A Debate Ballot
What does it mean to say that "candidate X" did the better debating? For those of us in the business of judging debates, there is no simple or easy answer to this question which applies to all debates, in all formats, at all times.
Instead, there are many criteria by which debates can be judged and professional debate judges bring a wide variety of perspectives to the art and science of judging debates. In an effort to prepare students to watch and judge this year's presidential debates, and as a means of preparing for in-class debates later in the semester, my argumentation class at the University of Mary Washington designed the following debate ballot to judge this year's debates. For those interested in numerical metrics, a five-point Likert can be adopted to generate a comparative numerical score.
Feel free to add your feedback on our ballot, as well as your own criteria, ballots, and insights for how to judge debates in the comments section.
: debate, judge, ballot, judgment, criteria, evaluation
Use the following criteria to evaluate each candidate in the debate:
* Consistency: Does the candidate demonstrate internal consistency (i.e. are they consistent or true to the statements made throughout the debate) and external consistency (i.e. are consistent or true to the statements they made prior to the debate? The requirement of consistency helps us understand when a debater contradicts himself.
* Accuracy: Does the candidate accurately use evidence, testimony and facts in supporting their claims? See FactCheck.org for help in this regard.
* Delivery and Visual Appearance: Is the candidate's verbal and nonverbal communication, as well as their visual appearance and behavior consistent with their message? [Think: smirk (Bush in 2000), sigh (Gore in 2000), watch (Bush in 1992].
* Refutation and Responsiveness: Does the debater answer questions and are they successful at refuting the arguments advanced by their opponent? Arguments which go unanswered are defacto concessions and debaters who are unwilling to engage in refutation cede argumentative turf.
* Soundbites and Efficiency: Although we may wish that debates didn't hinge on soundbites, talking points and glib one-liners, the fact of the matter is that in our electronically mediated age, soundbites matter. They also matter from the perspective of history insofar as they are embedded in public memory. A well crafted one-liner should be rewarded. Has the candidate crafted and mastered careful soundbites--compact ways of summarizing ideas and arguments--and are they efficient in communicating their ideas?
* Lack of Truthiness: Introduced to the American vernacular by comedian Stephen Colbert, truthiness is used to "describe things that a person claims to know intuitively or `from the gut' without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts. This criteria rates candidates highly who utilize evidence, facts, and sound reason to support their claims.
* Judgment: Does the candidate judge the ebb and flow of the arguments on particular points of contention, are they able to help listeners judge the claims and counter claims, and do they offer decision criteria or resolution to the arguments (both at the micro and macro level)?
* Audience Identification: Has the candidate sought to and successfully forged bonds of identification with their audience(s)?
Although we believe that numerical rubrics fail to fully convey the penetrating perspectives and insights of debate judges, expedience and a need for metrics means that if we applied a 5-point scale to each of these points (5 points = strongly agree, 4 points = agree, 3 points = neutral, 2 points = disagree, 1 point = strongly disagree) a perfect score would tally be 40 and the lowest score would be an 8.
