TDL Judging Guidelines - Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, Indy Wrestling, Debate League, Women of Wrestling Forums
  • 3 Post By Flay
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 5 (permalink) Old 05-26-2014, 02:26 PM Thread Starter
Dr. Ian Malcolm's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Playing catch with my neighbour, JM
Posts: 7,484
Points: 2,102
TDL Judging Guidelines

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I can't take credit for the following. This is something that Andre came up with a while back to assist with the consistency of judging. And considering the quality of Andre's feedback and debates, he's a damn good pick to emulate in your debates.

After some discussion in the chatbox, it's clear that not everyone knows EXACTLY what the judges are looking for in a debate. So, here's what Andre created that summarizes / encapsulates what we, as judges, are generally looking for. Figured it wouldn't hurt to share this, as it'll only enhance the quality of debates imo.

Judging guidelines

• (1) What is the question actually asking?
• (2) Are the statistics painting a clear picture?
• (3) Have you taken counter arguments into account?
• (4) Should you vote for the best debate, or the most entertaining debate?
• (5) Do the debaters know why you voted/didn’t vote for them?

(1) The most important quality to look for in any debate is whether the question is being answered correctly. Some questions can be open to interpretation, for example:

‘Who has held the biggest influence over Manchester United football club over the past decade?’

Now notice how there weren’t any potential candidates included, meaning that theoretically ANYONE could be argued for in this case, whether that be a manager, the players, the clubs’ board or even the media. The question doesn’t specify whether the influence is negative or positive either.

Now let’s look at a different version of the same question:

“Which Manchester United player has had the biggest positive influence on Manchester United over the past decade?”

Now if you read both questions they can seem the same at face value, but they’re actually completely different. This question specifies that it has to be a player with a positive influence, yet it doesn’t state that it has to be a current/former player either, so theoretically the answer could be Bobby Charlton.

Now here’s a stricter version of that same question:

“Who has had the biggest positive influence on Manchester United over the past decade, Ryan Giggs or Wayne Rooney?”

Now that is very specific, there are only two possible answers to the debate while the topic question has asked for a particular quality that is defined by an adjective. However, influence doesn’t necessarily just mean performances on the pitch either. It could be argued that both players have brought shame to the club via their indiscretions.

The final and fourth version:

“Who has been the better on pitch performer for Manchester United over the past decade, Ryan Giggs or Wayne Rooney?”

This is completely specific, entailing positive playing performance qualities from two players from one club over a set period of time. There is no room for interpretation with this question.

The key is to analyse what the question is actually asking, breaking down the separate areas including adjectives, quantifiers and options, while taking all of that into account and applying that to your judging. Did the debater answer the actual question? Did the debater contradict his own stance by misinterpreting the question?

Here are two short examples in answer to the second version of the Manchester United question; “Which Manchester United player has had the biggest positive influence on Manchester United over the past decade?”

Debate A: Wayne Rooney. He has consistently scored the goals to keep United in the hunt for the premier league title. No other player has been such a big performer for them over the past decade. Despite visiting granny brothels and putting the club to shame via various other outlets he has been the best performer on the pitch, which is all that matters when the dust is settled and the smoke is clear.
Debate B: The question doesn’t ask for a current player, so I’ll pick Bobby Charlton. He has been a top draw ambassador for the club and been one of the few people who have consistently ensured that United uphold most of their traditions. He is a far more positive influence on United than mercenary style players such as Wayne Rooney who are more interested in earning wage raises at the clubs expense, even when they don’t warrant it due to poor form and behaviour, which is a negative influence on his team mates and his club in general.
Now, at face value answer B would seem like a bizarre answer, but it’s actually the best answer and perfectly fits in with what the question asks. A doesn’t take into account that the question doesn’t ask for a current player, while the answer is completely focused on the positives from on-pitch activities, wrongly assuming that nothing else matters while dismissing the notion that Rooney’s off pitch activities don’t come into account.

Now apply that same answer B to the final version of this question and it’s a good answer that fits in with what the question is asking. It’s also possibly a winning answer to the third version because we all know that Giggs is a bit of a wrong’un off the pitch and probably worse than Rooney! However, the admittance of Rooney being a bad sort also weakens the debater’s stance within the context of this version of the question, so that should also be taken into account.

It’s the subtle additions to the question titles that can make a huge difference to what the topic actually concerns, as shown with the previous examples. So always make an effort to understand what the question is ACTUALLY asking.


When a debater uses statistics it’s incredibly important to make sure that the stats are correct, although more often than not a reference will be included. If not then it’s best to check if the information is correct. Another issue with statistics in debates is that a debater can potentially use positive stats to paint a picture that isn’t true. Here are some examples:

Example A:

Wagg sold 15,000 ice creams to children from his ice cream truck in 2013, as opposed to 10,000 ice creams in 2008. Wagg is clearly doing better business in 2013.
Made up FACTS for the purpose of an example

Wagg sold 20,000 chocolate bars from his van in 2008, 10,000 in 2013. 30,000 lollipops in 2008, 18,000 in 2013. Wagg’s business was actually stronger in 2008
Example B

Davey Striker is the best performing striker in ‘Bullshit made up club FC’s’ history, having scored more goals than any other player, 132 in total.
Made up FACTS for the purpose of an example

While Davey Striker might have scored the most goals in ‘bullshit made up club’s’ history, he is not their best performing striker due to a 1 to 7 chance conversion rate and a 1 to 4 goal per game ratio over 522 games in the second division.

Jim McCloggins is actually their best performing striker, with a 1 in 5 conversion rate and a 1 to 4 goals to games ratio with 101 goals over 404 games, with 50 of those goals occurring in 250 first division games and 51 occurring in 154 second division games. Jim was objectively a better performing striker than Davey
Do you now see how stats can easily be skewed to fit an agenda? It’s that type of stats usage that should be looked out for. Always try and look at the bigger picture and if that’s not being offered by the debater then research it yourself.


Counter arguments are a huge part of any debate and must be taken into account. If some individual debates are judged on their own merits then often they can seem fantastic, but when compared to a competing debate they can falter. As a judge it’s only fair to take into account the counter arguments that affect opposition debates, especially when two debates are of a very similar standard.

Here is an example of a poor judge presiding over two debates of a similar standard in terms of writing and arguments, yet debater A has the edge in these categories while debater B has lots of strong counters:

“Should John Cena be pushed aside as WWE’s top star for another full time proven draw?”

Debate A:

It is quite clear that WWE needs to revitalise their flagging product that is being hampered by the ham fisted “performances” from the ever bumbling Captain cringe worthy whose name is one John Cena. Buy rates and television ratings have dropped with Mr. “You can’t see me” who is starting to live up to that reputation with WWE universe members having consistently and rapidly turned away from the product during Cena’s decade of doom and gloom. WWE should push CM Punk to regain their currently apathetic adult audience who revitalised the U.S wrasslin’ industry with their fervent chanting and huge viewing figures. STOP PANDERING TO CHILDREN, BRING BACK THE ATTITUDE!

Debate B:


John Cena IS the only proven full time draw that WWE has. Guys like CM Punk have been given opportunities but the interest wasn’t there. Numbers might have declined under Cena but he has been a steady face of the company who does well when it comes to selling mechandise. Cena should stay as the top guy.

Stats proving debater B to be correct
Poor Judge: I liked both debates, but I thought that debate A was better.
Now, while A might have been a better read, making some decent arguments and looking strong as a standalone debate, it was completely obliterated when compared with debate B and all of its counter arguments. At face value when judged separately one debate might seem better than the other, but when compared side by side debate debate B destroys debate A due to counter arguments.


This leads me onto the style of writing and entertainment. While I’m sure we would all hope for every debate to be a wonderfully epic storytelling classic with world class humour, we mustn’t get away from what this is all about. This is the debate league, not the creative writing league. Answering the question correctly, forming strong arguments, providing correct information and building successful counter attacks should be the key priorities for any debater and should be the qualities that judges look for first and foremost. Great creative writing and humour come last to all of that. Sure, the debaters at least need to communicate their points to a certain level where the debate is easy to read and understand, but a great piece of creative writing with crap content should never beat a rigid piece of writing that has brilliant content in terms of arguments. The ONLY time that great creative writing and humour SHOULD separate two debates is when all of the debates in question are of an incredibly similar standard outside of those qualities. That is the correct time to take this into account, when everything else has been weighed up CORRECTLY and there’s absolutely no possible way to choose a winner otherwise.


Giving good feedback is just as important as any other judging aspect. When giving your feedback fully explain your decisions, tell the debaters the reasons that you thought they deserved to win and the reasons why they deserved to win. Explain how counter arguments from their debate or another debate affected them in a positive or negative way. Describe the nuances that separate really close matches. There is nothing more frustrating for a debater than to submit a brilliant effort, only to lose and be told by the judges that they “did nothing wrong, but another debate was better” without any explanation. It’s less of a smack in the face to tear apart a bad debate than it is to give zero feedback to a decent debate, regardless of whether it wins or not.

Sig Credit: Demon Hunter
Dr. Ian Malcolm is offline  
Sponsored Links
post #2 of 5 (permalink) Old 05-26-2014, 02:32 PM
Friends come and go banners are forever
LUCK's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 22,158
Points: 11,325
Re: TDL Judging Guidelines


LUCK is offline  
post #3 of 5 (permalink) Old 06-11-2014, 08:55 PM
Pierre=Alter Ego
RetepAdam.'s Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Denver, CO.
Posts: 8,892
Points: 2,773
Re: TDL Judging Guidelines

How is that a user name?
RetepAdam. is offline  
post #4 of 5 (permalink) Old 02-13-2015, 03:43 PM
Ben Wyatt's Low Cal Calzone Zone
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Golfing with Stephen Hawking, he lied about his handicap. Didn't need a golf cart though, I just sat in his lap.
Posts: 5,852
Points: 337
Re: TDL Judging Guidelines

Andre suggested I copy my Tag Team Debating guideline here for those on the TDL 29 card and others unfamiliar with how tag debates differ from traditional singles debates:

(1) Arguing the same stance

Tag debates are basically judged by which two individual efforts are the best combination, for example:

Team 1 - Debate A = 7/10 , Debate B = 8/10
Team 2 - Debate A = 4/10, Debate B = 10/10

Ergo Team 1 wins because they got 15/20 combined, despite Debate B of Team 2 having the best overall debate.

However, you MUST argue the same stance as your partner. This is an unequivocal fact which will result in an automatic loss of you fail to abide by it.

Arguing against your partner weakens one of your entries, since if you argue for one stance and your partner the other, then any judge will concede one of your entries is better than the other, leaving the other looking less impressive.

2) The Formula to Success

Basic communication via PM with your partner is fundamental. How much time you spend collaborating largely will determine your success.

You have to at least establish the stance your team will take. Myself and Seabs went about it this way:

a) PM each other and set a date of 1-2 days to come up with potential pros/cons for the respective for/against sides.
b) having compared arguments, decide on our team stance
c) thereafter decide who will tackle specific arguments and whether one/both of ourselves would address counter arguments in our debates
d) PM each other a rough draft around 2-3 days before the deadline. Give concise and brief feedback, offering constructive criticism and ways to tinker with certain arguments

The final step after that was submitting our debate. Remember, tag debates are essentially a 1600 word debate comprised of two halves. Ever had a debate where you wished you could write more than 800 words? That's a tag debate. You absolutely need to ensure where possible that you don't repeat arguments your opponent has already made. Again, communicatiing and deciding who will argue what ensures this doesn't happen, and also ensures as a team you have a depth and variety of arguments which only increases your odds of victory.

(3) Structure

The beauty of tag debates is it's a team effort and allows you and your partner to share the workload and reduce weaknesses. Comfortable arguing for your stance but struggle with addressing counter arguments? Tag debates allow you and your partner to devise a strategy where one partner tackles arguing for their choice, and the second partner then devotes their debate to entirely addressing counter arguments. Again, tag debates are an extension of singles debates and are designed to allow partners to spread the workload and produce the best COLLABORATIVE effort.

4) Conclusion

1) Communicate with your partner frequently, but if you don't wish to then at least talk to one another to agree on your stance and arguments.

2) Try to ensure you don't cover the same arguments as your partner. Think about it, if you were granted a 1600 word singles debate you wouldn't repeat arguments you'd previously covered, so don't do it here. It's a waste since as a team you're wasting words by covering the same argument, rather than diversifying your arguments.

3) Your arguments must be your own. I would encourage partners to prepare drafts and share with the other, but you must ensure any feedback is constructive and designed to help you rewrite your own debate. Your final debate has to be your own work, you can't have your partner write an argument entirely for you and try to pass it off as your own. Believe me it's very easy to spot and it won't reflect well at all.

That's the basic formula for success in tag team debates. Those who have struggled in the past largely failed to communicate with each other, leading to dismal cases of partners either repeating prior arguments or even worse contradicting their partner. It's a combined effort, not two separate debates judged as an overall score.
WOOLCOCK is offline  
post #5 of 5 (permalink) Old 02-13-2015, 04:49 PM
Flay's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: The Dreadfort
Posts: 3,207
Points: 9,712
Re: TDL Judging Guidelines

This should be a sticky.
CGS, Baxter and Rugrat like this.


Forum Championship Accomplishments:

Current (2x) BTC Champion
Former Tag Team Champion (w/Ted)
Former Television Champion
Flay is offline  

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome