What Is an Adjudication Panel?

In competitive debate tournaments, most debates are not judged by a single person. Instead, a panel of adjudicators — typically consisting of a chair and one or two wing judges — evaluates the debate collectively. The panel system helps ensure fairness, reduces the impact of individual bias, and provides richer feedback to debaters.

Panel Composition

A typical adjudication panel has three members:

  • Chair adjudicator: The most experienced judge on the panel. Leads the deliberation, delivers the oral adjudication, and has the casting vote in case of a tie (in even-numbered panels).
  • Wing adjudicators: Support the chair by providing their independent assessment. Wings submit their own ranking and speaker scores, then participate in the panel discussion.

At major tournaments, the most important debates (e.g., outround debates, high-powered preliminary rooms) may have panels of five or even seven judges. Less critical rooms may have solo chairs or panels of two.

The Chair's Role

Being a chair adjudicator carries specific responsibilities beyond simply judging the debate:

  • Before the debate: Introduce yourself and the wings to the debaters. Confirm the motion, format rules, and timing conventions. Ensure the room is set up properly.
  • During the debate: Take comprehensive notes. You will need to lead the discussion afterward, so your notes must cover all eight speeches (in BP) or all speeches in your format.
  • After the debate: Collect wings' individual rankings before discussing. Lead a structured deliberation. Deliver the oral adjudication on behalf of the panel.

Panel Deliberation Process

After the debate ends, the panel follows this standard deliberation process:

Step 1: Independent Assessment

Each judge independently writes down their ranking (and, in some tournaments, tentative speaker scores) before any discussion begins. This prevents anchoring bias — where wing judges simply agree with the chair's first impression.

Step 2: Reveal Rankings

The chair asks each wing to share their ranking. This is done without justification first — just the numbers. This quickly tells the panel whether there is consensus or disagreement.

Step 3: Discuss Key Issues

The chair leads a discussion about the debate, focusing on:

  • What were the key clashes or issues?
  • Where do the panel members agree?
  • Where do they disagree, and why?

Good chairs encourage wings to explain their reasoning fully rather than simply deferring to the majority.

Step 4: Reach a Decision

The panel aims for consensus but uses majority voting when necessary. If the chair and one wing agree on a ranking, that becomes the panel's decision. The dissenting wing's call is recorded but not announced publicly.

Step 5: Oral Adjudication

The chair delivers the oral adjudication (oral adj), which should:

  • Announce the ranking clearly
  • Explain the key reasons for the decision
  • Provide constructive feedback to each team
  • Represent the panel's collective reasoning (even if the chair personally disagreed)

Handling Disagreements

Disagreements within panels are normal and healthy. Here is how to handle them constructively:

  • As a wing: Clearly explain your reasoning. Do not simply say "I disagree" — explain which specific argument or team assessment you see differently, and why. Be open to changing your mind if the chair or other wing presents a perspective you had not considered.
  • As a chair: Listen actively to dissenting views. Do not use your positional authority to override well-reasoned disagreements. If a wing makes a strong case, consider adjusting your own ranking.
  • For both: Focus on the arguments in the debate, not on each other. Deliberation should feel collaborative, not adversarial.

Common Panel Problems

  • Chair dominance: When the chair announces their ranking first and wings feel pressured to agree. Solved by collecting independent rankings before discussion.
  • Over-long deliberation: Panels that spend 20+ minutes debating every minor point hold up the tournament. Focus on the key issues that determine the ranking.
  • Score inconsistency: Panel members using wildly different scoring scales. The chair should briefly calibrate scores before finalising.
  • Poor oral adjs from disagreement: When the chair is forced to explain a decision they disagreed with. Good chairs can still deliver a clear, fair oral adj even when they were in the minority.

Developing as a Panel Member

Whether you are a new wing or an aspiring chair, improving your panel skills requires:

  • Judging as many rounds as possible across different panel positions
  • Practising articulating your reasoning clearly and concisely
  • Asking chairs for feedback after rounds — how could your contributions to deliberation improve?
  • Being willing to change your mind when presented with strong reasoning
  • Tracking your calls against panel decisions to identify blind spots in your judging