Speaker Points

[Steven Adler]

On the national circuit, how do judges tend to award speaker points? Since many top speakers go pretty rapidly, I'm assuming it isn't based on emphasis and tone. For individuals, what are things you deem important or that are big thumbs-ups?

[Debater1987]

I think most judges would agree with the following:

25- terrible, insulting, racist, etc.
26- poor skills overall
27- average, everything could use some improvement
28- good, but not outstanding
29- very good, should definitely be in break rounds
30- impressive, few or no errors in strategy and execution, among the best at the tournament

Speaker points are calculated based on case construction, rebuttal strategy, and execution. Write a perfect and innovative case, have a brilliant strategy, execute it flawlessly, and you get a 30. Any deficiency in those three leads to lower points.

-Petey

[highlander]

I'd say Petey is pretty accurate. To answer you more specifically, I think emphasis and tone continue to matter, especially for more traditional judges with teams on the circuit. Perhaps it is less of an emphasis, but without these things its hard to be a rhetorically effective speaker. Of the debaters that speak quickly the best still are able to use inflection and tone to add emphasis to their arguments.

[asmitty]

you're not going to get a 30 if you're painful to listen to imo

[Benesyed]

I use a mix of Petey's approach and one that rewards good speaking (tone, pace, and content). I especially appreciate humor or cleverness, regardless of if it is in strategy or content.

One thing that has been increasingly getting my ire is the very poor choice of words or awkward debate-y sentence structures. If its painful to listen to its painful to listen to. Its not something that I would bomb speaks for but it might keep a debater from a 29/30

[DelTron3030]

One thing that has been increasingly getting my ire is the very poor choice of words or awkward debate-y sentence structures. If its painful to listen to its painful to listen to. Its not something that I would bomb speaks for but it might keep a debater from a 29/30

Out of curiosity, what exactly do you mean by "awkward debate-y sentence structures" - could you give an example?

[m.hassin]

One thing that has been increasingly getting my ire is the very poor choice of words or awkward debate-y sentence structures. If its painful to listen to its painful to listen to. Its not something that I would bomb speaks for but it might keep a debater from a 29/30

Out of curiosity, what exactly do you mean by "awkward debate-y sentence structures" - could you give an example?

i can't speak for sohail but i think i know what he is talking about

"i would say that..."
"i would argue that..."
"but remember..."
"but now you can go to..."
"he is never... / i am always..."

e: insofar as. how could i forget that one.

[quinn.olivarez]

speaker points ought be measured by how many ways you can incorporate quotes from the movie 'good burger' into smart arguments.

[asmitty]

"dude, you need a tic-tac" would make a lot of CX's about 1000% better imo

[SStrausman]

Speaker points are a measure of how sexually attracted I am to the debater in question. This is why I always used to give Alex Williams 30s and Sohail 24s.

[Chad Dagii Henson]

I think most judges would agree with the following:

25- terrible, insulting, racist, etc.
26- poor skills overall
27- average, everything could use some improvement
28- good, but not outstanding
29- very good, should definitely be in break rounds
30- impressive, few or no errors in strategy and execution, among the best at the tournament

Speaker points are calculated based on case construction, rebuttal strategy, and execution. Write a perfect and innovative case, have a brilliant strategy, execute it flawlessly, and you get a 30. Any deficiency in those three leads to lower points.

I typically use speaker points to convey this:

</=24- You managed to personally offend me in some way. This round was painful for me, and I am trying to ensure you do not break as a favor to outround judges.
25- You have no business debating at this level. If this is an round robin or qualifying tournament (e.g. TOC/State), you should not be here. If you are varsity, you have failed to master the skills expected of novice debaters. If this is novice, your coach should not have brought you because you represent a free win for anyone. Specific comments are difficult because you generally failed and I don't know where to begin.
26- You are well below the average debater at this tournament, but demonstrated at least one positive attribute (e.g. an interesting case, good speaking style, coverage, argument selection, etc.) and there are specific ways you need to improve, indicated on the ballot.
27- You are slightly below the average debater here in terms of general skill, and did nothing particularly outstanding.
28- You are slightly above the average debater here in terms of general skill, or did one thing particularly outstanding that I want to encourage.
29- I would like to see you debate in outrounds. You are well above the average debater here and know something I think other good debaters should learn (e.g. case construction, argument selection, etc.).
30- I am not sure I can offer any substantial suggestions on how you should have done better. You made interesting arguments that were skillfully constructed, went for the right ones at the end, and were technically perfect. This round was a pleasure to judge. Will you please come debate for me?

[Paul R. Dorasil]

I tend to agree with the above posts, but I think I have something to add. Speaker points are generally used to determine breaks and seeding. So, I keep that in mind when awarding speaker points. I think we all do this to a certain extent. This is my primary consideration because this is the only real-world effect of speaker points. This way of thinking means that the speaker points I award at some tournament are not the same as the speaker points I award at others. This is also true for other judges. Otherwise, all of the rounds at local tournaments would receive 20s and/or all of the rounds at national tournaments would receive 30's. I also keep in mind the value of a whole speaker point.

<=24- Punitive. I want the speaks from this round dropped, assuming high-low speaks are dropped.
25- You should not break at this tournament.
26- You probably still shouldn't break at this tournament.
27- Your performance was just below what should break at this tournament.
28- Nothing you did in this round indicates that you should not break at this tournament, but you should be a low seed.
29- You should break at this tournament and perhaps be a high seed.
30- You should definitely break at this tournament and you get my nomination for top speaker.

[A.M. Biel]

Chad, if

"27- You are slightly below the average debater here in terms of general skill, and did nothing particularly outstanding."

and

"28- You are slightly above the average debater here in terms of general skill, or did one thing particularly outstanding that I want to encourage."

Then what's average? 27.5?

I will add that I am oddly annoyed by the pre-round question, "what do I have to do to earn your 30?" even though I greatly respect the assertiveness -- and am also somewhat amused by the chutzpah-- behind the question.

[fpielstick]

I will add that I am oddly annoyed by the pre-round question, "what do I have to do to earn your 30?"

Ironically, for me, the first step in getting a 30 is not asking me that question...

My scale (for what its worth)

<25=I was offended/insulted/thought your argument was ridiculously unfair/destructive of debate
25=Overall just a poor performance
26=Below average
27=Average
28=Above average
29=Very impressive
30=Stellar, a performance I will remember for a while.I'm hardpressed to point out something you did wrong.

Also, when I say "average" or "below average", I mean within the whole continuum of debate, not for the individual tournament. This means that at local tournaments I have averaged a 26 or so in speaks, and at competitive circuit tournaments I have averaged a 27.5 or 28

[Wade Houston]

I think 27 means average. In general, I think judges inflate speaks way too much. If someone is getting a 30 their performance had better be truly memorable. At Emory, 18 debaters received 30s, some of whom received multiple. 5 of these debaters didn't even clear. What exactly are judges trying to communicate when they give 30s to people who would be get annihilated by anyone in the quarters bracket at an octas bid 9 times out of 10? (Note: Harvard doesn't count) Did those debaters get 30s every round? I've judged good debaters who have made mistakes they should know not to make, like forgetting to extend the standard even though they otherwise debated well. To me that means a 28. At some (most?) bid tournaments, averaging a 28 will leave you out of elim rounds if you're down 2. Now, in this scenario, the debater I gave a 28 to clearly deserves to be in outrounds. I think this indicates that many judges inflate speaks. I haven't given a 30 all year, but some kids get multiple 30s and still aren't 1st speaker. That said, I have seen 30-worthy performances in outrounds.

I support judges nuking speaks to discourage bad debate. If an aff says you should affirm on face because negating means making the resolution "we ought not not use economic sanctions" and the neg wins theory that says we should disincentivize bad debate, then I will happily oblige with an L20. That said their ceiling would have been something like a 24 anyway for saying something that absurd. Also, I think a philosophical cage match AC deserves similarly low speaks. If in the first 6 minutes I hear the names Foucault, Nietzsche, Kant, Heidegger, Wittgenstein, Derrida, Zizek, and Nozick then I already know I will most likely vote negative and nuke the aff's speaks.

[A.M. Biel]

Fpiel, you phrase it rather more strongly than I would, but I agree. Adding these details may seem trivial, but the question was put to me this season by one of the best female debaters on the nat circuit, which I found odd.

I understand very well that "if you ask for what you want with honesty and dignity, you just might get it" -- it's a classic tenet of cognitive psychology, particularly of systematic assertiveness training. (Though I'm not sure the young lady knew that; and, admittedly, the question is only half assertive. True assertiveness would be: walking into a round so confident that you will earn the 30 that you automatically execute in a manner that deserves the 30.) That was the basis of my nascent amusement and respect.

The annoyance stemed from a feminist allergy to anything beginning with the words "what would I have to do for you to...?" (Perhaps you catch my drift.) I can't say if I'd have the same reaction, though, if I were male. So tell me, what are your reasons for disliking the question?

I'll toss in: I gave an 18 this season, the first in my 7 years of judging. It was for behavior that insulted the activity of LD debate itself. It was also the first time I finished a ballot before the very end of a round (in this case, my RFD/speaks were clear by a minute into the 1AR.)

Anyone who has seen my ballots knows I make a tremendous effort to be clear on my RFDs and general commentary. I do tend to score "low", as some kids see it -- 27 to 29. I've never given much thought to forming an objective speaker point scale, however. I view speaks as the subjective side of the ballot; and after so much effort, over the years, at trying to make my RFD style internally consistent and transparent, I find the ability to slap down speaks at will to be something of a relief. I don't doubt that I've given people overly high or low speaks over the years; but I'd much rather be loosely justified in speaks than unjustified in the W/L.

Last, just as a point of silliness, I think (and Jon Cruz has always backed me up on this) that I might hold the record for highest speaks at the infamous NYSFL state championships. My senior year I scored a 148/150 raw speaks score. All the more incredible was that this was with a 2-3 record (I lost TWO 30 ties.) I can remember crunching the numbers on everyone in the field (NYSFL was tabbed by hand, so data on other participants wasn't readily available) well into June, because it seemed literally impossible that a 2-3 could manage a 148. Anyone have any similar stories to share?

[Chad Dagii Henson]

To answer 'Celis's question - Yes. A 27.5 is my view of average - half way between perfect and incompetent.

My thought on the 30: I would love for a debater to ask "What do I have to do to earn your 30," because my answer would be, "Be the best high school debater I've seen since 2005." My last 30 was to David Wolfish at the 2005 TOC. In my first five years of judging debate, I gave out five 30's. Since then, 0. The way you earn one is by systematically destroying a very good debater with the flawless execution of a unique and effective strategy. The debater who earns a 30 has positively contributed to my understanding of debate in some way by doing something I've not seen before and would like to see others emulate.

I'm considering giving out more 30s, to get back at the rate of at least 1/year, but I'm not sure about that yet.

[fpielstick]

To answer Aracelis' question about weird speaker point happenings, I can recall a local tournament my sophomore year where, over the course of 5 prelims, my speaks were 30,22,30,30,22.

There was also a recent bidded tournament where a certain well-reputed circuit debater with a large number of bids missed two rounds because of the SAT, and then received a 14.5 from one judge (who was mostly messing the debater because his speaks were irrelevant after he had already missed two rounds). He ended up with, I believe, a total speaks count of 103, and a H/L of 78. He broke as a 4-2.

[k.allenniesen]

In response to Fritz's last story, it was my greatest fear going into round six that my speaks were high enough so that i was the top "down two" seed and would have to hit him in a bubble round.

He ended up being a pull-up, hitting one of my teammates who had already been 4-1, and beating him to break.

[fpielstick]

I still love that Todd Newkirk gave him a 14.5 just because he could