Adjudication criteria for Paris 5 judges

A. Each jury member judges on FOUR EQUAL criteria:

1.  ARGUMENTS

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
‐  Pertinence of the examples
‐   Does the speaker go the “extra mile”?

2.  PRESENTATION

You also have to judge how the content is put over. This includes several elements:
‐  Speaking style
‐  Structure of the speech
‐  Timing
‐  Use of rhetorical devices
‐  Humour (very important in FDA)
‐  Eye contact: the speaker shouldn’t read his/her notes too much
‐  Body language

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.

TEAMWORK
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 speakers:
‐  First  speaker:  three  important  elements:  defines  and  interprets  the  motion,  describes
his/her team line, introduces his/her team and gives a foretaste of their arguments.
‐  Last speaker: gives a summary speech, in which he/she points out the clash between the
two teams, ties up the rebuttal, briefly sums up their side’s arguments, and … underlines
how much better they were than the other side’s!
Collectively:
‐  Speakers must never contradict other members of the team
‐  There has to be a clear party line and a sense of cohesion

STRATEGY
Handling of the Points of Information:
o  Is the speaker destabilized?
o  Is the answer satisfactory?
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?
Rebuttal:
‐  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
‐  If they managed to destabilize their opponents
‐  If they did a good job of defending the harder point of view (be careful about the extremely
subjective nature of this criterion)
On the reverse, teams should be penalized:
‐  If they did not ask enough POI’s, or poor ones, or badly formulated ones
‐  If they were unclear or boring
‐  If they contradicted each other, failed to rebut
‐  If they did not respect the rules or the spirit of the game

B. Final Mark
Let us also remind you must also give a mark out of 10 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.

C. Vote
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.