| UMBC PDS Point Scale The following criteria must be considered when evaluating speaker points: Argumentation and analysis; delivery (timing, modulation, confidence); refutation and clash; style (rhetoric, wit); content (ideas, pertinence); organization and structure. 30: A 30 really can not be earned on APDA. This score is reserved in order to lend some credulity to the scale. That is to say, we assume that somewhere, somehow, a better speech could always be given. We as mortal APDA-ites may not be capable of delivering or even imagining this speech, but we maintain the belief that it exists. 29: A 29 is extremely rare. This speech is not only flawless in all discernible ways, but it transcends the genre and likely moves the judge to a profound admiration of the person speaking. This kind of speech tends to move the observer deeply, such that many judges will cry, shiver and / or gape in awe while witnessing it. The judge should be willing to defend the decision to give this score. 28: A 28 is flawless in all describable criteria. The speaker must do the following: provide fantastic clash in the round; give outstanding argumentation on all levels; present relevant and insightful content; have perfect organization and domination of the flow; demonstrate amazing skill with words; show expert timing and modulation; and never, ever miss a beat. 27: This speech is mightily impressive, exciting to watch, and has a tremendous impact on the round. However, to a discerning judge it should possess slight room for improvement in one or two criteria. (To a less attentive observer, this speech may seem wholly flawless.) The speaker may stumble lightly over a couple of words, but with immediate recovery and an otherwise outstanding performance in all criteria, she still earns a 27. Alternatively, the speaker may respond to one point with lackluster (though not poor) analysis, yet if she argues all other lines of analysis with insight and expertise, and if she truly excels in nearly every other category, she earns a 27. 26: A 26 is a very strong and enjoyable speech. It has no serious flaws at all, and it engages the audience effectively. Overall, the speaker should appear skilled and polished in order to earn a 26. However, a discerning judge will note room for minor improvement in approximately three or four areas of evaluation. 25: On average, a 25 is a good speech. The speaker clearly shines in one or two areas, while satisfying most criteria quite competently. Often, in spite of delivering a speech which is generally very strong, a speaker who earns a 25 will commit one or two significant blunders such as dropping a potentially important point from the flow, or failing largely to modulate the rate or volume of the delivery. Alternatively, speakers frequently earn a 25 by clearly performing competently in all areas while actually excelling in none. 24: A speech which merits a 24 is unremarkable. The speaker does perform competently in several areas, yet there are also approximately three or four real flaws within the speech. The organization of this speech often seems sketchy. The refutation and analysis provided by the speaker are likely to show superficial analysis of the issue at hand. Speakers who earn a 24 may exhibit satisfactory argumentative skills while regularly falling back on distracting mannerisms such as nervously pacing or saying "um." 23: To merit a 23, a speaker must commit significant errors in more criteria than not. The flaws of this speech will tend to distract the judge from its better qualifications. This still allows for a decent performance in a few areas of evaluation. It may appear that the speaker grasps the elements of debate without having the skills to execute them well. 22: This score is assigned when serious flaws are present in just about every aspect of the speech. The speech is unsatisfactory and its flaws are a serious distraction to the judge. This score is too low if the judge can say confidently that the speaker did well in any aspect. Nevertheless, one can still perceive the attempt, however unsuccessful, to approximate the fundamental aspects of debate. For example, the speaker may try to follow some form of organization, yet this organization will reflect very little of the actual flow of the round. 21: In order to earn a 21, the speaker must show little grasp of the debate fundamentals. The speaker is likely not to fill the allotted time, and the speech does very little to persuade the judge. There is essentially no organizational structure to the speech. The delivery is highly flawed. 20: This speech exhibits no grasp of debate fundamentals. The speech is definitely unpersuasive. The speaker appears unconvinced and completely disorganized. The delivery is bound to be muddled and halting. The speaker is likely to fill only several minutes of the speech. 19: A 19 is given when the speaker shows real difficulty in expressing coherent trains of thought. The relevance of this speech to the round is hard to perceive. The speaker almost definitely does not speak for more than a few minutes. If most of the allotted time is filled, then the content must be confused rubbish in order for a 19 still to be given. 18: This speech is essentially unintelligible. The speaker frequently fails to speak in full sentences, and the arguments are imperceptible by the judge. This speech is completely inadequate in all respects. 17: This score and all scores lower than it are reserved as a reprobation not so much of the speech but rather of the individual. If the speaker is intentionally and aggressively offensive, this score may be given in accompaniment with the justification of the judge. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This incredibly detailed point scale is the brainchild of Jessica O'Neill. Please join us in a moment of silence as we observe the greatness of this document. |
HOME DEBATE INFO Introduction to Debate Guide to Debate Tournament Schedule Frequently Asked Questions Links TEAM INFO Team News Constitution Practice Schedule Contact Us TEAM TOURNAMENTS UMBC Tournaments Point Scale Tab Rules Role of the Speaker TEAM HISTORY Awards Archives |