Jump to content
Theparanoiacmachine

Giving speaker points

Recommended Posts

Sorry in advance if I posted this in the wrong sub-section but I didn't really know under what sub-section this would go under so I defaulted to "Help Me." 

 

I generally don't have trouble judging a debate, I follow most of the arguments and understand people's spreading fairly well and evaluate the rounds with a Tab paradigm, as I am currently a debater myself but when it comes to giving speaker points I don't know what to do. My question is not how do I rank the speakers, rather how do I go about assigning speaker points? If a think a debater did fairly well but not perfect, what should I give the debater? I give 29.5 and 29's to these debaters, but I've been told to only assign those amount of speaker points one or twice per tournament and only to debaters that are REALLY good, which is largely subjective. Do y'all have any criterion as to how I should go about distributing speaker points? It would really help, thank you in advance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think about speaker points on a 100 point scale: 20.0 to 30.0 and only look at the last two digits

 

 

Many tournaments now allow 1/10th of a point differentials, so you can use a full range and assign them like you would a percentage/ letter grade

 

For example, many speakers I see are a C+ / B- debaters, so they get maybe a 79% ==> 27.9

 

If you think about looking at your last two digits as a percentage, it can make assigning speaker points easier, even if your tournaments require you to round to nearest 0.5 point

 

This means, for me at least, I rarely give out lower than a 26.5 (65% D) and rarely give higher than a 29.5 (95% A)

  • Upvote 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

College community norm for "average" is 27.5.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never saw the point of having a 30 point scale where you only use 1/3 of the range (barring extreme scenarios). I realize point inflation will appear anywhere but it still seems like a revision would be in order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My own personal scale puts 27 as 'acceptable', 28 as 'good', 29 as 'exceptional', and 30 as 'perfect'.  (26 is 'deficient' and 25 is 'poor'.  I use decimals to express gradations.  Below 25 is punitive).

 

Edit: What exactly that means depends on whether I'm judging JV or Varsity.  I tend to use speaker points to rate technique, clash, logic, and strategy rather than 'speaking style' (which I may comment on, but don't particularly rate usually).

Edited by Squirrelloid
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

College community norm for "average" is 27.5.

 

 

 

fixed :/

 

It's quite amazing how much things have changed... but I think a 28.7 is the norm, it's still drastically risen in the past 2 years for no reason. Honestly a 27.5 in today's college debate is a possible way to prevent breaking or at least a speaker award lol.

 

But for the O.P's point. 29 to 29.5 , are not common, and you usually shouldn't give those unless the speaker really was great. But my own scale is pretty much no 30's, even if asked, 29+ for truly, truly exceptional speeches/debaters/rounds, 28.5-28.9- you should break/get a speaker award, 27.5-28.4 = average. I follow scales if told, but even though 75% of my points range from 28.5 to 26, I've given far more 24's than 29's. Though my 1 29 ever went to a debater who was exceptionally nice to some first tournament novices they debated at regionals.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've seen people struggle to give 30s, because it's hard to accurately tell a debater "you had a perfect round". Since I've never seen a perfect round, but am certain that some 30s should be given, my threshold for a 30 is if - at any point during the debate - the debater made me say "wow". Whether it was clean execution, clever analysis of argument interaction, or excellent adaptation, the "wow" brightline is how I dole out 30s.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last couple of things to keep in mind are 1.  you can generally be a little less harsh when judging lower levels of debate,

and 2.  while everything in this thread is true in theory, it does vary from circuit to circuit.  Try to be as aware of this as possible, and adjust to the norm.

Edited by Backcountryguy
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last couple of things to keep in mind are 1.  you can generally be a little less harsh when judging lower levels of debate,

and 2.  while everything in this thread is true in theory, it does vary from circuit to circuit.  Try to be as aware of this as possible, and adjust to the norm.

 

This. I'm usually really blunt (and rather harsh) when it comes to comments for any level, but my speaker point 'scale' changes between divisions.

 

 

EDIT: There's also a correlation between the points I give and the number of star wars, bebop, and pokemon references in a speech

Edited by ARGogate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last couple of things to keep in mind are 1.  you can generally be a little less harsh when judging lower levels of debate,

and 2.  while everything in this thread is true in theory, it does vary from circuit to circuit.  Try to be as aware of this as possible, and adjust to the norm.

Fully agree with this on all levels, admittedly the lack of allowing disclosure does irritate/disappoint me a lot sometimes.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fully agree with this on all levels, admittedly the lack of allowing disclosure does irritate/disappoint me a lot sometimes.

I don't think you should punish debaters for lack of disclosure. Especially since it's a relatively new practice. I feel like the practice still hasn't trickled down to people who debate in areas that are more behind the general debate curve. To punish those people is elitist and exclusionist imo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you should punish debaters for lack of disclosure. Especially since it's a relatively new practice. I feel like the practice still hasn't trickled down to people who debate in areas that are more behind the general debate curve. To punish those people is elitist and exclusionist imo. 

Saying that I don't like the rules that I abide by to ensure payment from judging, aka not being allowed to disclose wins/losses does not equate me to punishing kids who don't disclose their aff in a round. I may dislike it, but I wouldn't punish them for not disclosing their aff. my comment was in the context of not allowing judges to say who won or not

Edited by Firewater
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saying that I don't like the rules that I abide by to ensure payment from judging, aka not being allowed to disclose wins/losses does not equate me to punishing kids who don't disclose their aff in a round. I may dislike it, but I wouldn't punish them for not disclosing their aff. my comment was in the context of not allowing judges to say who won or not

Totally misinterpreted your comment then. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...