Overall, the standard of adjudication in Europeans was very good. The general feedback we got, from debaters and adjudicators alike was that “the level of adjudication was two notches higher than the level of the debates”. There are three main contributions for that-
- on the down side, not enough of the top clubs in the British Isles sent representatives, with Oxford, Leeds and Cambridge being the exception that proves the rule, and the presence of many weak teams from Israel (for whom price was not deterrent), Turkey (several absolutely horrendous teams, with zero experience and next to zero English, who never scored a “C”).
- Second, we’ve made extensive efforts to attract top judges, even with outright bribing. This is how we ended up having Andy, Tim and Mark, but also Tom Hamilton and Rob Garson.
- The last reason, which is of most interest, is the steps we took to allocate and brief judges appropriately. Our actions must bee seen in the time perspective of Europeans- While much longer than an average IV, at 4 days for 11 rounds, it is a very tight schedule, leaving little room for accreditation or Briefings.
‘Novice Briefing’ –
- Allow debaters to attend as well- some of the newer teams would love dearly love to be told by an experienced debater how to debate.
- Make sure to have a decent break (preferably with a meal) between the novice briefing and the main briefing. People need to digest what they’ve heard, and a 5 hours briefing is an oxymoron.
- Attendance should be compulsory for everyone who “hasn’t participated in a major BP tournament, in ENGLISH”.
Debating Aptitude Test
Peer Evaluation by Judges and Chairs