1. UPD A (7)
2. ADMU A (6)
3. DLSU A
4. UPD B (5)
5. UPLB A
6. XU A
7. UPM A
8. FEU A
9. DLSU C
10. SBC A
11. UPD C
12. DLSU B
13. ADMU B
14. UPD D
15. ADMU C (4)
16. ADMU D

Reserve:

17. UPLB B
18. MC A

Subject to the approval of the Union, the decision will be reverted back to voting
Logic for reverting back to the voting system:
1. To apply the same system that is applied in UADC, which PIDC aims to prepare its participants for
2. To assign the responsibility of being persuasive to debaters and not to adjudicators, persuasion being the job of the debaters.
3. To prevent younger/newer adjudicators from getting overturned with more… charismatic/overbearing/insistent chair. Being new doesn’t mean less reasonable.

• Adjudicators essentially face two challenges: 1. getting the decision correctly and fairly; and 2. explaining one’s decision persuasively.

• Some judges get the decision correctly but are scored rather low due to poor justification. These are situations where the debaters feel that they won or lost the debate for the wrong reasons. In such situations, even the winning team would passionately decry the shortcomings of their adjudicator/s in the adj feedback form with unspeakably horrendous comments. (Please read the section on “Bad Practices in adjudication” to reduce such incidents.)

• On the contrary, there are situations where some judges seem to make wrong calls yet their justification is rather persuasive. This happens given the subjective nature of debate being both an art and a sport rather than simply being an exact science. This usually happens when the debate is very close.

In this case, given that the justification was persuasive, the idea of having an absolutely “right decision” is called into question. Thus, the justification is more crucial to the impartial adj core especially in assessing adjudication tests.

• The PURPOSE of this string of notes is to help you justify your decision by making others understand how you decided the round.

• There are a number of different strategies to help you reach a decision

• First, is to assess your gut feeling at the end of the debate and the sum total of your indicative speaker scores. If these align, try and identify the reasons why you believe that a particular team won, with reference to their matter, manner and method (D’Cruz, n.d.).

• The Adjudication Core is uncomfortable prescribing this strategy for a couple of reasons. First, not everyone’s gut feeling can be trusted due to some adjudicators’ lack of experience and bias. Second, deciding on gut feeling and what you see on your score sheets reduce your opportunities to genuinely weigh the contributions of both sides leading to a decreased vigilance in assessing converse burdens; wherein the judges will be more prone in actively looking for mistakes of the losing team rather than in comparing the weaknesses and strengths of both teams. Third, this strategy heavily relies on impressions and is simply lazy judging.

• The second approach, and most common in cases where teams are evenly matched, is to go through the debate issue by issue and establish which team won the major issues of the debate. In this case the adjudicator is effectively acting like a third speaker – identifying the themes of the debate and then within those working out who won and why. This approach tends to intrinsically favour matter above manner and method. However, it can then be followed by an assessment of the manner and method of the teams (Ibid.).

• This approach is more palatable to the Adjudicator Core since it is more comprehensive and comparative. In addition to what was previously stated, the adjudicators SHOULD AT ALL TIMES justify and demonstrate how the main issue/s emerge as such. Often times, it is in the identification of issues that a team wins or loses a debate. For example, a team won an issue but the adjudicator thought that it was not a major issue in the debate thus the debate still went to the opposing team since the judge thought that the issue won by that team was the major issue.

 The three elements of a speech are not to be taken separately but holistically.

Matter – substantiated, relevant, consistent argumentation, etc.

Manner – speaking style, word choice, etc.

Method – structure, organization, etc.

Matter

• How effectively would an average reasonable person be persuaded, taking away the impact of manner and method?
• Positive matter attempts to prove the value of something to defend a team’s stand and can stand on its own. Negative matter aims to disprove the premise or conclusion of an opponent’s argument and cannot stand on its own.
• While negative matter is given credit, teams can’t win based on negative matter alone.
• Matter isn’t solely the amount of examples a speaker can provide. It refers to the analysis the speaker is able to provide and how logical, substantiated and relevant it is in the context of a debate.

Manner

• Manner is the presentation of a speech.
• There is no single standard for good manner (speaks fast or slow, aggressive or soft-spoken, differences in accent, etc.). The most important consideration is that the substance of the speaker’s points is communicated effectively to the adjudicator. 
• There are some basic thresholds. Racist, sexist, plainly offensive, derogatory or insulting remarks have to be penalized and are not to be tolerated.
• Effective use of manner, like good wit and strong rhetoric, can increase the appreciation for speeches and are encouraged.
• Note however that adjudication should still be issue-based and manner should never be a deciding factor in determining wins for debates.

Method

• Method is the structure, timing and the technical presentation of a speech.
• Just like manner, there is no single standard for structure. The most important consideration is that the method aids in communicating the speaker’s points.
• Method can be subdivided into two components, both of which are equally important.
  • Individual method – signposting, order of speech (rebuttals before arguments, arguments before rebuttals, compounded, etc.), fulfillment of speaker roles, sufficient development for different points, etc.
  • Team method – delineation and allocation of arguments, support for team cases, consistency among speakers, comprehensivity in addressing all pertinent issues, etc.

Some notes:

• Matter is usually considered the most important element of a speech. There is question to how much can be intelligently be said about manner and method, aside from the fact that taste normally factors into the assessment of the two.
• It is to be noted that the other two elements are still important. Besides the fact that they increase the level of persuasion a speech wouldn’t normally have, there is also an emerging appreciation for the effective use of manner and method in the international debate scene.

Grading a speech

• A speech should be graded in itself (elements of a speech, role, etc.) then relative to the entirety of the debate
• The average speech could be a starting point. An average speaker gets a grade of 75 by simply doing what was expected of him/her.
• Falling short of or exceeding expectations requires appropriate deductions/additions from the average speech grade.
• Grades can be made immediately after a speech is delivered, and can be modified later on to suit the adjudicator’s final decision.

Speaker scores

Range of speaker scores is 67-83 Logic for the expansion of speaker scores: – To follow the UADC scoring range, which PIDC aims to prepare its participants for – To recognize the existing limitations of a narrow range (e.g. some speeches, although average, still vary in impact, and should be accounted for differently)

Scores (The scores in the parentheses are what the scores would have been in the previous range.)

(69-70) – 67-68 – Contribution to the debate is insignificant or virtually nonexistent

(71-72) – 69-70 – Weak contribution. Even without response, speech is unpersuasive.

(73-74) – 71-73 – Below average. Contribution is decent but still had more flaws.

(75)       – 74-76 – Fulfilled his or her role. Provides acceptable reason to support side. Equal flaws and valid contributions.

(76-77) – 77-79 – Above Average. Contribution is decent and outweighs flaws

(78-79) – 80-81 – Excellent contribution. Minor flaws. Some room for improvement.

(80-81) – 82-83 – Flaws are virtually nonexistent or due only to limitations set by speech time, etc

Some notes:

• No low point wins (Total speaker scores of winning team should be higher than the total speaker scores of the losing team)
• Only the members of the winning majority will get to decide the speaker scores. It should be based on consensus.
• All speaker scores should be integers, meaning the only acceptable number after the period is 0 (67,68,69,70,71,etc.).
  • The exception are reply speakers who can have 5 to the right of the decimal point (33.5, 34.5, 35.5, etc)
  • The range for reply speakers is 33.5-41.5, derived from dividing the lowest and highest number in the range.
  • To avoid mathematical mistakes, just rate the speeches of reply speakers like the speeches of ordinary speakers and divide the scores by two.

When an adjudicator is presented a glaring illogical argument by a team, can she discredit it even if the opposing team did not rebut it?

It depends. If the illogical argument (one that can be said to be a case of hasty generalization, non-sequitur, appeal to emotion, error in fact, etc,) is an irrelevant one or whose contribution can be said to be negligible in the over-all assessment of the debate, the adjudicator may discredit it by not counting it in her determination of which team wins the round. She may simply ignore it. In general, the opposing team which did not respond to this irrelevant illogical argument may not be faulted for managing its time well by devoting its responses to the more relevant cases of its opponent team. It is up to the adjudicator to deduct point/s from the speaker who gave the argument.

On the other hand, if the illogical argument given by a team happened to be a very relevant one and yet the opposing team did not respond to it, the adjudicator may let the argument stand. In such a case, the team that did not rebut a highly rebuttable important point can lose the issue (not necessarily the round) under which the argument belongs. This is because it is highly probable that the team did not spot the flaw in the argument at all and it is only the adjudicator that was able to do so.

Consequently, a fair adjudicator is expected to correspondingly deduct speaker points both from the debater/s who gave or supported the argument and the debater/s who failed to rebut it. Arguments and rebuttals are of equal importance in a debate.

As a matter of strategy, debaters are advised to respond to all arguments as much as possible. A team may deem an argument to be an irrelevant one (and hence decide not to allot time to rebut it) yet the adjudicator may think otherwise.

If a team claims a fact and the other team disputes its truth content, what should an adjudicator do?

Since the adjudicator is assumed to be an average reasonable voter, she can determine which of the two versions of the disputed fact is ‘true’. This power of the adj to arbitrate facts, however, can only be exercised when the fact in question can be categorized as general information.

The adjudicator, therefore, may not use her specialist or insider knowledge to settle a matter dispute.

Events, facts, figures and the like that are widely covered in mainstream media fall into the general information category. Events, facts, figures and the like that can only be found and accessed in select–oftentimes exclusive–journals and textbooks, may be considered specialist or insider knowledge.

Ideally, the adjudicator is not supposed to judge facts or matter since these are just tools in making arguments persuasive. It is totally possible then for an adjudicator to disregard the entire matter battle and focus only on the analyses which the disputed matter aims to support. This is because there are arguments that can stand on the mere strength of the analysis provided without the need for an example. If the argument relies solely on a piece of matter, chances are, the argument is weak.

What should a debater do in a matter battle?

In a matter dispute, it is not enough for a debater to cite her source to prove credibility. (Sometimes, it may even be counterproductive.) The debater must prove why the matter she is claiming to be true can be logically deduced to be true. She can cite trends and parallel examples that are more accessible and less contentious than the controversial matter to prove her point. She may logically trace the causes that led to the effect which she is claiming to be the truth. This is especially important in rare cases where the matter may prove to be integral in the persuasiveness of the argument.

It is important to note too that matter should not substitute for an argument. Debaters are expected to analyze their examples and not completely rely on them to speak for themselves. The team that can argue beyond the matter quibble and can provide persuasive analysis whether their matter is true or false has definitely a higher chance of winning the issue.

An interventionist adjudicator involves herself in the debate as if she’s one of the speakers. She rebuts an argument, dismisses it, takes it down, and let it disproportionately influence her decision even if the argument remained standing either because the other team failed to destroy it or simply ignored it. Please see sections Handling Matter Battles and Handling Glaring Illogical Arguments for a detailed discussion on this.

An interventionist adjudicator also imposes her personal version of the motion to the debate. She expects speakers to frame the debate according to her predetermined framework and penalizes teams for failing to meet her set expectations prior to the round.

An interventionist adjudicator makes a team win because she personally feels that the arguments of the other team that would have otherwise fairly won the debate are weak, despite the inability of opposing team to take these arguments down. She lets her personal take on the issue cloud her judgment on the debate that just transpired. She lets her background influence her decision. If she is a conservative, then a team that proposes or defends a highly liberal policy will never win for her. If she is a progressive liberal, any policy with a conservative tone will never be argued persuasively to her.

Interventionist adjudicators are better off debaters than judges.

Personal Preference Adjudication

A personal preference adjudicator refuses to be guided by the values of the tournament. She is guided only by her personal debate values. Never mind if her personal debate values conflict with the tournament values.

Even if it’s a tournament value that the affirmative and negative sides have equal burdens, she would insist to apply her affirmative-side-has-a-heavier-burden rule.

Even if it’s a tournament value that constructive arguments and rebuttals are of equal importance, she would give less appreciation to the team that gave lesser number of arguments but was able to forward rebuttals that could stand as constructive arguments by themselves.

Even if it’s a tournament value that teams in general have to argue both the pragmatics and principles of the debate, and in general, there is no hierarchy of one over the other, she will automatically give the win to the team that devoted its cases only to the principled issues of the debate or vice versa.

A personal preference adjudicator is often heard saying “I’m sorry it’s my adj value, or I’m sorry it’s my adj preference. . . ” when a team asks for further explanation of her controversial decision.

Impressionist Adjudication

An impressionist adjudicator includes a team’s or speaker’s reputation as one of her standards in making one team win or lose the debate. Naïvely, she may also make a team win or lose based on the team letter.

A fair adjudicator bears in mind that a team is only as good as its latest debate performance in the round where she is currently adjudicating. A team’s previous round performance as well as its national or international accomplishments must never be a consideration in giving the win to that team. Likewise, a fair adjudicator does not impose an additional burden to a team that has no track record to boast of. Trite as it may seem, both teams should have equal chances of winning.

Shopping List Adjudication

A shopping list adjudicator is a stickler for technicalities. For her, if a team commits a technical mistake, that team should incur an automatic loss.

A very technical adjudicator will automatically penalize a debater who spoke for only five minutes even if in that span of time that speaker contributed more than the speaker who spoke for seven minutes. Perversely, she may even make the team of that speaker lose due to that under time speech. She may also make the negative side lose for not explicitly stating the clash even if the clash can be logically deduced from the arguments and statements of the negative speakers. She may also think that a debater who incorporates a rebuttal within an argument or issues a statement inconsistent with the team’s stance or attempts to reframe the debate automatically deserves a loss without weighing the relative effects of those actions in the over all dynamics of the debate.

Admittedly, a team has a higher chance of winning if it does not violate any technicalities. It does not mean, however, that those who do deserve automatic losses. There are no automatic losses. Debates should be adjudicated on the substance of arguments and rebuttals and never on technicalities alone.

Motherhood Statement Adjudication

A motherhood statement adjudicator sugarcoats justifications of her decision in vague and general statements in such a way that after the oral adjudication, more questions are generated in the minds of debaters and they are rushing off to give a grade of 1 in vengeance and in confusion.

Following are the usual statements of a motherhood statement adjudicator:

I feel that the arguments of Aff/Neg are more persuasive than the arguments provided by the Neg/Aff (after which, the debaters are left scratching their heads waiting for the details on why their arguments are more or less persuasive than the other team’s. The justification ends with this statement.).

The Aff/Neg side offered more believable rebuttals than Neg/Aff that’s why it won the round. (It ends there. No mention of the rebuttal or the rebuttal is just mentioned but no analysis is given as to why the rebuttal is effective in destroying the case of the other team).

The problem with these motherhood statements is that there is no way by which anyone can fairly evaluate them. No one can dispute the statement that Aff/Neg won because their cases are strong and they gave pretty convincing rebuttals if no details or justifications are provided by the adjudicator. Motherhood statements are mere assertions. They are sweeping statements and claims whose value cannot be ascertained in the absence of evidence and analysis.

A motherhood statement adjudicator must not be surprised if she receives a grade of 1 from the teams. She must be ready to answer a flurry of questions from losing and winning teams right after she delivers her oral adjudication.

Issue-Counting Adjudication

An issue-counting adjudicator counts the number of issues each of the teams wins and declares the team that won the most number of issues as the eventual winner. For an issue-counting adjudicator, there is no concept of minor and major issues. To her, all issues are equal.

A fair adjudicator assigns relative weights of importance to issues discussed in the debate. It is perfectly and oftentimes possible that a team may lose several issues and win just one issue and still be declared the winner of the round. This is because one issue can be the major issue around which the win has to be determined. The contribution of the other issues in the debate can be considered marginal and hence they can be treated as minor issues.

Note: As much as it is possible for a debate to only have one major issue, it is equally possible too to have two, three, four, even five major issues in the debate.

Debaters therefore will be more appreciated by a fair adjudicator if they themselves conduct an assessment of the relative importance of their cases and have them reflected in the rigor of analysis they devote to a specific issue. If debaters would claim that a specific issue is the most important issue in the debate, they must offer reasons as to why this is the case.

A strategic team however will not be stubborn to insist on winning just one issue which it considers to be the determining issue of the round. The other team may validly claim another issue to be the most important one. Adjudicators can fairly make the judgment that these two major issues are of equal importance and ideally have to be both won by a team. Ultimately, in a scenario where a team wins one major issue and the other team wins the other equally important major issue, it will all boil down to how much a team won a major issue and how much it lost the other one.

The following are activities that a self-respecting adjudicator should never do in the middle of a debate round:

• Make faces
• Take calls
• Engage in messaging activities (SMS, BB, etc.)
• Engage in a conversation with fellow adjudicators or anyone in the room
• Doodle
• Sleep

1. Truism

A truistic definition creates a one-sided argument that cannot be expected to be opposed (as opposed to a tautology, which is impossible to oppose). For example, consider one debate on the topic “THAT WE SHOULD PAY MORE ATTENTION TO THE ENVIRONMENT”. The affirmative team defined ‘the environment’ as essentially “the political, economic and social environment of the state”. Under that definition, the affirmative was essentially arguing, “we should pay more attention to the important issues that affect us”. This is a truism – quite apart from missing the clear issue of the debate, it is almost impossible to expect the negative team to argue that we should not pay more attention to such issues.

2. Tautology

A tautological definition prevents any argument at all. A tautology is an argument that is true by logic. That is, it does not matter what your opinions are, you cannot possibly argue against it. For example, consider the topic “THAT WE SHOULD BREAK A BAD LAW”. If the affirmative defines‘bad law’ as meaning ‘a law that is impossible to obey’, that team will argue, “we should break laws if those laws are impossible to obey”. Apart from missing the issue (whether we are obliged to obey unjust laws), this team is arguing a tautology. Why? Because if the affirmative’s definition is accepted, the topic is true by definition: the negative team cannot possibly argue that we shouldobey laws that are impossible to obey. Such a definition defeats the purpose of debating in the first place.

3. Time setting

‘Time setting’ means taking a general topic and limiting it to a specific time, past or future. For example, when defining THW legalize euthanasia, it would be ‘time setting’ to say “we limit this debate to the early 18th century”. It is obviously not ‘time setting’ to say “we limit this debate tothe present day”, because the topic is clearly intended to be about the present time. However, while it would not be ‘time setting’, such a statement would be unnecessary.

4. Place setting

‘Place setting’ means taking a general topic and setting it in a specific place that is different from that which is plainly intended or in an obscure place. For example, if a debate was simply about legalizing abortion and your government bench limited the debate in Erithrea, that is place setting and it is reasonable for the negative team to challenge that definition.

5. Squirrel

Squirreling means that the definition is not reasonably close to the plain meaning of the words of the topic. For example, the topic was “THAT WE SHOULD SUPPORT CLONING”. The issue of this debate is clear; the genetic cloning of life. If the affirmative team defined ‘cloning’ as ‘cloning of compact disks (CDs)’, they have still set an even-handed debate; there are arguments for andagainst copying of music and computer programs but this is clearly a prohibited definition and warrants a challenge.

HOW TO MOUNT A DEFINITIONAL CHALLENGE

A definitional challenge can be mounted for any of the abovereasons. The challenge MUST be made by the first negative speaker as their FIRST piece of substantive speech. Challenges cannot be mounted by otherspeakers.

1. State why the definition is unreasonable

This is as easy as saying “…the definition of the Olympics as Australia‟s obsession with sport is unreasonable because it has no logical link to the topic.”

2. Explain why the definition is unreasonable

Usually the best way to do this is to show that the average, reasonable person would believe the topic to be about something else. Eg; The Olympic dream would be about fair competition, friendship and athletic excellence.

3. The “EVEN IF‟

Just because you‟re challenging their definition doesn‟t mean you don‟t have to rebut their arguments. This is done by saying “…but even if we accept their definition of the Olympics, their arguments are still flawed because…”

4. Propose an alternative definition

Make it short and simple because by now everyone has a pretty good idea of what your case is.

GUIDELINES ON JUDGING DEFINITIONAL DEBATES

There is no automatic loss. Just because the affirmative team squirreled the debate does not mean that they will automatically lose the debate.

Holistic adjudication is advised where all contributions in the debate should be weighed accordingly.

If the definitional debate is negligible commence with issue-based adjudication. Definitional debate can be considered negligible if it does not fall under the major issues in the debate and if the substantive content of the debate is not significantly compromised.

If the definitional challenge was the most important issue in the debate, where no other significant issue merged, which probably only happens in theory, then the adjudicator should assess the constructive material used in mounting the definitional challenge and in defending one’s definition as if it were an argument.

- Burdens are essentially what a team has to prove to win the debate. This means that there has to be a goal, a direction, which a team is seeking to achieve in the debate. It’s not enough for a team to rebut and prove the other side is wrong. They also need to defend their own side. For example, opposition cannot win by simply proving that the policy of affirmative cannot work and that their arguments are all wrong. In the classic prostitution debate, government says they will give employment to these women; opposition cannot win just by saying that said women will still be poor because they won’t earn a lot. This has to be accompanied by a stance of either: proving their counter policy is better, status quo is better, or affirmative will make the situation worse. Simply rebutting doesn’t prove any of these burdens.

B. Converse Burdens

- Debates are comparative. As an adjudicator, you have to assess what burdens teams place on their opposition and how they address it for themselves. As an adjudicator, if you use one burden as a standard for a win, you have to make sure that it’s fair and applicable for both teams. In the prostitution debate, government insisted that opposition prove that it is an illegitimate choice to be a prostitute. By the time the debate ended, opposition hasn’t proven that it is an illegitimate choice. This issue doesn’t get credited to government unless they also prove that it IS a legitimate choice.

- This doesn’t mean that all burdens have to be exactly similar. (In the prostitution debate) Government side wanting to give employment to women doesn’t mean that opposition side needs to provide employment as well. They can choose to prove that this form of employment cannot be allowed by the state because it is abusive in nature. The point is that they are taking a burden to prove in that point of clash.

C. Burdens and Their Issues

- Not all the burdens being pushed around in the round are necessarily relevant or crucial in adjudicating the round. Let’s first identify the different sources of burdens and possible issues that come along with it:

a. Spirit of the Motion
These are burdens which come naturally with certain motion. These are more general burdens with a very wide scope in the debate. For example, in a debate about pulling out forces from Iraq, affirmative is obviously burdened to argue the benefits of such a proposal and negative needs to argue the harms. As much as adjudicators cannot expect specific benefits or harms, the debate inherently asking debaters to take this stance.
This is linked to the discussion on Defending SOMETHING.

b. Burdens teams place on themselves.
Some teams choose which burdens to prove. This is the more detailed kind of burden where you prove a specific benefit or a specific harm. The line of argumentation of a team normally directs the burden they’re seeking to prove for themselves.
A common problem with this form of burden would be teams taking on very very very tiny burdens. For example, teams choosing to prove the motion in instances where it is convenient and beneficial for them but refuse to engage other circumstances. In these instances, adjudicators should discern how much weight can be given in proving that burden given it refuses to engage the actual debate.

c. Burdens they accept from the opposing side.
Some teams will force their opposition to defend a specific harm or benefit.
This is where the issue of burden pushing comes in. In certain instances, burden pushing doesn’t become an issue since some teams actually accept the burden being placed on them. The more contentious issue would be in the cases where teams refuse a specific burden. In these circumstances, the adjudicator has to measure the weight of the burden. You have to asses as the adjudicator if these are reasonable burdens to place on teams. Is it reasonable for them to want to defend something else? Is this a realistic burden to place on a team? Sometimes, debaters can ask too much from their opponents. Again in the military pull out debate, does government side have to prove that there will be completely no repercussions in pulling out? Or do they just have to prove that the benefits outweigh the harms? Do they have to prove that Bush didn’t make a mistake in invading Iraq? Or can they choose to prove that Obama needs to pull and end the perception that the current government is a puppet of the west. And so on.

- When dealing with many non-clashing burdens/issues, the adjudicator is expected to weigh and not count. This means that it’s not a number’s game where the team which answers the most burdens/won the most issues will win. Adjudicators are expected to assess the weight of an issue dependent on how the debate developed. One issue can be more important than the other because the issue is the primary premise of the debate, it’s the issue discussed most, it’s the burden that debaters argued to be the more relevant one, etc.

- Being neutral as an adjudicator doesn’t mean having no knowledge about what’s happening in the world. We identify “average reasonable people” as intelligent voters and not as recluse bums. This means we expect adjudicators to also be keeping up with what’s happening in the world. When someone tells you Osama Bin Laden is still alive and causing havoc in Afghanistan, we’re expecting you to know that’s a lie.

- Knowing what’s happening in the world doesn’t mean you can burden debaters with expectations of specialized knowledge. We identify specialized knowledge as information that is generally accessible to a very select group. You cannot use your expertise in law, medicine, etc. to penalize teams who might not be as knowledgeable. If you have a background in law, we don’t want you to expect a team to know about cases no one has heard of except for law students.

- Be wary of stepping in. When dealing with issues of facts and figures, limit yourselves to definitive facts such as events, places, and people involved. Don’t make value judgments on things like the “stability” of a country, the characterization of actors, and the like. These are things that are still debatable and non-definitive. It’s the job of debaters to persuade and prove that their context/description is the correct one.

- The characterization we want to emphasize here is “Intelligent”. This means we expect adjudicators to spot contradictions, inconsistencies, shafts, or downright illogical arguments. Just because the opposing team didn’t point it out, it doesn’t mean that the analytical problem they had is completely irrelevant with how you adjudicate the round. We still expect adjudicators to weigh how those specific logical inconsistencies affected the overall strength/quality of the debater’s arguments.

- Different factors should be included in your assessment of how much the analytical problem can affect the team’s chances of winning. Here are some that can deal with the most recurring issues:

a. Weight of that bit of analysis/fact to the overall strength of the argument. Does saying Osama Bin Laden is alive hurt the speaker’s analysis of Afghanistan’s current state of stability? Did the speaker bring up other characterizations (such as the presence of war lords, the lack of state structures, and the like) to support this idea? Or did the speaker depend heavily on Osama Bin Laden’s terrorist activity to prove the idea of instability? Assess if the analytical flaw is the entirety of the argument or if it’s just a part of one. Does the argument have other parts which you can still credit?

b. Responsiveness and level of discussion of opposing team against the analytical flaw. This factor has to be considered with a lot of finesse. Just because a team pointed out a contradiction doesn’t mean they will win instantly. Similarly, not pointing it out doesn’t warrant an instant loss. This is because some analytical flaws can be completely irrelevant in the debate (Of course we encourage debaters to always point out these flaws cause what isn’t important to you might be important in the debate). You have to weigh how important having the opposing team point out the analytical flaw is for it to be considered as such. This is most applicable for cases with soft contradictions or indirect shafts. For example, affirmative proposed a policy which opposition side claimed to be extreme and unjustified. At the same time their counter proposal also applies the same restrictions as affirmative’s model. They just have a different actor enforcing it. In this circumstance, there is a soft contradiction given that the mechanisms opposition were rebutting were the same ones they are planning to apply as well. This means they are rebutting themselves whenever they rebut gov. The defense of their actor’s capacity to help the situation softens the contradiction. In this instance, government side needs to point out how this contradiction is still a contradiction, why the additional prong doesn’t make it any less of a contradiction, and how it harms the strength of the argumentation of opposition side.

In cases where analytical flaws are there but won’t compromise the entire case/argument of a team, an adjudicator cannot make the team lose just based on that. At most, the speaker scores of that team will suffer and the margin will be smaller.