I am sure many of you have watched debates between two groups of passionate speakers eager to get their point across. But have you ever thought about what goes on inside the minds of the adjudicators who decide who wins and who is the best speaker? In this article, Yeo Kheng Meng from NY Debate Society was given this opportunity to be one of them.
After 3 intensive adjudication training sessions we were thrust directly into the competition arena. This arena happened to be the Singapore Secondary Schools Debating Championships 2008.
As newly-trained adjudicators, we were supposed to be mere shadows (usually trainee adjudicators do not have influence on the results). Due to the shortage of experienced adjudicators, I was assigned the job immediately. As with any other jobs, the initial experience is usually of nervousness. This was no exception.
Like any other debates, two teams attempted to sway the adjudicators onto their side. Arguing on why their stand was stronger than their opponent.
Having been used to being the one doing the speaking, it all seems so different now that I am the one being spoken to. Suddenly, all the aspects of judgement which I usually did not care much about in the past seemed all so important and difficult to quantify. How does one attach a value to fluency or hand gestures (style), levels of research (content) and team cooperation (strategy)? Yet as adjudicators, we have to do just that in a short period of time.
At the end of each round of debate, the task for deciding which team deserves the win comes into play. Normally, this task would be simplified by the simple addition of all the scores and comparing the cumulative results. In this case, it was clear cut, but who is to say the next time it will be so simple.
The selection of the best speaker can sometimes be exceedingly complex. Especially when the standards among them are initially too close to call. There is also the factor of consolation. Although attaining the Best Speaker Award does not really help a team score in a competition, it does serve as a consolation prize for the losing team. This too was a factor we had to consider to maintain the morale of all teams.
After all rounds of debates, was the necessary short speech by one (usually the chief with the most experience) adjudicator to give a general overview of the entire debate. Although I was not the one, I could feel the pressure on the chief to maintain positive comments. No matter what depths the debates had sunken to, the chief had to tweak his speech in such a way it would sound positive and yet carry the truth across. A delicate art form that probably takes experience to ensure a perfect delivery.
At the end of it all, we had an informal Question and Answer session. With questions from the anxious debaters being thrown at me, I became too stunned for a moment to reply. I had acted the exact same way many times before. Only now did I realise after holding this responsibility how tough it could be. Although I managed to reply, we were told to exercise great control in the words used in order not to dishearten any debater.
The art of making constructive positively-worded comments and yet carry the same gist across by judges simply takes time to master. This is not just limited to the scope of debating. Other aesthetic fields like music and art also demand the same skills from judges. By being a judge of others, it really makes one appreciate his own line of work even more.
By Yeo Kheng Meng