The first thing that judges should do is to relax and not worry. You will enjoy yourself and you will do a good job, whether or not you have any experience. Indeed, it is important that  debating is judged by non-experts since the essence of public speaking is the ability to convince, impress or entertain an average audience, not just an expert one. The only essential requirement for judging is that the judge be able to ignore any of his or her own opinions and make his or her decision based solely on the material presented.

  This sheet contains some information and guidelines which may help you with your adjudication. You do not need to worry about the speaking order, parliamentary  debate rules, times etc.. The chairman will handle all of the procedural details. At the conclusion of the round, you will be asked if you wish to make any comments. You do not have to, although the debaters are always eager to hear your opinions. If you do offer comments, please do not reveal any scores or which side won. Please hand in your scoresheets at the end of each round.

 There are no time penalties. The debaters should conclude their remarks by the end of the time limit, with a 15 second grace period. There is no minimum time, although a debater who speaks for 30 seconds is unlikely to have said very much and thus will not do well.

 You should bear in mind the fact that the side which does the best debating— and therefore the side that you give the highest score to — may not be the side which wins the argument. This is similar to the situation in court where the side with the better lawyer may still lose the case— the facts may overwhelmingly favour the other side.

MARKING
There are a number of categories on the scoresheet, producing a total mark out of 100. There are two approaches to marking. Some judges mark each category and then add them together for a total. Others prefer to assign an overall mark out of 100, bearing in mind the relative importance of each category, and then dividing the marks up into the categories. Either approach is acceptable. Please keep in mind this general guideline for the total scores, even if you are marking the categories:

90's: A score in the 90's indicates that you felt that the speaker did a superb job. You thoroughly enjoyed listening to the speaker and would go out of your way to hear him or her again — if you were in the habit of listening to speeches. You would be delighted to have this person as the advocate of a cause that you supported.

80's: This score indicates that you felt that the speech or reading was very good, although there were a few flaws either in the delivery or the content. You would be pleased at the prospect of hearing this debater again. You would also be pleased to have this person as the advocate of a cause that you supported.

70's: This indicates an average speech, neither very good nor very bad. You would not mind listening to this person again but you would be particularly pleased about it either. As an advocate, this person would not strengthen your cause.

60's: You would give this score to a weak speech. It would indicate major flaws in delivery and content. You would not look forward to listening to this person again.

50's: This mark indicates that the speech failed completely. Something must have gone very wrong. You would go out of your way to avoid listening to this person again. Please do not give a mark below 50.

There are two types of debating in Manitoba:  parliamentary debating and cross-examination debating. Each types involves somewhat different skills and each has its own type of scoresheet.

Please print your name on the scoresheet and write in the names of the competitors and the team name and code on the appropriate lines. Please hand in the scoresheet at the end of each round.

Categories:
Listed below are some questions that you might ask yourself when marking the various categories. If you just write an overall mark, you should still consider all of these points.

Analysis: How well does the debater understand the issues at hand ? Is he/she able to separate the argument from the rhetoric ? Does he/she recognize and focus on the key arguments in the debate ?

Organization: Does the debater proceed in a coherent, fluent manner ? Does he/she introduce and conclude his/her case well ? Are his/her arguments easy to follow ?

Evidence and Logic: Does the debater provide sufficient justification of his/her case, either by means of factual evidence or logical reasoning? Is the reasoning sound ?

Debate Skills: How effective is the debater's presentation and overall approach to the debate? Is it suitable? Is his/her choice of language good? If appropriate, are wit and humour used well ? Does he/she have presence and flair ? Is the general approach to the debate (e.g. humorous, serious, concerned) appropriate and is it done well ? If it is a cross-examination debate, are questions used effectively to make a point ? Are answers straightforward without being disastrous for their side ? Does the examiner develop a series of questions which succeed in drawing valuable admissions from the respondent ? Does the examiner control the questioning? Does the respondent reveal sound understanding of issues in his/her response to the questions? Is the respondent skillful and cooperative (within reason) rather than stubborn and overly defensive? In cross-examination debating, the questioner should ask questions rather than making another speech during their question period. The questions should have a purpose and attempt to lead to a point or points which are useful to the questioner's side (the point of the questions may only become obvious during later speeches'however). Questions should be brief and not open ended. The questioner may not insist on a yes or no answer, although he/she may try to. The witness must answer any question provided that it is not personal. He/she should insist on his/her right to explain his/her answer. If a question has been partially or largely asked when the time runs out, the witness may choose whether or not to answer it. It is to the credit of the witness if he/she can turn the questioning around but if he/she is caught at it, he/she should not try again. Answers should be clear and concise.

Style: How well does the debater deliver his/her speech ? Does it appear to be spontaneous or is it merely being read? How effective is his/her eye contact, gestures etc.? Is the delivery polished or is it rough around the edges ? Are the tone and pace appropriate for the speech ? Does the voice vary suitably, hold your attention and enhance the arguments?

Refutation: How effectively and how thoroughly does the debater refute his/her opponent's case and defend his/her own ? This should occur BOTH in the official rebuttal and in the constructive speeches.

Each category is marked out of 20.When marking a category, the following rating should apply EXCEPT if it produces a total which is not appropriate given the guidelines for overall totals.If you prefer, you may just give an appropriate letter grade if you are assigning an overall total. DO NOT GIVE A LETTER GRADE AS THE OVERALL TOTAL
 
    E                       D                            C                            B                          A                   A+                    A++
   4-7                   8-10                       11-13                     14-16                   17-18               19                      20
very poor            poor                         fair                        good                  very good       excellent             superb