A. Each jury member judges on FOUR EQUAL criteria:
This regards both the content of the speech and the research done for it. As far as the arguments are concerned:
Ask yourself how consistent the speech is.
How pertinent or logical it is.
Is the speaker easy to follow?
How original is he or are his arguments?
Has substantial research been carried out for this speech?
Also pay a lot of attention to the examples used:
Quality of the examples or anecdotes
used to illustrate or justify the arguments
You also have to judge how the content is put over. This includes
Structure of the speech
Use of rhetorical devices
Humour (very important in FDA)
Eye contact: the speaker shouldn’t read his/her notes too much
3. TEAMWORK AND STRATEGY
The teamwork regards the linking with one’s team, the presence of a coherent team line.Strategy gathers the handling of points of information/of order, the line of attack adopted etc.
On an individual level:
There should be a sense of progression; speakers should refer
back and forward. Speakers sould respect their roles. More
precisely, let’s stress the specific roles of the first and fifth
First speaker: three important
elements: defines and interprets the motion, describeshis/her team line, introduces his/her
team and gives a foretaste of their arguments.
Speakers must never contradict other members of the team
There has to be a clear party line and a sense of cohesion
Handling of the Points of Information:
Is the speaker destabilized?
NB: a poor question deserves a dismissive
answer, as long as it’s witty
Does the speaker participate actively in the debate by ASKING points of information?
Are the arguments of the opposing team acknowledged and dealt with.
NB: If a speaker knows that a point raised by the previous speaker (opposing team) will be dealt later by a team‐mate, he/she can simply point it out, but ALL new arguments must be acknowledged and ultimately answered.
Remember: the better team is not the collection of the five best speakers. We must feel that a team has worked together, that it clicks together and that it creates an overall atmosphere of understanding, cohesion and spirit.
4. STAR QUALITY (THE famous “je ne sais quoi”)
Dear Judges, it is probably this quality, this famous « je ne sais quoi » that we all enjoy so much. It is probably all the more hard to judge.Just to help you, you should pay attention to the overall impression you have of the candidates, of the team.Notably, teams should be awarded extra credit:
If they were particularly entertaining
On the reverse, teams should be penalized:
If they did not ask enough POI’s, or poor
ones, or badly formulated ones
B. Final Mark
Let us also remind you must also give a mark out of 20 to each team. Half marks are accepted. This is absolutely essential as it will be taken into account in the event of a tie once all judges’ votes have been added up.
To avoid major discrepancies and to ensure fair adjudication, please check that your final marks comply with the following scale :
Each judge has one vote. The final decision of the jury does not have to reflect how close the debate may have been, i.e. if all three judges believe one team was slightly better than another then this should be displayed by a 3‐0 vote. A 2‐1 vote is entirely possible but must be based on one judge disagreeing with the majority on the outcome of the debate.