Judging competitive debating - Part 1 - A general framework

This is part of a series of introductory articles. Which explain basic concepts of competitive debating. It is followed by "Judging Competitive Debating - Part 2 - The process of judging."

I am indebted to the wonderful David Bender for the first part of this explanation, I was going to write one myself but his is sufficiently good and concise that would seem like a waste of time:

CC - Photopin

[Judging] is a 'comparative assessment of each team's persuasiveness'. 

It's comparative, insofar as you compare teams: there is no absolute standard of persuasiveness a team has to beat. 

It's team-based, insofar as you have to judge the whole team. 

We know that three things make a speech persuasive: content, analysis and style. If a speech contains all three of those things, it is persuasive. 

Content means attempting to prove things relevant to your side winning. You can choose content - so pick what path you want to take to proving your side. However, other teams can challenge you to provide content: 'demonstrate this is legitimate'. Look to see what metrics teams set themselves, and what metrics are set by other teams. 

Analysis means explanation. Specifically, an idea is well analysed if teams explain why it is true, and why it is important. Analysis can be thick or thin. Thick analysis is well explained with each logical step explicated. Thin analysis is poorly explained with many missing steps. Analysis can be broad or narrow. Broad analysis contains many independent logical chains to prove a claim. Narrow analysis contains just one. Broad, thick analysis is most persuasive. 

Style means you can understand what they say. If what they said is confusing, it cannot be credited. 

If a speech fulfills its relevant burdens, in a well analysed and stylistically clear manner, more so than other teams, that team wins. 

This framework works well for most university level competitions, but might be harder to apply in novice and schools competitions where arguments may not be made as clearly and may not explicitly clash with each other. (I’ll probably write a more detailed post on this in the future).


A few additional notes:

Knowledge Basics - Learning for debating and how to win when you know nothing

This is part of a series of introductory articles. Where I try to explain basic concepts of debating.

This post is based on some of my teaching notes and aims to briefly introduce the basic usage of knowledge in competitive debating.

The first thing is try to know stuff.
Read broadly about current issues, so that you have a general understanding of topics that are likely to come up in debates and the general state of the world (this is probably good in an abstract engaged citizen sense, but winning debates adds some self interest).

CC attribution Michael Casey

You are not looking for 'facts.'

I often say that facts don't win debate but that's a simplification. The ability to quote the GDP of Angola on demand, while impressive, won't win you a debate.There a few things you need a basic understanding of to do debates about them, e.g. in debates about the EU its useful to know the distinctions between the EU, the European Convention on human rights, etc.

In general what you should be looking for are general concepts and arguments you can extract from articles about a specific topic and apply to a lot of different debates. For example if I'm reading an article about Zimbabwe, I am unlikely to get a debate specifically from that, but I can look at things like how a dictator retains power, refugee crises, etc. which I can then apply to other debates. The general idea is to be able to make plausible stories and characterisations of how people and countries will behave in particular situations.

Examples can be useful as a way of illustrating a point, but don't depend on them. People often use them in place of an argument, without analysing the general point or explaining how its relevant to the particular debate you are having.

What do you need to bring to a debating competition?

This is the first part of a planned series of basics for new debaters. Feedback is as always appreciated. 

Pens and paper 
You're going to need something to write on and with. While you can always borrow pens and paper from people this gets tiresome quickly.

I've started buying multipacks of generic multicoloured biros because I always lose them (and people 'borrow' them). A useful trick is to write in different colours for different things (e.g. black for your stuff, red for rebuttal or comments). Highlighters can also help. I like using thick marker pens to write titles so they are obvious when glancing at notes (my speaking notes tend to consist of THE TITLE OF THE POINT at the top, and indecipherable squiggles for the rest of the page).

Always use A4 if you can, flipping between  little notepad sheets is distracting for you and the judges. I quite like having a clipboard, especially when you get those annoying side tables on desks.

Time keeping
Its useful to time yourself while speaking (so you don’t suddenly realise you’re still on your first point with one minute left). Many people these days use mobile phones, with either the native stopwatch app or the super shiny Debate Keeper app, which helpfully flashes and/or goes 'bing' at the appropriate times.  Others distrust this modern witchcraft and use traditional stopwatches, which have the benefit of not running out of power or receiving calls from your cousin at inconvenient times.

Crash
In the nicest way possible, the standard of crash can be pretty minimal. Sleeping on a floor with half a dozen other snoring slightly smelly people is not unheard of, so a sleeping bag is a minimal requirement, a sleep mask and/or earplugs might be helpful if you, like me, you have trouble sleeping at the best of times.

Bring whatever you need to feel human in the morning. Minimally spare underwear and deodorant, for the benefit of others if not yourself. Basic makeup if you use it. You can bring a towel, in case you're able to get a shower, and it helps if you're washing yourself in a sink as well (also you always need to know where your towel is). The microfibre ones are particularly good.

Always pack on the side of caution if you can, trains get delayed, you might stay out later than you planned, so spare medication, makeup, clothes can be helpful. Even if you don't plan on crashing its good to have the option.

Food
While tournaments are getting better at feeding people, man cannot live on pizza alone. I swear by the supermarket sandwiches and meal deals personally. And a continuous supply of diet coke (or other caffeinated beverages) keeps me functional.

Knowledge/Case files.
I used to say that knowing things was cheating. Then I realised people who knew stuff were beating me so I amended my view slightly. Facts on their own aren't going to win you debates, but skillful deployment can make a difference. You're not going to be able to learn everything there is to know the night before a tournament, but quickly checking the current status of the various civil wars is probably useful (I wish that comment was sarcastic, but that's the world we live in now). If you know there are particular gaps in your knowledge do your best to correct them, but this will vary between people. Read the top paragraph of the relevant wikipedia pages at least, too many times have I seen things go spectacularly wrong because someone didn't know the difference between NATO and the UN. (I've also written an article on the subject.)

More experienced people often put together a case file (a bunch of printed sheets in a folder with relevant information). The ideal use of this is to be able to quickly look up useful facts in prep time ("Is Iran Sunni or Shia again?"). But this is by no means compulsory, and over focus on it may distract from more important things like actually explaining your points and winning the debate.