Quals

Results
Tournament Results
Photo Gallery
Outround Movies

Forms
Registration
Billing Invoice
Judging Questionnaire

Information
Nats Bid
Nats Invitation
Hotel Photos
Fun Activities
Dining Menu
Schedule
Directions
Campus Map
Contact

Tab Policies
Point Scale
Pairings & Awards
Judging

Links
APDA
Swat Debate

This document is also available in MS Word format.

20 and below: These scores should only be given out punitively. If a speaker’s comments and / or actions were seriously offensive, they should receive 20 or fewer speaker points. At past Swarthmore tournaments, these scores have been assigned when debaters blatantly insulted particular cultural, religious, or socio-economic groups. Debaters who are so loud and unruly that they prevent the other team from carrying on the debate fairly, who make personal attacks on other speakers, or who disrobe during rounds may also deserve these scores.

21: A 21 is a painfully terrible speech. 21s are VERY RARE. The speaker’s analysis was insubstantial, unclear, unconvincing, largely non-topical, and at times, borderline offensive. They were so painful to hear that you wondered if their vocal cords had fallen victim to some strange ailment, or if they might not yet have mastered basic use of the English language. They may have been grossly over or under time. They may well have done more harm to their side of the case than their opponents did. Seven or eight minutes of awkward silence would have been better.

22: A 22 is significantly worse than standard APDA speeches. The analysis often failed to refute the substance of the other team’s arguments. The speaker either did not attempt to adequately cover all the important points on the flow, or was so poorly organized that you had trouble telling which points they were covering at any given time. Their speaking style may have been grating or repulsive. They may have been so boring that your mind wandered from the round. They may have had serious trouble with POIs, or not offered any themselves. They may have been substantially over or under time. In most cases, a 22 drags the quality of the entire round down with it.

23: A 23 is a decidedly below-average speech, though not absolutely hideous. The speaker made an effort to address all major points of analysis, but responded only superficially to some of them or missed important sub-points. They may have failed to adequately support their partner’s analysis, or else merely rehashed it without offering anything new. The presentation was mostly clear, but at times the speaker was too mechanical or monotonous, got lost, or relied too heavily on verbal crutches. They may have been rattled by POIs or not offered any of their own. They may have been noticeably over or under time. A 23 has several clear flaws, but still moves the round along without making anyone cringe.

24: A 24 is an average APDA speech. Think of an average APDA tournament; think of the 2-2 bracket; think of the round between the teams smack-dab in the middle of the 2-2 bracket. The sort of speech you’d see there is worth a 24. The speaker addressed all the major points of analysis, though some were covered better than others. Much, though not all, of the analysis was compelling. There were some stylistic and organizational flaws, though none that impinged on your ability to follow the argument. They may have had some trouble with POIs. They may have been somewhat over or under time.

25: A 25 is a decidedly above-average speech, though not absolutely brilliant. The analysis was compelling, and much of it was surprisingly insightful. The speaker worked well with their partner. Nothing important was dropped. There were few organizational flaws, if any. While the speaker was generally pleasant to listen to, there may have been one or two verbal crutches or awkward pauses. They were not fazed by POIs and offered several of their own. They may have been slightly over or under time. A 25 is a generally good speech that upon reflection has one or two clear areas for improvement.

26: A 26 is significantly better than standard APDA speeches. The analysis was always penetrating and compelling. As well as adding significant new ideas to the flow, the speaker strongly supported and extended their partner's points. They thoroughly addressed every important point and sub-point. They were always easy to follow. They were pleasant to listen to, held your attention, and had no discernable moments of confusion or verbal stumbles. They may have been particularly funny and / or moving. They gave and received POIs very effectively. They spoke almost exactly to their allotted time. In most cases, a 26 pulls the quality of the entire round up with it.

27: A 27 is an outstandingly fabulous speech. 27s are VERY RARE. Some judges MAY see a 27 at Nats, but we will be flabbergasted if more than a handful even try to assign this score over the course of the weekend. NO ONE should expect to see a 27. The analysis in a 27 is dazzlingly brilliant and impeccably organized. As well as articulating their own ingenious arguments, the speaker thoroughly supported and extended their partner’s analysis. Every sentence they uttered brought new levels of insight and clarity. They handled all technical and stylistic aspects of the debate absolutely flawlessly. They were always extremely charismatic and engaging. At times, they were both hilarious and genuinely touching. They offered and received several POIs, all of which they turned in their favor. They spoke almost exactly to their allotted time. The speaker almost forcibly submitted you to the overwhelming power of their logic, and they made you like it.

28: In addition to being perfect technically, analytically, and emotionally, a 28 is so phenomenal that it had a profound impact on your life outside the context of debate. Perhaps it convinced you to give up drugs, religion, or vegetarianism. Perhaps it convinced you to immediately emigrate to a new country, donate one of your kidneys, or join the army. Perhaps it reduced you to a crumpled, sobbing wreck on the floor of GA. It’s not that these things couldn’t happen on top of the basically perfect APDA speech that is the 27, we just don’t think it’s likely. At all.

29: Do not give this score. A 29 is a seminal moment in the history of the human race. It is a perfect APDA speech. It has a profound and irrevocable impact on the lives of everyone who hears it. Once Nationals are over, the speaker will go on to unite all of humanity in eternal peace and harmony. People will write dissertations on this speech for centuries to come, of which your RFD would have to be the first.

30: A 30 is a perfect speech. No human being could ever speak a 30. If you try to give someone a 30, and I even suspect that they are not a deity of some kind who descended to Earth for the purpose of attending Nationals, I will rip your ears off.