Novi Sad EUDC Adjudication Test

Novi Sad EUDC - Adjudication Test
The adjudication test will be open for submission for one week, until Sunday, July 22nd, 23:59 CET.

The adjudication test will be open for submission for one week, until Sunday, July 22nd, 23:59 CET. It is compulsory for all judges to complete, and we strongly recommend that you carefully read our Novi Sad EUDC Speaker and Judge Briefings before doing so.

The form asks judges to provide details relating to their debating and adjudication experience. It also asks a handful of adjudication questions.

If you've already submitted an IA application, you are welcome to skip the CV section. If you wish to resubmit, please note that you will have to add your entire CV in full and not only the new additions. Please also note that you will still need to complete the adjudication questions.

If you are unable to complete it by this date for reasons outside of your control, get in touch with us and we can discuss your circumstances. Penalties will be applied for late submissions of those who do not contact us in advance

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact any member of the Adjudication team:
Duncan Crowe, Olivia Sundberg Diez, Daan Welling, Dee Courtney, Gigi Gill, Ilija Ivanisevic, and Yair Har-Oz

We recommend that you fill this form out on your computer, or using the "view as a desktop site" on your phone.

Novi Sad EUDC - Adjudication Test

Personal Details
Email:*
example@example.com
Name:*
Other Contact Details:
If you have a preferred method of contact
Current institution:
If applicable
Past institutions:
If applicable
Country where you currently reside:*
Past countries in which you were active in the debating circuit:
If applicable
Gender:
NOTE: Not answering this question will not harm your application
Do you, or have you ever, qualified as ESL by EUDC standards?*

Novi Sad EUDC - Adjudication Test

Judging and speaking CV
A couple of notes about filling in your CV:
- Please add all EUDC and WUDC tournaments at which you've judged and/or competed
- When inputting your speaking achievements, please notice that the achievements "within language category" refer to the achievements in the break of the language status you/your team were given at that tournament (i.e. EPL speakers should input their achievements in the open break, ESL speakers should input their achievements in the ESL break, and EFL speakers should input their achievements in the EFL break). If you broke outside your language category (i.e. an ESL speaker breaking Open, or an EFL speaker breaking ESL/Open) please input those achievements under "outside language category"
- If there are any achievements you feel the table below don't fairly reflect, or any clarifications you'd like to make, there is a place to make them at the end.
- If the achievment is in a Schools competition, please mark the format as "other", even if was in BP format
- Room numbers can be approximate - no need to dig up old tabs
Please outline all judging experience in EUDC and WUDC:
Please outline a maximum of 10 judging achievements outside EUDC/WUDC:
Total number of judge breaks:
Including those you've already outlined
Please outline all speaking experience in EUDC and WUDC:
Please outline a maximum of 10 speaking achievements:
Total number of speaking breaks:
Including those you've already outlined
Comments or clarifications about your past experience if you don't feel the answers above fairly reflect it:

Rows	True	False	Don't Know
As a Trainee Judge cannot vote, they should only be allowed to listen to the adjudication discussion rather than actively participate.
If CO does not persuasively respond to all claims CG makes, they cannot be ranked over CG.
Judges should take a failure to take POIs when offered into consideration on close comparisons between teams.
An OG who does not provide a clear model in a policy debate should be ranked behind all other teams who provide arguments for their respective sides of the debate.
Judges should only discount material from a closing team which contradicts their opening if this is identified as a knife by another team in the debate.
Whip speakers are allowed to bring completely new lines of rebuttal into the debate.
The Opposition Whip is not allowed to bring in new substantive lines of argumentation but the Government Whip is, because there is an opposing speaker who can still respond.
If the wings outvote a chair, the chair can request that one of the wings gives that part of the call explanation.
A speaker cuts off a POI which is shorter than 15 seconds before it is clear what point is made. A judge may choose to regard this as equivalent to not taking a POI.
Judges may discount arguments based upon on claims which the average informed global citizen would know not to be true.
When a Prime Minister makes two contradictory claims, teams and judges should always take the earlier of the two as being what they are committed to, even if it is clear they misspoke.
When teams make competing factual claims in their speeches a judge may use their personal knowledge of the subject as a ‘tiebreaker’ to determine which is more persuasive.
New lines of argumentation in the DLO should be completely ignored when comparing Opening Government and Opening Opposition, as Opening Government did not have a chance to engage with those arguments.
A speaker needs to satisfy all of the elements of the description of a particular speaker point bracket in order to receive a score from that bracket.
A speaker whose speech constitutes an equity violation should be docked speaker points, but the team should otherwise judged normally.

Novi Sad EUDC - Adjudication Test

Novi Sad EUDC - Adjudication Test

Novi Sad EUDC - Adjudication Test

Novi Sad EUDC - Adjudication Test