Adjudication

I’ve been dropping the word a lot the past week without really properly explaining what the hell it is about. Debate jargons can sound so Greek to non-debaters, but understandably for those geeky, nerdy and competitive enough to live out a passionate life as a debater, such terms are almost second nature.

During tournaments, institutions (i.e. schools and debate organizations) are required to field in N adjudicators for the N teams that have chosen to represent them. Adjudicators are the average reasonable people who decide debates by weighing the way teams argued their specific cases and assessing which team held the most water and was most relevant through the course of the debate. They may not be the ones arguing passionately, but their position as arbiter is very critical in ensuring that the best team for the round will be rewarded with the win.

To neophytes, adjudication is often seen in a negative light because let’s face it, people join debate organizations to debate and not adjudicate. Prior to competitions, debate organizations usually hold “try outs” - a mini tournament that would ultimately decide who gets to debate in the next big tournament. Those who meet the grade for the available debate slots will get to compete as debaters while those who fall by the wayside will be relegated to being adjudicators. Admittedly, it is a big blow to one’s ego that you are among the worst debaters in your institution and you’re not cut out for debating in the next tournament.

I was put into this predicament during my first year in the organization. It was tough. I knew I was somewhat good enough, but the breaks just didn’t happen at the right time. There’s nothing worse than being a newbie trainee adjudicator in a national tournament. Your opinions don’t matter and it’s the lowest of the low in terms of the whole totem pole. You’re basically a second-class citizen.

-

I resigned from the organization two years ago when I realized that I’ve hit my ceiling. That was as it and I vowed never to look back. As time went by though, I noticed that the Circle was slowly losing the people that I was with when I was still a member. People who go to Med School have the distinct advantage of staying in the scene for almost two-college-lives so it was quite easy to just stick to one vantage point and look at how the org progressed without me.

Then, the Philippine Intercollegiate Debate Championship came. I was informed about it mere days before the group was to leave for the far away kingdom of Tarlac. Knowing that my former org needed my help (and they were willing to pay for my registration in the tournament), I went with them and helped them train a couple of days before leaving.

Then, it hit me.

Adjudication is the most important thing about debate. Adjudicators are the guides that mold speakers into making more effective arguments. It’s almost imperative for veterans to be more involved with the development of the younger debaters especially now that the entire debating scene is undergoing a renewal of sorts. The older generation (dinosaurs) is almost poised to leave the torch to the younger batch of debaters starting next school year. Interestingly, this seems to be the trend throughout the entire debating community. All schools are revamping and the debaters are younger (and more inexperienced) than ever.

I went to Tarlac on a whim, but as I adjudicated through the rounds, I realized that the younger debaters (from other schools) were giving respect as far as how well I judged their rounds. It’s not easy to tell a team that they lost despite months of hard work, but to be able to explain that in a constructive manner is a skill that I’ve learned on the job. These people wanted to learn and I humbly shared my sentiments on how cases should be argued and which arguments are relevant or out of line. They listened and I’m grateful that they did.

I am not a debate heavy weight. I was barely visible during my tenure. Sure, I had some shining moments, it was not going to make me a household name as far as the scene was concerned. Being respected in the way I was totally caught me by surprise.

I was made chair (that’s the top adjudicator in a round) five out of seven times. It’s quite flattering to be trusted by the Adjudication Core to significantly influence how certain teams will fare in the tournament. Being chair that many times was already enough for me to call it a success. I was never cited for my adjudication skills in my organization - two years ago, I was often criticized for not being able to adjudicate properly. Well guess what! They were wrong. Haha.

-

It would hypocritical on my part to say that I didn’t expect to break (i.e. advance to the knockout phases of the tournament). Come on, if you’ve been chair for most of the rounds, it’s fair to assume that you’ll make the cut, right? Well, I did. I was placed in a round with Jess Lopez (champion of many tournaments from AdMU) to adjudicate the debate between AdDU A and UST A. Balloting is done individually and adjudicators are not allowed to discuss with one another prior to voting. The result - 2-1. Jess and I ruled in favor of the team from España to propel them to the final 8. Sadly, that decision sent AdDU A out of contention.

As the break rounds go on, the number of debates also decrease. Ergo, adjudicators are also cut drastically to ensure that the best ones available are left to decide the most important matches. Surprisingly, my name was still called for the quarter finals!

The quarterfinals I was assigned to featured AdMU A (the team that blazed to a 7-0 preliminary record) and the up and coming UP Baguio A. I was in a panel of five adjudicators chaired by the Chief Adjudicator himself - Carl Ng of UP Diliman. The panel was unanimous in giving the round the Ateneo. That meant the trio of Parmanand, Biscocho and Claudio were just two wins away from holding the first Philippine Intercollegiate Debate Championship trophy.

Ok, that had to be it, right? There’s no way I was adjudicating in the semifinals. Wrong. My name was again called and this time, I was asked to be in a seven-man panel (led by Deputy Chief Adjudicator Steph Co - AdMU) to decide on the debate between second-seed UPD A (6-1) and third-seed UST A (5-2). That was the second time that I was adjudicating both teams. I judged in favor of UPD A in Round 7 when they faced UPD D while I gave UST A the win during the octofinals.

The panel didn’t come up with a unanimous decision, but a 6-1 split was just as clear. With that said, the top two teams from the preliminaries still ended up as the last two teams standing. It was going to be AdMU A versus UPD A for the top prize.

Ok, now there’s no way I’ll adjudicating in the finals, right?! Come on! I walked into this tournament after two years of hiatus andf without any semblance of a political clout.

And yet it happened.

I was called upon to adjudicate in the finals. Seven votes will decide who get to be the champion - one of them will be mine. After listening to eight amazing finals-worthy speeches, the majority of five ruled to give it to the team from Ateneo. My vote was one of the votes that made it official. Aside from casting my vote, I also tried to play a role in the discussion that ensued to make sure that we were all on the same page.

—-

Even though I’m already an outsider who just decided to chip in, I do feel somehow responsible and obligated to give back to the organization that nurtured me and the scene that served as the venue of my exploits. Debate has become a part of my being in one way or the other and now that the scene seems going through a transition, it wouldn’t hurt to have one extra concerned mind to help out.

 

I told someone via SMS that I made it to the finals!

He replied in a better luck next time tone. Some people just never get it.

I was happy to break and adjudicating in the quarters, semis and *gasp* finals was way more than what I expected.

I also realize though that this is quite a feat for a “rookie” adjudicator. There’s no way to go but down. DAMMIT!

—

Tsk tsk. Talking about debate when the next competition is still six months away is not good. I’m officially suffering from a bad case of PTS - Post Tournament Syndrome. Gaaaaah.

Bookmark at:
StumbleUpon | Digg | Del.icio.us | Dzone | Newsvine | Spurl | Simpy | Furl | Reddit | Yahoo! MyWeb

Viewed 3904 times by 815 viewers