How Does Judging Work?

If you would like attend  our optional judge clinic it will be at Sentinel High School on Tuesday the 13th @ 6:30 pm 

Our volunteer judges are college students, former coaches and competitors, local professionals, UM professors, parents, and community members who are simply interested in supporting our students!  To judge a round takes roughly an hour and a half.
You do not need prior experience to volunteer as a judge.

This is how it works:

After you register to judge (here), we will send you an email confirmation based on the information you provide.  We will also send you an email reminder the day before the tournament.

On the day you are scheduled to judge, please arrive at least 15 minutes early and check in at the judges’ table located in the main entrance of Sentinel High School.  When ballots are ready, we will call out your name and direct you to your round.

When you get to your round, you will wait for all of the competitors to arrive.  Some competitors are double-entered and may not be there right away, so feel free to start without them at the scheduled time. Double check the codes on your ballot with the students in the round (they will usually write their codes on the board for your reference).

The students are familiar with all of the details and should be able to guide you in conducting the round.  They are used to first-time judges, so if you have a question, ask!

At this point, your job is to simply watch, follow, and enjoy the round.  Taking notes may help you to both make your final decision and give the students quality feedback.  The provided ballot for each event will give you some guidelines about how to judge.  In general, you will be looking for competitors to be engaging, prepared, professional, convincing, etc.  Your opinion matters - there is no wrong or right way to judge a round!

At the end of a speech round, you will rate speakers in order based on which competitors gave the strongest performances.  In debate, you will decide which side was ultimately more convincing and rate the students’ individual speaking abilities.

You should return your “decision” to the judges’ table as quickly as possible — if you would like to spend more time writing comments, you are welcome to keep the top two sheets of your ballot and take your time doing that after returning the colored sheet to the judges' table.  The people at the judges table will double check your ballot to make sure you have filled out all of the relevant information — please don’t leave until they are finished! — and then you are free to go, or to hang out in the judges’ lounge until your next round.

We have condensed a quick overview of how to judge each event below.  If you finish this and still want more information on any of these subjects, feel free to read our (more in-depth) MHSA Judge's Handbook.

Judging Speech Events

Judges 
are 
important 
as 
these 
events 
bring 
the Missoula Community 
and
 competitors 
together 
in 
an 
educational, 
productive, and
 encouraging 
experience.
  This 
activity 
is 
designed 
to
 teach a
 variety 
of 
skills 
including
 analysis,
 synthesis, 
and
 artistic 
interpretation.

 

SOME THINGS TO REMEMBER:

• If
 a 
contestant 
is 
not 
present
 when
 his/her 
number
 is 
called, 
go ahead and
 proceed 
to 
the 
next
 available 
speaker. 
 When 
the 
contestant 
arrives,
s/he 
should 
be 
heard 
next.  
Double-entered students (competing in multiple events at a time) may filter in and out as the round progresses.
• If 
a 
contestant 
does 
not 
arrive 
by
 the
 end
 of 
the 
round, 
the 
judge
 should send a student to 
inquire with the tournament directors 
about
 the
 absent 
contestant 
before
 s/he 
marks 
the 
ballot. 

• Please feel free to give the contestants feedback on their speaking styles and habits in the provided ballots.  They welcome constructive criticism and knowing what worked and what didn't!  Please take care to make sure your comments are as constructive and educational as possible.
• After
 all 
of the contestants 
have 
been 
heard, 
rank them in order of excellence from
 1,
 2,
 3,
 4,
 5,
 6, 
7,
 8.  As hard as this decision can be, ties are not permitted.  
Remember, rank the best speaker in the room as 1, and the others following in progressively lower order down to 8.
• Some things to look for when judging the quality of a speaking style are poise, volume, enunciation and fluency, appropriate emotion, general presentation (appropriate dress, professionalism, etc.), confidence, appropriate gestures, and eye contact.
• The
 judge
 must 
be 
sure 
to 
double 
check 
the 
ballot (ensuring that the time remaining is written in and that the correct rankings are circled), 
sign 
it, 
and
 return 
it 
to 
the 
ballot 
table.


Below is a list of each event with individualized advice for judging.  To learn more about each event, visit our Events Overview page!

 
Evaluating
 Original 
Oratory
 (OO)
Original Oratory is a ten minute speech written to alert the audience to an issue or danger facing society, to strengthen devotion to an accepted cause, or to eulogize a person.

Since 
the 
contestants 
delivering 
the speeches 
have 
written 
these 
orations, 
the 
judges 
should
 consider
 thought,
 composition, 
and 
delivery. 
However, 
since
 this
 is 
a
 contest 
in 
speaking ability
 rather 
than
 in
 essay 
writing, 
the
 emphasis 
should 
be 
placed 
on
 the
 speech 
phase.
  Thought 
and 
composition 
should 
be 
considered
 primarily 
in 
the 
way 
they 
are 
employed 
to 
make 
effective
 speaking 
possible.


The
 orator
 should
 be 
given
 free
 choice 
of 
subject 
and
 judged 
solely 
on
 the 
effectiveness 
of 
its 
development 
and 
presentation.
  While a judge may leave the contestant comments regarding their speech material, the subject of the piece may not influence the final ranking.

Evaluating Memorized Public Address (MPA)
Memorized Public Address is a two-part event designed to highlight a previously given speech.  It is comprised of an introductory analysis written by the competitor (comprising at least 20% of the total speech)  and quoted material from any one speech given to the public throughout history (comprising the remaining ~80% of the total speech).  

Memorized Public Address should be evaluated on speaking style and the effectivness of the partnership between analysis and quoted material.  The contestant may choose to use any one speech that has been given in front of an audience.  Judges should not base their ranking on the selected material, but rather on the contestant's delivery of it.

Evaluating Expository Speaking
Expository speaking is a ten minute speech written to enlighten or educate the audience about any one subject.  Props (such as posters) are allowed and are commonly used in this event, but they are by no means mandatory.

Since 
the 
contestants 
delivering 
the speeches 
have 
written 
these 
orations, 
the 
judges 
should
 consider
 thought,
 composition, 
and 
delivery. 
However, 
since
 this
 is 
a
 contest 
in 
speaking ability
 rather 
than
 in
 essay 
writing, 
the
 emphasis 
should 
be 
placed 
on
 the
 speech 
phase.
  Thought 
and 
composition 
should 
be 
considered
 primarily 
in 
the 
way 
they 
are 
employed 
to 
make 
effective
 speaking 
possible.
 

Props, such as posters, may add to the presentation, but they shouldn't distract the audience, nor should they greatly influence the ranking.  Remember, this is a speaking competition, not an arts and crafts competition.  Costumes and live animals may not be used.

Evaluating Interpretation (HOI, SOI, & Duo)
The 
art 
of 
interpretation
 can be 
regarded 
as 
recreating 
the
 characters
 in 
any given 
story 

and 
making 
them 
seem
 living 
and 
real 
to 
the
 audience while telling their stories.  
 There are three interpretive events:  Humorous Oral Interpretation (HOI), Serious Oral Interpretation (SOI), and Duo Interpretation (Duo).

Interpretive events are selections or cuttings from a single published literary work (with an ISBN number), i.e. one novel, one short story, one play, one monologue, or one or more poems.  The contestant must name their piece and its author at some point during their presentation.  Contestants memorize their selections and perform them without the use of any props or costumes.  Judges should not base their ranking on the selected material, but rather on the contestant's delivery of it.

Serious Oral Interpretation and Humorous Oral Interpretation are very similar events.  The only real difference is that SOI has serious content (though there may be funny moments) while HOI has humorous content.


In 
Duo 
Interpretation, 
each
 of 
the 
two 
performers
 may
 play
 one
 or 
more 
characters.  They may not make eye contact with each other or touch during their piece.  Duo Interpretation may be humorous or serious.

This 
is 
a
 contest
 in 
interpretation.
 The
 contestants 
should 
be
 evaluated 
on 
poise, 
quality 
and
 creative use
 of 
voice, 
inflections,
 emphasis, 
pronunciation, 
enunciation,
 physical
 expression,
 and
 especially 
the
 ability 
to 
interpret
 characters 
correctly 
and 
consistently. 
 Narrative, 
if
included, 
should
 be
 vivid
 and
 animated
 so 
as 
to 
be 
an 
interesting 
and
 integral 
part 
of
 the
 story 
rather
 than 
just 
"filler" 
between
 portions 
of 
dialogue.
  The
 final 
test
of 
good 
interpretation 
is 
the
 ability 
to
 use
 all 
these 
factors
 so 
successfully 
and 
unobtrusively 
that 
the 
audience
 forgets
 that
 this
 is 
a 
contest
 and
 is 
carried 
away
 to 
the 
time
 and
 place
 of 
the
story 
being
 unfolded.
 

Evaluating 
Extemporaneous 
Speaking

Extemporaneous Speaking is a short-prep event designed to demonstrate the competitors' speaking skills, improvising ability, and knowledge and understanding of current events.  Competitors draw three questions regarding current events, select one, and then have 30 minutes to prepare a speech in response.  The contestant utilizes files of published materials (books, magazines, newspapers, online sources) s/he has compiled as a resource for answering the question.  At the completion of the 30 minute preparation period, the student speaks on the topic for up to 7 minutes.

The 
Extemporaneous
 speech
 should 
not
 be
 regarded
 as 
a 
memory
 test 
of
 the
 material 
contained 
in 
any
 one 
magazine 
article, 
but
 rather
 as 
an 
original 
synthesis
 by 
the
 speaker 
about 
the
 current
 fact
 and
 opinion
 on
 the 
designated
 topic 
as
 presented 
by 
numerous cited 
sources.  The
 contestant should be judged on speaking style and content (including the use of cited sources), as well as 
the strict 
adherence
 to
 the
 precise 
statement 
of
 the
 topic
 drawn
.  Contestants should be discounted 
severely 
for 
shifting
 away from their given topic. 
 The 
information 
presented 
should 
be 
well‐chosen,
 pertinent, 
and
 sufficient 
to 
support 
the 
central 
thought
 of 
the 
topic. 
The
 material
 should 
be 
organized 
according 
to
 some
 logical 
plan
 to 
produce 
a 
complete 
speech 
within 
the
 time
 allowed.  The
 best
 extemporaneous speech combines clear
thinking, good
 speaking, and 
interesting 
presentation
 to
 establish
 a
 definite
 thought
 with
 respect 
to 
the 
subject 
chosen.
 

Contestants
 speaking 
on 
a
 controversial 
subject
 may elect to
 take
 a 
personal
 stand
 on
 that
 issue, though this is not required.
 
 Judge 
him/her 
on 
the
 effectiveness
 with 
which 
s/he
 develops
 the
 subject
 according 
to 
his/her 
own
 plan.
 There
 is
 NO 
minimum
qualifying 
time 
for
 the 
Extemp
 speech. 
Do 
not 
penalize 
a
contestant 
for
 brevity
 unless 
s/he
 fails
 to 
cover 
adequately
the
 subject 
s/he 
has 
chosen. 
Maximum 
time
 is
 seven
minutes.
 Impose
 no 
penalty
 for
 slight 
over time, 
but
 do 
so 
if
in
 your 
judgment
 it
 is
 excessive.
 

Contestants may use a notecard if they wish.  If they choose to do so, they must leave the notecard with the judge at the end of the round.


Evaluating Impromptu Speaking
Impromptu Speaking is a short-prep event designed to demonstrate the competitors' speaking skills, improvisational ability, and their capability to draw critical conclusions and design a speech based off of a prompt.  Impromptu Speaking is ultimately a test of a student’s ability to analyze and organize information and of his/her speaking ability.  The topics are quotations/cartoons that show the author’s specific ideas on cultural, moral, or social issues.  

The speaker should analyze logically the specific intent of the topic and use general knowledge to support his/her conclusions. The speaker should follow a logical plan in developing the speech, and in utilizing an effective introduction, body and conclusion. The speaker should demonstrate fluent voice control, grammatical structure and precise vocabulary.  Appropriate gestures, facial expression, eye contact, body movement and poise should enhance the presentation. 

Remember, you are judging the contestants' performance, not the topic on which they are speaking.

When all the speakers have assembled (unless the speakers for whom you are waiting are double-entered), send all but the first speaker out of the room.  Give the first speaker a copy of the impromptu topic (either a cartoon or a quote which will be provided to you ahead of time).  The competitor then receives 3 minutes (3:00) of preparation time.  When the timer goes off, the student will reset the timer for 5 minutes and 1 second (5:01) and present their speech.  After they finish, admit the next contestant to the room and begin the process again.

Do not allow any contestants who have spoken (unless double entered) or student observers to leave the room before the end of the round. 

Judging Debate Events

Thank
 you 
for 
agreeing
 to 
judge 
a 
debate 
round!
  Your
 service 
is 
especially 
important 
as 
this 
event 
is 
designed 
to
 bring
 judges 
and
 debaters 
together 
in 
an 
educational, 
productive, 
and 
encouraging 
experience. 
This 
activity 
is 
designed
 to 
teach
 excellent 
critical
 thinking 
and 
public
 presentation 
skills.  
Your 
role 
as 
a 
judge 
is 
to 
determine 
which 
debater 
did 
a 
better 
job
 of 
convincing 
you 
that 
his/her 
side 
of
 the
 resolution is 
more 
valid 
as 
a 
general 
principle than the opponent's side.


BEFORE
 THE
 ROUND:


• Find
 out
 the 
exact 
wording 
of
 the
 debate 
resolution 
and 
write 
it
 down.
  This will make your experience in the round much easier.
• Read 
and 
follow 
the 
instructions 
on 
the 
judging 
ballot 
you 
will
receive.

• Talk 
with
 the debaters 
before 
the 
round 
starts 
if 
you 
wish,
 but 
the
conversation
 should 
not 
demonstrate 
favoritism
 toward 
a
debater.

• Debaters 
should 
always 
be 
respectful 
of 
one 
another 
and 
of 
you, 
and 
you
 should 
set 
a
 tone
 of 
decorum
 and
 professionalism.
 

TO
 BEGIN
 THE 
ROUND:
 

• You 
will 
be
 instructed 
as 
to 
which
 side 
the 
debaters 
have 
been
 assigned.

• The
 affirmative/pro 
side
 should 
be 
listed 
on
 the
 left
 side
 of 
the
ballot 
and
 you
 may
 ask
 the
 debater 
to 
sit 
on
 the
 left
 side 
of 
the
room
 as 
you, 
the 
judge,
 look
 at 
the 
debaters.

• Record 
each 
debater’s 
code 
and
 side.
 You
 can
 confirm
 this 
information 
with 
the 
debaters.
• When 
both
 debaters 
are 
ready,
 the
 Affirmative 
debater 
(in
 Public 
Forum,
 the 
team
 speaking 
first) 
will 
stand 
in
 the
 front 
of 
the 
room
 to
 deliver 
the 
initial 
speech.
 

DURING
 THE 
ROUND:
 

• While 
the 
debaters 
may
 keep
 track 
of 
their 
own 
time, 
judges 
need
 to
monitor 
speaking 
times 
during
 the 
round.
 Speech 
times 
and
 order 
are
listed 
on 
the 
ballot.
  
• During 
the 
debate, 
you 
are 
encouraged 
to 
take 
notes 
of 
the 
arguments 
made 
by 
the 
debaters 
to 
assist 
you 
in
 making 
your 
decision 
at 
the 
end
 of
 the 
round.
 
• You 
should 
also 
keep 
track 
of 
what 
a
 debater
 says, 
if 
anything, 
in 
response 
to 
the 
other
 debater’s 
arguments. 
To
 ensure 
fairness, 
your 
notes 
should 
help 
you 
determine 
if 
a 
debater 
is 
improperly 
making 
brand
 new
 arguments
 in
 the 
final 
rebuttal 
speeches 
to 
which 
the 
opposing 
debater 
has 
no 
opportunity 
to 
respond.
 
• Judges
 should 
not 
ask 
questions 
during
 the 
round.
 
• During 
the 
questioning 
periods 
in 
Policy 
and
 Lincoln‐Douglas, 
the 
time 
belongs 
to 
the 
debater 
asking 
the 
questions.
 The 
questions 
should 
be 
brief
 and
 the
 answers 
short 
and
 specific. 
The
 person
 answering 
the 
questions 
should
 not
 be 
permitted 
to 
refute, 
but
 should
 be
 limited 
to 
simply 
answering 
the 
questions. 
The 
questioner 
should 
not 
be
 permitted 
to 
comment 
on 
the
 answers.
 
• During 
the 
"crossfire" 
questioning 
periods 
in 
Public 
Forum
 Debate, 
the 
time 
belongs 
to 
all
 debaters 
to 
ask 
and
 answer
 questions.
  

AFTER
 THE
 ROUND:
 

• Check
 your
 codes
 carefully. 
This 
is 
especially 
important
 when
 marking 
the 
winner 
of 
the 
debate.

• In
 your 
written 
comments, 
please 
be 
as 
constructive 
and
 educational 
as 
possible.

 

• Provide 
a 
detailed 
justification 
of 
your
 decision,
 referring 
to 
the 
central 
issues 
the 
debaters
 presented
 in
 the
 round.


• Evaluate
 the
 round
 based
 only 
on
 the
 arguments
 that
 the
 debaters 
made
 and
 not
 on 
personal 
opinions 
or 
on
 arguments 
that 
you 
would 
have 
made.

• Please 
completely 
fill 
out 
the 
ballot 
and
 return 
it 
promptly 
to 
the 
 designated 
location.

• Judges must render their decision no later than 10 minutes after the final speaker concludes.

Below is a list of each event with individualized advice for judging.  To learn more about each event, visit our Events Overview page!


Making a Decision in Policy Debate
A
 decision 
SHOULD
 NOT
 be 
based 
upon:
 

1. The
 merits 
of 
the 
resolution.
 The
 judge 
should 
not
be 
influenced 
by 
prejudices 
in 
favor
 or 
against
 the
resolution.

2. Partiality. 
The
 judge
 should
 not 
be 
influenced
 by
the
 reputation 
of, 
or 
partiality 
for
 or
 against,
 either
 of 
the
 competing
 teams,
 their
 schools,
 or
coaches.

3. Preconceived
 notions
 on 
arguments. 
The
 judge
should
 not
 allow
 his 
idea 
of 
what 
the
 best
affirmative
 or 
negative
 arguments 
or 
cases 
may
be
 to
 influence 
the 
decision.

4. Personal
 preferences
 on
 debating 
style. 
A 
judge 
should 
not 
penalize 
a 
team
 if 
its 
style,
 either 
in
 case 
construction
 or 
delivery,
 differs
 from
 that 
which
s/he
 personally 
prefers; 
but 
should 
evaluate 
all 
styles 
on
 the
 basis
 of
 effectiveness 
in 
winning 
conviction.

   
   

A
 decision 
SHOULD 
be based
 upon
 the
 consideration 
of
 any
 or 
all 
of 
the 
following
 questions:


1. Skill 
in 
analysis. 
This 
includes
 not
 only
 the analysis 
of 
the 
proposition, 
but
 also
 analysis 
of 
the
 debate
 as 
it
 progresses.

2. Use
 of 
evidence.
 This 
includes
 the 
use
 of
 sufficient 
evidence 
and
 proper 
reference
 to
 source.

3. Validity 
of 
argument.
 This
 includes
 reasoning 
and 
conclusions
 drawn 
from 
the 
evidence 
presented. 

4. Clarity 
of 
organization. 
This 
includes 
clear 
outlining 
of 
constructive 
arguments 
and 
easily 
followed
 handling
 of
 refutation.

5. Effectiveness 
of 
delivery. 
This 
includes
 all 
matters 
pertaining 
to
 oral
 presentation 
with
 special 
emphasis 
upon
 extemporaneous
 abilities. 


To view a Policy Debate judging ballot, click here.

Making a Decision in Lincoln-Douglas Debate
A 
decision  
SHOULD
 NOT 
be 
based 
upon:


1. Personal 
bias
– 
A
 judge’s 
preference 
for 
a
 side 
of
 the 
resolution 
or 
a 
topic
 bias 
should 
not
 enter 
into 
the 
decision. 
A
 judge 
must
 decide 
the 
round
 based 
on 
the 
arguments
 presented 
in 
that 
round. 
Objectivity 
is 
the
 primary
 responsibility 
of 
any 
judge.

2. Partiality
– 
The 
judge
 should 
not
 be 
influenced
 by 
the
 reputation 
of
 or 
relationship
 with
 the
 debaters, 
schools, 
or
 coaches.
 If 
a
 situation
 arises 
where
 impartiality 
is 
in 
doubt,
 the
 judge
 has
 the 
responsibility 
to 
report
 this 
potential
 conflict 
of 
interest 
to 
the 
tab 
room.
  
3. New
 arguments 
introduced 
in 
rebuttals
– 
The 
judges 
shall 
disregard 
new 
arguments
 introduced 
in
 the 
rebuttals.
 This 
does
 not
 include
 the 
introduction 
of 
new
 evidence 
in 
support 
of 
points 
already
 advanced
 or
 the 
answering 
of
 arguments 
introduced 
by
 opponents.
 

A 
decision 
SHOULD
 be 
based 
upon
 the 
consideration 
of
any 
or 
all 
of 
the 
following 
questions:


1. Burden
 of 
proof
– 
Which 
debater 
has
 proven
 his/her 
side 
of
 the
 resolution 
more 
valid 
as 
a 
general
 principle 
by
 the
 end
 of 
the 
round?
 No 
debater 
can 
realistically 
be 
expected
 to 
prove 
complete 
validity 
or 
invalidity 
of 
the
 resolution. 
A 
judge
 should
 prefer 
quality 
and
 depth
 of 
argumentation
 to 
mere
 quantity 
of
 argumentation. 
A
 judge
 should
 base 
the 
decision 
on
 which 
debater 
more 
effectively 
resolved
 the
 central 
questions
 of 
the
 resolution 
rather
 than 
on 
insignificant 
dropped
 arguments.

2. Value 
structure
– 
Which
 debater
 better 
established
 a 
clear 
and
 cohesive 
relationship 
between
 the
 argumentation
 and 
the 
value
 structure?

3. Argumentation
– 
Which
 debater 
better
 presented 
his/her 
arguments
 with 
logical 
reasoning
 using
 appropriate
 support?
 Which 
debater 
best 
utilized
 cross‐examination 
to 
clarify, 
challenge,
 or
 advance
 arguments?
4. Resolutionality
– 
Which
 debater
 best 
addressed
 the
 central 
questions
 of
 the
 resolution?
 
5. Clash
–
 Which 
debater 
best
 showed
 the 
ability 
to
 both 
attack
 his/her 
opponent’s 
case 
and
 to 
defend 
his/her
 own?
 
6. Delivery
– 
Which 
debater
 communicated
 in 
a 
more 
persuasive,
 clear, 
and
 professional 
manner?
 
7. A
 judge
 should 
give 
weight 
only 
to 
those
arguments
 that 
were
 presented
 in 
a 
manner
 that 
was 
clear 
and
 understandable 
to 
him
 or
 her
 as 
a 
judge.
 

To view a Lincoln-Douglas Debate judging ballot, click here.

Making a Decision in Public Forum Debate
Public
 Forum
 Debate 
is 
a
 team
 event
 that 
advocates 
or 
rejects 
a 
position 
posed
 by
 the
 resolution. 
 A
 central 
tenet 
of
 the
 debate
 is 
that 
the 
clash 
of 
ideas 
must 
be 
communicated 
in
 a 
manner
 persuasive 
to 
the 
non‐specialist 
or
 “citizen
 judge,” 
i.e.
 a 
member
 of 
the 
American 
jury.
 

A
 Public 
Forum
 debate
 should:
 

1. Display
 solid
 logic, 
reasoning,
 and 
analysis
 
2. Utilize 
evidence 
but 
not 
be
 driven 
by 
it
 
3. Present 
a 
clash 
of 
ideas
 
4. Counter
 the 
arguments 
of 
the 
opponents 
(rebuttal)
 
5. Communicate
 ideas 
with
 clarity, 
organization, 
eloquence, 
and 
professional 
decorum
 
6. Public 
Forum
 is 
a 
unique 
debate 
form.
 While 
Policy 
Debate 
focuses 
on
 a 
plan 
to 
solve 
the
 problem(s) 
posed 
by 
the 
 resolution, 
and 
Lincoln‐Douglas 
Debate 
focuses 
on
 the
 core 
value 
of 
the
 resolution, 
Public 
Forum
 Debate 
focuses 
on 
 advocacy 
of 
a 
position 
derived
 from
 issues 
presented 
in 
the 
resolution, 
not 
a 
prescribed 
set 
of
 burdens.
 
7. In 
Public 
Forum 
Debate, 
the 
League
 defines
 a
 plan 
or 
counter plan
 as 
a 
formalized,
 comprehensive 
proposal
 for 
 implementation. 
Neither 
the 
pro
 or
 con
 side
 is
 permitted
 to
 offer a 
plan 
or 
counter plan;
 rather,
 they
 should 
offer 
reasoning 
 to
 support 
a 
position 
of
 advocacy. 
Debaters 
may
 offer 
generalized, 
practical 
solutions.
 
8. New
 arguments 
in 
the 
final 
focus
 speech
 should
 be 
ignored. 
The
 final 
focus 
must
 be
 based
 on
 argument
 and
 issues 
 previously
 addressed 
in 
the 
debate. 
 
9. Logical 
reasoning, 
maturity 
of 
thought,
 and
 effectiveness 
of 
communication 
are 
of
 primary
 consideration. 
Evidence, 
 examples, 
and
 analogies 
are 
to
 be
 used
 for
 the
 purpose
 of
 illustration.
 
10. In 
making
 a 
decision, 
a 
judge
 should 
be 
as 
objective 
as 
possible. 
Remember
 these 
are propositions 
upon 
which 
there
 may
 have 
strong
 feelings 
of 
which 
the
 debaters 
are 
unaware. 
Judges 
should
 adjudicate
 the
 round
 as 
it 
is
 debated,
 not
 as
 they
  personally 
feel.

To view a Public Forum judging ballot, click here.

Making a Decision in Legislative Debate
 Legislative debate competitors are ranked in the style of speech events from 1 - 8.  1 is the highest rank, and 8 is the lowest.

A successful competitor SHOULD:

• Provide relevant and useful evidence and examples to support points;
• Stay focused on important and relevant issues;
• Effectively evaluate competing arguments;
• Be organized, establish eye contact, use vocal variety and engage the audience;
• Effectively question his/her opponents;
• Effectively defend his/her bill ( if brought to the floor);
• Be an effective presiding officer.

To view a Legislative Debate judging ballot, click here.

These descriptions are adapted from The National
 Forensics 
League

 District 
Tournament
 Operations 
Manual
 and The Montana Forensic Educators Association Speech, Drama and Debate:  Judge's Handbook.