Adjudication criteria

How pertinent, logical, consistent, easy to follow, clever, original, etc. are they ?

The quality of the examples/anecdotes used to illustrate the arguments

speaking style - use of rhetorical devices, humour, timing, etc.

manner/presence - eye contact ( shouldn't do too much note reading…), body language

Does the speaker deal adequately with points of information ? Is s/he destabilized ? Is the answer satisfactory ? ( N.b. a poor question deserves a dismissive answer…)

Rebuttal: are all the arguments put forward by the opposing team acknowledged and eventually dealt with ? ( N.b. if a speaker knows that a point raised by the previous speaker (opposing team ) will be dealt with later by a team-mate, s/he may simply point this out, but all new arguments must be acknowledged and ultimately answered )

On an individual level - should be a sense of progression, speakers refer back and forward. Speakers respect their roles: first speaker defines the motion, introduces his/her team and gives a foretaste of their arguments, the last speaker ties up the rebuttal, sums up his/her team's position. Speakers must not contradict other members of their team !

Collectively - should be a sense of cohesion

Examples only !

Teams may be awarded extra credit if they were particularly entertaining, if they managed to destabilize their opponents with their POI's, if they did a good job of defending the harder point of view.

Teams may be penalised for not asking enough POI's , or poor ones, or badly formulated ones, for being unclear or boring, for contradicting each other, for failing to rebut, for not respecting the rules or the spirit of the game, etc.