Debate judges how to critique

1, the critique first of all to analyze the overall situation of the game, such as both sides probably whether the argument is valid, whether the attack is in place and so on.

2, need to explain their own judgment, such as tendency argument.

3, as the judges of the debate on the views of the topic, as well as expectations, note that here and the field players to emphasize that this is not included in the judgment of the game, otherwise it will be questioned by the debaters whether the brain too much impact on the judging.

4, if there is time, have spare capacity, on the field debaters of some very obvious problems to make some suggestions, such as refutation should be attacked to hit rather than unlimited say the other side of the shortcomings.

Extended information:

Different competitions juries get different scoring sheets, some are directly scored for each session, and finally calculate the average score of all the judges, some are a judge to give a certain number of votes, and finally count both sides of the votes. For example, each judge is given three votes: impression, session, and tiebreaker.

Impressions of the votes are not relatively fixed standards of judgment, some judges mainly look at grooming and politeness, some are to see the normal game who's thesis stand more stable. In any case, the game must pay attention to the polite, but also do not break the rules, such as pass the defense system is questioned or cross-examined by the party can not be cross-examined. And no personal attacks.

No matter what kind of judging criteria to consider the link. A defense argument must be clearly organized, it is best to have a main sentence at the beginning of each argument, so that the judges can quickly grasp your argument. The argument is not clear, the judges can not hear is certainly to deduct points.

The judges' scoring is more subjective, and some judges are more emotional, and the sublimity of the fourth defense will make him add a lot of points to that side at once, but most of the judges mainly listen to the logic. For example, the jury will look at your argument to the end of those by the other side of the attack, those still standing, not being attacked by the jury recognized, and finally through the two sides of the last standing point of the number of points and the strength of the argument to the link vote.

If a game is played in confusion, the role of the fourth defense is very critical. You have to sort out the points of exchange throughout the game, those points that your side stood, those to be filled, and those that can't be filled will be discarded. The other side was demolished which points, which points can still be demolished. The last sublimation will also add a lot of points to your side, but it is not recommended to sublimation in the case of your side's theory did not stand.

The methods and definitions of argumentation throughout the game are also taken into account in the session and tie-breaker votes. For example, circular arguments, if used badly then your side's argument will be much less strong.

There's also the question of definitions. If the definitions are too overbearing and the judges don't recognize them, or if they're demolished by the other side, it's hard to make the argument stand up later. The tie-breaking vote is mainly to give the judge a general feeling of which side he thinks should win, in which the definition, link, and method of argumentation will all be taken into account.