The Adjudicator's Role

In British Parliamentary debate, adjudicators have a critical responsibility: to evaluate the debate fairly and transparently. Every round involves ranking four teams from 1st to 4th place and assigning individual speaker scores. The chair adjudicator leads the panel discussion and delivers the oral adjudication (oral adj) explaining the decision.

Before the Round

Good adjudication starts before the speeches begin:

  • Arrive on time and introduce yourself to other panel members
  • Read the motion carefully and consider what a reasonable range of interpretations might look like
  • Prepare your note-taking system — whether you use a split-page format, abbreviations, or shorthand, consistency is key
  • Clear any biases: decide to judge the debate you see, not the debate you expected

During the Speeches

While speakers present their cases, effective judges:

  • Take structured notes: Write down each speaker's main arguments, rebuttals, and POIs. Note which arguments were rebutted and whether the rebuttal was effective
  • Track engagement: Did each team respond to the strongest version of their opponents' case, or did they pick easy targets?
  • Assess extensions: For closing teams, note whether the extension is genuinely new and well-developed
  • Note manner: Delivery matters — was the speaker clear, confident, and persuasive? Did they use their speaking time effectively?

Ranking Teams: The Fundamentals

After all eight speeches, you must rank the four teams from 1st to 4th. Here is a practical framework:

  1. Identify the key issues in the debate: What were the 2–3 most important clashes? These are the questions on which the debate hinged.
  2. Assess each team's contribution to those issues: Who made the most persuasive arguments? Who provided the strongest rebuttals? Who won the key clashes?
  3. Compare opening vs. closing halves: Did closing teams add value through their extensions, or did they merely repeat the opening half?
  4. Determine the ranking: The team that was most persuasive on the most important issues should be ranked 1st, and so on.

Speaker Scores

Speaker scores reflect individual speaking quality. While different tournaments use slightly different scales, a common benchmark is:

  • Below 73: Significantly below average — major structural or content issues
  • 73–76: Below average — some arguments but lacking depth or engagement
  • 77–79: Average — competent speech with basic arguments and some rebuttal
  • 80–82: Good — well-structured, engaging, and persuasive
  • 83–85: Very good — outstanding arguments, strong rebuttal, excellent delivery
  • 86+: Exceptional — a speech that would be competitive at the highest international level

Speaker scores should be consistent within a debate — the best speaker in the room should have the highest score, regardless of which team they are on.

Panel Deliberation

In most BP tournaments, panels consist of a chair and one or two wing judges. After the debate:

  1. Wing judges submit their individual rankings to the chair
  2. The chair leads a discussion about the key issues and each team's performance
  3. The panel aims for consensus but uses majority voting when consensus is not possible
  4. The chair delivers the oral adjudication on behalf of the panel

If you are a wing judge who disagrees with the majority, you may still express your view in a "shadow call" — recorded but not announced publicly.

Delivering the Oral Adjudication

A good oral adj should:

  • Start by announcing the ranking (1st through 4th)
  • Explain the key issues the panel identified
  • Explain why each team was ranked where they were, focusing on substantive reasons
  • Be constructive — offer advice that helps speakers improve
  • Be concise — aim for 5–10 minutes, not a re-hash of the entire debate

Common Adjudication Mistakes

Avoid these pitfalls that lead to poor judging:

  • Interventionism: Judging based on your own opinion about the motion rather than the arguments presented
  • Content bias: Rewarding teams that argue the side you personally agree with
  • Manner override: Ranking a team higher solely because they were entertaining, despite weaker arguments
  • Ignoring extensions: Failing to distinguish between closing teams that extended and those that merely repeated
  • Hindsight rebuttal: Penalising a team for not making an argument you thought of, rather than evaluating what was actually said

Improving as a Judge

The best way to become a better adjudicator is consistent practice and feedback:

  • Judge as many rounds as possible, especially alongside experienced adjudicators
  • Ask for feedback on your oral adjudications
  • Watch recorded debates and practice ranking teams before seeing the official decision
  • Read judging guides from major tournaments (WUDCs often publish adjudication handbooks)