League Policies

1. Every round is different, and the deciding factors will vary. In close rounds, even experienced judges can disagree about who won, meaning that evaluating a debate round comes down to making judgment calls. We simply ask that you decide who was most persuasive to you. Considering the following factors may help you evaluate the round in a fair and reasonable way.

   Thoughts to Consider

   • Reasoning: Which debater made the best logical connections between key arguments and the values highlighted as most important in the round?
   • Focus on the resolution: Which debater best addressed the central question(s) of the resolution?
   • Clarity: Which debater was easier to follow and understand? 
   • Quality of arguments: Which debater presented the best quality and depth of arguments in favor of their position?
   • Support: Which debater provided the best support for critical points? When debaters support their arguments by referring to expert sources, look for a verbal citation and direct quotation so that you can judge the quality and accuracy of the evidence.
   • Clash: Which debater best addressed and refuted the opponent’s arguments?
   • Proof of principles: Which debater best supported their side of their resolution as a general principle by the end of the round?
   • Conduct and ethics: A debater who plainly behaves in a deceitful or rude manner toward an opponent should not be granted a win. 

   What NOT to consider

   • Personal opinions or biases: Remember that your evaluation should be based on what the debaters said in the round rather than on what you personally believe about a topic. Approach the topic with an open mind; debaters have been assigned their sides, and they debate on both sides throughout the tournament. Be open to being persuaded on either side of the debate. Feel free to apply a filter of common sense, but try not to give debaters credit for any arguments that they didn’t actually make, and don’t dismiss an argument only because you do not personally agree with it. 
   • Partiality: Set aside partiality based on competitor name recognition, known levels of experience, appearance, etc. 
   • Late arguments: Debaters should present all of their main assertions and lines of argumentation in the constructive speeches. Therefore, judges should set aside any completely new lines of argumentation that were raised in rebuttal speeches because the opponent is deprived of an adequate opportunity to respond.
   • Speaker points: It is possible for a less eloquent and/or less experienced speaker to win a round based on critical points of argumentation but be ranked lower in speaker points.
   Share This Page