What Judges Are Looking For: Reading Adjudicator Feedback After Your Round

The Difference Between Hearing and Listening

Most debaters hear adjudicator feedback as a verdict: we won because of X, they lost because of Y. This hearing mode is passive and evaluative — the debater is assessing whether they agree with the adjudicator's assessment rather than extracting information about their own performance. The listening mode is different: the debater is attending to what the adjudicator's comments reveal about how their argument was received, regardless of whether they think the adjudicator's assessment is correct. An adjudicator who says 'the proposition's second speaker didn't address the opposition's rebuttal on the economic argument' is giving you specific information about what was visible from outside the round. That information is valuable even if, from inside the round, you thought you did address it — because if the adjudicator didn't see it, the audience didn't see it, which means it didn't happen as far as the round's outcome is concerned.

What to Write Down and What to Do With It

During the feedback: write down the adjudicator's specific observations about your speech, not the overall decision. The overall decision is outcome data. The specific observations are process data, and process data is what you can act on. After the feedback: identify one specific thing you will do differently in your next round based on what you heard. Not three things, not 'be better generally' — one specific, actionable change. Between rounds: if possible, find a coach or a trusted team member and do a two-minute review of the one thing you are changing. Stating it aloud and having someone hold you to it increases the probability that it actually changes in the next round.

When You Disagree With the Adjudicator

Disagreeing with an adjudicator's assessment is common and legitimate. Expressing that disagreement in the feedback session is almost never productive, for two reasons. First, the decision is made and will not change. Second, the energy spent contesting the adjudicator's reading is energy not spent extracting the learning from it. There is a specific question that converts even the most frustrating adjudicator feedback into useful data: 'What would I have needed to do differently for the adjudicator to have seen it the way I intended?' This question accepts the adjudicator's perception as real — which it is, for the purposes of the round — and focuses your attention on what was missing in your communication rather than what was wrong in their assessment. For more on debate development through the Ivy Spires programme, visit https://www.anhayafoundation.com/ivy-spires.