Judging Criteria

A few things to look for. Please note: This list is not exhaustive!

Analysis:

Definitions
General knowledge of topic
Penetrating analysis of crucial issues
Is interpretation sound and reasonable?

Evidence & Reasoning:

Facts, statistics & authorities
Thorough research
Relevant research
Use of sound logic

Organization:

Effective introduction & conclusion
Well structured
Logical & coherent
Development of theme
Smooth transition from issue to issue
Effective use of time
Co-ordination with colleagues

Delivery:

A) Voice

Strength
Effective use of rate, pitch and expression
Good enunciation
Good control (esp. effective use of pauses)

B) Language

Proper grammar
Advanced vocabulary

C) Deportment

Good posture
Gestures (effective or distracting?)
Good eye contact
Natural or contrived?

Refutation & Defence:

Ability to use logic to refute arguments of opponents
Ability to use logic to defend their position
Ability to focus on crucial issues
Recognition of fallacies
Anticipation of opponents
Collected & organized, not flustered
Uses info. from opponents to bolster their position
Spirited point-by-point attack
Attentive listener & accurate note-taker

Basic Debating Skills:

Parliamentary:

Familiarity with rules
Intelligent use of points of order/privilege
Effective heckling
Ability to handle heckling while speaking

Cross Examination:

Organized series of questions
No speech-making or arguing
Valuable admissions elicited
Courtesy & respect for witness
Effective use of time
Effective control of witness
Fair but effective questions
Direct, honest answers
Skillful responses
No questions in reply
Reasonable qualifications
Co-operative & respectful
Ability to use exam period to bolster own points

Penalties:

Inappropriate conduct
Objectionable language
Severe personal attack on another debater
Falsified evidence (proven false by opponents)
Irrelevancy
Reading of speech and/or memorization of speech
Unfair tactics
Poor teamwork
Unfamiliar with rules