This document provides guidance for adjudicating British Parliamentary (BP) style debates. It outlines the format of BP debates and key factors for adjudicators to consider, such as role fulfillment by speakers, use of extensions and points of information, persuasive manner, and engagement between teams. It also discusses consensus adjudication and provides a scoring rubric for evaluating debate performance.

1. British Parliamentary Adjudication Kiran Iyer www.monashdebaters.com | [email_address]

2. Structure Brief review of BP Analysis of the unique factors to consider in BP Adjudication Consensus Adjudication: Chairing Panels Scoring

3. Review: BP Format Number of teams OG, OO, CG, CO Speaking Times Points of information Extensions Adjudication Process

4. Holistic Decision-Making Fluidity of BP (cf Australs) Interdependence of style, content and strategy Unique factors to consider Role Fulfillment Extensions Points of Information

5. Role Fulfillment What does role fulfillment refer to? Opening Government Setting up debate Depth of analysis/Engagement Staying relevant Opening Opposition Stance: Status quo or counterprop? Depth of analysis/engagement

6. Role Fulfillment (Cont) Closing Government Extension Engagement with CO/Opening Half Consistency Closing Opposition Extension Engagement with CO/Opening Half

7. Extensions Test: Substantial and Distinctive Contribution to the debate Rebuttal Counts!! Types of extension New constructive argument; Deeper analysis of argument previously made

8. Points of Information Crucial element of engagement in debate Asking Questions Quality; Form; Frequency Answering Questions Number; Style; Tactical benefit

9. Manner Factor into decision! Highly significant to BP Style Link to persuasiveness

10. Putting it all together Analyse each team To what extent did they fulfill their roles? How persuasive was the argumentation? How compelling was the manner? How active were the teams? Take a comparative approach Take a fluid approach Structuring adjudication

11. Consensus Adjudication How does it work? Chairing Effectively Paneling Effectively

12. Scoring 90- 100 (Australs Equivalent: 80) Close to perfection 85-90 (Australs Equivalent: 79) Superb analysis- limited feedback 80-85 (Australs Equivalent: 77/78) Very good speech: Likely to make finals 75-80 (Australs Equivalent: 75/76) Average to above average speech

13. Scoring (Cont) 70-75 (Australs Equivalent: 73/74) Deficits in explanation/role fulfillment 60-70 (Australs Equivalent: 71/72) Poor speech/often irrelevant 50-60 (Australs Equivalent: 70/71) Awful speech/almost never relevant

15. Miscellaneous Advice Don ’t be too rigid! No automatic fourths Flexible on structure/signposting Definitional Challenges Almost never Truisms; Time Setting New Material at Whip Be specific: Don ’t hide behind role fulfillment

16. Questions? www.monashdebaters.com | [email_address]