest possible competition by allocating the best judges to Chair panels;
second, because judges care about their success in the tournament and feedback is key to
fairly assessing their performance.

There are three types of feedback:

• teams feedback on the judge who delivered the adjudication,
• chairs feedback on wings,
• wings feedback on chairs.

Each type is important. The only way Adjudication Cores can effectively assess and allocate
judges is if everyone participates in providing feedback.

3.6 Some Pitfalls to Avoid in Decision-Making and Feedback

What follows is a common set of mistakes that judges may make in determining results and
giving feedback. We emphasise that man y o f th e examp l es we gi ve o n su ch p it f
all s aren t i n and of themselves b ad fee d b ack – they could be given much further
explanation so as to be an appropriate introductory comment. But judges should not rest
satisfied with such
statements without further clarification and explanation to the debaters that makes clear
the specific, comparative reasons why one team beat another team.

A) Dealing in generalities rather than specifics

͞We thought that Closing Opposition really brought the case home for us, so they won the
debate
͞Opening Opposition had some interesting things to say, but the analysis didn't get
better until Closing Opposition

It s perfectly fine for adjudicators to use general language to introduce their reasons,
provided that each general statement is supported by examples of what actually happened.
No statement of the sorts that we've listed above should ever go unsupported by specific
examples of the claim being made, either during the deliberation or during feedback.

B Gran t i n g cert ain cl asses of arguments undue priority

͞Only Opening Government knew the names of major Brazilian cities
͞closing Government won because their arguments were moral rather than practical

This judging pitfall takes a number of forms, one of which is the fetishisation of the use of
specific knowledge in the making of arguments. Teams which make strong arguments
buttressed by good knowledge should be rewarded, but not because of the total amount of
facts they named, but because of the strength of the arguments which those facts were
marshalled in support of. A clever use of facts makes an argument stronger and better, it
does not make an argument.

A second form of this pitfall is according improper priority to arguments that are of
various types (moral/philosophical/economic/practical A principled argument, for
example, is not necessarily better or worse than a practical one – it depends what each
argument seeks to prove and how well it does so.

c Pe n al t y jud gi n g
͞You didn't take any Points of Information, so there was no way you could come first
͞We had questions about the mechanism so we put you last

A good referee is not one who incessantly blows their whistle and stops play. Similarly, a
good judge isn t one who tries to find as many reasons as possible to exclude consideration
of a team s arguments and speak instead about the form rather than the content of their
contributions. If a team violates the requirements of role fulfilment, they should be
penalised only up to the point of removing any harm they caused to the debate through
failure to fulfil their role.

Some Examples:
• Not taking any POIs means that a speakers has not engaged fully with the other side –
their material may be rendered less persuasive, but should not be excluded from
consideration.
• Lack of clarity in a mechanism should be resolved by allowing the Opposition teams to
make any reasonable assumptions of their own and letting the debate carry on from
there, not disregarding other contributions of the team setting out the mechanism.
• If a speaker introduces new arguments in an Opposition Whip speech, these are to be
discounted, as though the speaker had said nothing on those points – but other material
should still be considered.

D) Judging on Format Rather than Content

͞You should have put your argument about rights first
͞Your team was unbalanced - all the good points came from the first speaker
͞You only spoke for five minutes

Speaking for a certain length of time or placing arguments in a certain order is irrelevant (in
and of itself) to which team won the debate. Naturally, speakers and teams who spend all
their time on good arguments and spend more time explaining more important and more
complex arguments will do better at being persuasive, but they succeed because they have
made good arguments and have explained those arguments well not because they ͞spent
time on them A speaker can win a debate with a one minute speech ;but it's very very
hard to do so). Many of the examples listed here may well be useful feedback, but they do
not reduce how persuasive a team was in-and-of-themselves.

E) Swiftly reaching a decision and then finding a justification for it

͞We all saw the debate the same way so just come to us each individually for feedback
͞The closing half teams were just much more persuasive and their arguments really stuck
with us at the end of the debate, so opening government took third and opening opposition
fourth

Either as an individual or as a panel, it can be tempting to feel at the end of the debate that
the result is really clear, and not carefully scrutinise the contributions of the four teams to
ensure a clear justification for that ranking – instead rather artificially constructing a
justification to fit initial hunches about the call. This is especially likely when all the judges
end up with the same ranking, and thereby conclude that they must be correct since they all
agreed. Judges should always, at the end of the debate, carefully review the content
delivered by all four teams and ensure that a result emerges from a logical, reasoned
justification, rather than vice versa.

3.7 Some Advice on Setting Motions

At Worlds, as at all tournaments, the tournament Adjudication Core will set the motions, so
this is not something judges need concern themselves with. However, this manual is
intended to be the principle consolidated document on BP debating, which we hope will
support tournaments and debating societies around the world. As such, we include here
some advice for judges serving on Adjudication Cores at other tournaments on setting
motions – we hope this can help improve the standard of motions at all tournaments.
Setting motions is fun, interesting and important – few things will ruin debaters experience
at a tournament like having to debate badly formulated motions; by contrast, a great set of
motions will be remembered by debaters for a long time and will contribute hugely to their
enjoyment of a tournament.
However, setting good motions is also difficult. There are many well-established motions
which may be worth re-using at tournaments (several have been used as examples in this
manual), but Adjudication Cores usually like to innovate and come up with some new
motions, or at least new formulations of old motion ideas. Also, the fact that a motion has
been used at a past tournament does not necessarily mean that that Adjudication Core
were successful in predicting whether the motion would work well. To avoid setting
problematic motions, we suggest adjudication cores should go through the following
checklist to assess each motion:
9 Is the motion balanced?: By which we mean, is the motion equally winnable for
Government and Opposition teams? This is not simply a question of there being an
equal number of potential arguments on either side, or an equally powerful major
argument on each side. Adjudication Cores must think through how the debate is
likely to run through all four teams down the two sides of the debate and reason
through whether some arguments from one side are likely to be much more difficult
to take down than the arguments of the other side. The temptation, when an
Adjudication Core really likes a motion is to reason that there is ͞an answer that
could be given by teams to a powerful argument, and that the motion is thus fair.
But adjudication cores need to ask themselves whether these ͞answers are equally
accessible on either side of the debate, whether those answers can be equally easily
analysed, whether there are further possible responses for each side of the debate,
and so forth. Importantly, the Adjudication Core should consider whether the
motion is sufficiently balanced at all skill levels present at the tournament. Some
motions may be very balanced when debated by novices but quite ͞weighted to
one side when debated by experienced debaters – or vice-versa.
9 Is the motion sufficiently deep?: By which we mean: does the motion provide
sufficient material on each side for it to be equally winnable by both Opening and
closing teams Don t just think in the abstract about whether there are ͞lots of
arguments Are these arguments sufficiently sophisticated that they won t all be
consistently taken by the opening-half teams? Don t just focus on one side Ask what
both CG and CO are likely to be able to say.
9 Is the motion reasonably accessible?: BP debating sets a relatively high standard on
debaters basic knowledge – we assume that debaters read the news widely and are
reasonably well informed about contemporary political, social and ethical
controversies. Still, motions need to be on topics which are reasonably accessible to
debaters in general. If motions are not accessible, this places huge significance on
the rather arbitrary differences in knowledge debaters have on different topics –
those who happen to know more than average about the motion in question will
gain a considerable advantage over those whose own areas of deeper knowledge are
on other issues.
9 Does the motion place an excessive modelling/definitional burden?: For every
motion, OG teams throughout the tournament need to be able to set it up. If a
motion needs a huge amount of detail to even get off the ground, this may put an
unreasonable burden on OG, and make it hard for them to both meet their
modelling duties and make sufficient arguments.
9 Does the motion require some specific argument or interpretation to be reached
by either side, which is not completely obvious, for their case to look remotely
 plausible: 0ften motions look very balanced if teams on both sides realise something
crucial about the debate. But if that crucial necessary realisation is not obvious,
debates are likely to be very erratic, and teams who fail to realise the non-obvious
idea/meaning/empirical fact/argument put at a huge disadvantage such lynchpin
arguments must be very accessible for a motion to be fair
9 Does the motion require the suspension of disbelief or an overlooking of more
reasonable alternatives?: A lot of motions may be interesting if they are solely
compared with the status quo. But if there is actually a much less radical/interesting
solution to the problem the motion tries to solve, which is in fact clearly superior to
the motion as a solution, this could make debates run seriously awry. Adjudication
Cores must remember that 00 have the right to counter-prop if they wish. If an
alternative ͞middle ground solution to the problem the motion is trying to solve is
available and clearly superior to the motion, 00 could legitimately propose that
superior solution, rendering the debate extremely weighted in favour of opposition.
9 Might the motion be egregiously offensive?: In debating there is an admirable view
that debaters should engage with controversial topics, and be willing to set aside
their own personal views or commitments in order to debate. This is to be
welcomed, and helps make debating intellectually challenging and broadens
participants experiences and thinking. However, Adjudication Cores have a
responsibility to make sure that all debaters feel equally welcome at any
tournament, and that their participation is not blocked by being forced to debate
issues that go beyond merely challenging their personal worldviews by deeply
offending them and causing them emotional distress. At international tournaments,
it is important to keep the diversity of backgrounds in mind in assessing whether
motions may do so.

In the pursuit of setting motions that are ͞humorous , ͞challenging , ͞novel or

͞radical , Adjudication Cores can all too easily fail in these responsibilities and end
up setting topics that are egregiously offensive. This should be eliminated from
debating. Such motions undermine debating tournaments commitments to
accessibility and equity upset competitors and damage debating s image Debating
tournaments – especially international tournaments – exist for the enjoyment of all
competitors and should be a vehicle for encouraging debating in new places and
amongst new generations of students. They are not there for the amusement of a
few individuals. Adjudication Cores need to take seriously how their motions will be
viewed by those attending the tournament. Motions should, literally, provoke
debate, and a world in which every tournament just pandered to a small set of
anodyne topics would enervate debating of its intellectual substance. But there is a
huge world, which the vast majority of tournaments stay in, between such
suppression of controversy and the use of deeply offensive motions.

Some types of subject matter will require more care by an Adjudication Core than
others. Motions that deal with sensitive issues like rape or abortion should be set
with care – while it is certainly possible to set good motions about these issues,
Adjudication Cores should be aware that many participants may have direct and
emotionally intense personal experience with these issues. A debate that, for
example, asked participants to argue that abortion is, or should be considered akin
 to, murder in order to do well in the debate, would quite likely be exposing female
participants who had had abortions to those arguments or be asking them to make
those arguments themselves. Similarly, a motion that requires speakers to go into
great detail about explicit components of the act of rape would be a cruel thing to
expose debaters to, when some of them may themselves have experienced rape.
Considering the vast number of debateable issues in society, Adjudication Cores
should take great care in setting motions that touch on such issues; to ensure that
they are not only debateable without such triggering or inappropriate arguments,
but also that they are likely to be debated as such in all rooms.

This is not to say that any subject area should be specifically and entirely off-limits –
a motion about rape may be perfectly debateable without any such problematic
arguments, for example. However, Adjudication Cores should also consider whether
special arrangements – such as reminder Equity briefings – may be necessary to
ensure that such debates proceed as intended.

Meeting all of the conditions on this checklist doesn t ensure that a motion will be good!
And sometimes motions that do not meet all these checks might still be. For example,
motions for out-rounds will only be debated by some of the best teams at the tournament
and this can make a more difficult motion appropriate. But this checklist is a good starting
point for assessing how well a motion will run at a tournament.
 Appendix 1: The Worlds Speaker Scale
The mark bands below are rough and general descriptions; sp ee ch es nee d n t h ave
ever y feature described to fit in a particular band. Many speakers will range across
multiple bands depending on the feature assessed – for example, their style might
appear of the 75-79 range, while their engagement might be closer to the 65-69
bracket, and their argumentation closest to the 70-74 range. Judges should not treat any
individual feature as decisive in and of itself, but should rather aim to balance all features
of the speech to come to the speaker score that seems most appropriate Throughout this
scale arguments refers both to constructive material and responses.

95- Plausibly one of the very best debating speeches ever given, flawless and
100 astonishingly compelling in every regard. It is incredibly difficult to think up
satisfactory responses to any of the arguments made.
90- Brilliant arguments are extremely well-explained and analysed in great depth, always
94 central to the case being advocated, and demand highly sophisticated responses. The
speech is very clear and incredibly compelling in its delivery. Role fulfilment is
executed flawlessly, and includes excellent engagement with other teams in the
debate. Plausible one of the very best speeches that would be given at WUDC in any
given year.
85- Very good arguments are highly compelling and analysed deeply; responses of real
89 sophistication would be required to refute them. Delivery is clear and highly
persuasive. Role fulfilment is close to flawless, and the speech engages directly and
effectively with other teams in the debate.
80- Consistently relevant arguments set-up or address key issues in the round with a
84 good degree of explanation and analysis. The speech is clear throughout, and
persuasively delivered. Role is well-fulfilled and engagement with other teams, whilst
possibly lax on some points, is generally effective and convincing.
75- Arguments are almost exclusively relevant, and frequently persuasive. Occasionally,
79 but not often, the speaker may slip into: i) deficits in explanation; ii) simplistic
argumentation vulnerable to competent responses; or iii) peripheral or irrelevant
arguments The speaker holds one s attention provides clear structure, and
successfully fulfils their basic role on the table. A genuine effort to engage effectively
with other teams in the debate is made, though some important contributions may
be missed or poorly unaddressed.
70- Arguments are generally relevant, and some explanation of them given, but on
74 multiple occasions there may be: i) obvious gaps in logic; ii) simplistic argumentation;
or iii peripheral or irrelevant material The speaker mostly holds the audience s
attention and is usually clear, but is not always compelling, and may sometimes be
difficult to follow There are decent attempts to fulfil one s role on the table and
engage with other teams, but these may be undermined by problematic omissions.
65- Relevant arguments are often made, but with limited explanation. The speaker is
69 clear enough to be understood the vast majority of the time, but this may be difficult
and/or unrewarding. Poor attempt to fulfil role, and whilst some engagement with
other teams in the debate is made, it misses important contributions, and is often
ineffective in refuting the arguments it does target.
60- The speaker is often relevant, but rarely makes sustained arguments. Frequently but
64 not always confusing, with the appeal of arguments weakly conveyed; minimal
awareness of role, little if any engagement with other teams.
55- The speech rarely makes relevant claims, which are only occasionally formulated as
59 arguments. Confusing throughout, and perhaps somewhat limited in the basic
quantity of what is said. No evident awareness of role, no meaningful engagement
with other teams.
50- Content is almost never relevant, is both confusing and confused, and is highly
54 limited in quantity. No fulfilment of role is provided, nor any engagement with other
teams.