CUSID WEST CHIEF ADJUDICATOR GUIDE

Introduction

This guide is meant for the experienced and inexperienced CAs among us. You
might not end up agreeing with everything in this guide, but everything
included in here comes from people with experience and a genuine interest
in seeing tournaments run well. If you would like to contribute an article
to the CA Guide, please contact the VP West.

Speaker Score Range


By Spencer Keys

The following descriptions are to be used as a base and are holistic in
their intent. Judges are free to weight elements of debate differently as
long as they stick to the two areas of matter (what they say) and manner
(how they say it).
0-34 These scores fall below the floor and are to never be given out.

35 This was an awful speech. Not only did the speaker stand up and mumble
through just a few seconds of speaking, but what they did say was little
more than offensive. As I often put it, they stood up for thirty seconds
and spouted racial slurs. This is a score that (hopefully) should be given
out no more than once per year in all the tournaments in a region. People
were crying. Judges questioned coming back. Hate crime legislation was
quoted. It was a bad, bad speech. This score should only be given out in
consultation with the chief adjudicator.

36 This speech was just bad. The speaker did not even fill the majority of
his/her time, and when they did speak they provided little in the way of
points, or style. This score should only be given out in consultation with
the chief adjudicator.

37 This is a speech that is given to a speaker that fills the majority of
their time and has one or two points. The contentions are not particularly
interesting but are decent.

38 This speaker filled their time and provided a few obvious points though
they may not be particularly important. They may have failed to explain
those points in sufficient detail or rebut the opposing arguments.

39 This should be an average speech. They have done everything they need
to do, it just isn't compelling. The debater fills their time and has a few
arguments (though it may not be organized in a coherent fashion). The
arguments are not necessarily creative or interesting but obvious and
reasonably important to the round.

40 This is a good speech. When watching this speaker, you saw something
unique; whether it be a style that sets them apart from the crowd or an
argument that was intellectually stimulating. If this speaker keeps doing a
speech like this, you would expect them to be in the top ten speakers of
the tournament.

41 This is a strong speech; it has strong delivery and strong substance.
You are interested in what the speaker has to say and you are
intellectually stimulated by the arguments that s/he brings forward. The
style is very natural and engaging. You believe that if this is the
standard speech being given by this debater, they are in the hunt for the
top speaker in the tournament.

42 Great substance and great delivery make this speech truly remarkable.
You know that if this is the average of what they're capable of, they will
be the top speaker in the tournament. Not only did you get lost in their
words but you also found yourself seriously reconsidering prior opinions
that you "knew" to be true.

43 This speech is phenomenal and the best one at the tournament. It has
excellent delivery and excellent substance. This debate is probably the
best in the tournament and this speaker was the one that clearly set him or
herself apart from the other three. You feel privileged for having seen it.
This score should only be given out in consultation with the chief
adjudicator.

44 This debater, with one of the most beautiful voices you have ever
heard, stood up and provided example after example after example after
example, outlining the entire history of the world and showing, quite
successfully, that the true purpose of human existence is for that person
to give the very speech that you are watching. This score is given to whom
we would call "God's Lawyer" and you actually believe this person is
capable of leading a cult or a country. This is a score that should be
given out no more than once per year in all tournaments in a region... if
that. This score should only be given out in consultation with the chief
adjudicator.

Reasons For Decision


By Chris Jones


Reasons For