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 EventsJudges
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:
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 EventsThank
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:
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:
To view a Policy Debate judging ballot, click here. Making a Decision in Lincoln-Douglas Debate A decision SHOULD NOT be based upon:
A decision SHOULD be based upon the consideration of any or all of the following questions:
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:
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:
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.