Each judge will have a total of 10 points to work with. Each debater will start each debate with a total of 30 points (3 judges). It's up to the judges to whittle it down from there. Judges will remove points from 10 per the instructions below. One judge will be judging presentation. One judge will be judging construction content. One judge will be judging rebuttal content.

Presentation judges will be looking for the UMMS, the ERRS, the stuttering, the use of the same word over and over, the you knows, etc. Each occurrence should have a total of .1 points removed from the total of 10. For instance, a debater says um 5 times, his/her score is now a 9.5. At the end of the debate, please don't reveal the point total you scored them at, just give constructive criticism and encouragement. The score keeper will read off the cumulative score at the end of the match. You will have one minute to give your critique (longer if necessary).

Presentation judges will be looking for eye contact with the audience and judges (allow some opportunity to review notes). Make sure that the debater is talking to everyone, not just one person and make sure they don't just stand there and read their notes. If the aforementioned takes place, deduct points how ever you see fit. You will also be looking for good body language. Assertiveness, not flamboyancy. This is not drama, so instances of excessive body language should have points deducted. The debaters should have control of their hands, without waving them around a lot. Being under the spotlight, kids will sweat; don't deduct points for wiping sweat away. Debaters should be talking with their mouths, not their hands. They should appear at ease, yet maintain assertive posture. You will have one minute to give your critique (longer if necessary).

The first four minutes that each debater speaks is the construction, the building of their arguments. Your objective is to make sure that the debaters relay their arguments in an interpretable manner, i.e. the roadmap is present (they should outline what they are going to tell you, then tell you what they said they were going to tell you, then summarize it by telling you again.) You will also be looking at the substance of their arguments, how strong they are, or how weak they are. They should be able to back some of their statements up with facts from other resources. Scoring constructions is up to the judges, just be consistent. You are looking for content, substance and interpretability, don't be concerned about the style in which the arguments were relayed. For each weak argument, remove points in 0.5 increments. For failure to roadmap in an interpretable manner, remove 1 full point. Some debaters may have a lead in story, then the roadmap, others may have just a roadmap, and others may not roadmap at all. There may be instances where the debater fails to tell you what their position is, deduct points. You will have one minute to give your critique (longer if necessary). 10 points maximum.

After the 4 minute construction, each debater will have 2 opportunities for rebuttal, the first rebuttal is 2 minutes in duration, and the 2^nd rebuttal is 1 minute in duration. Being an attorney, I don't have many tips to give you about rebuttals that you don't already know. The only difference with this style of debate is that the rebuttals aren't about verification or interpretation of law, it's about persuasiveness. Each debater has 10 points at the start of the rebuttal, and you whittle it down from there. Look for them to attack each argument, each source, and their opponents logic. Not all topics presented may be argued, most will. Your scoring of the rebuttal is completely objective. Just remove .5 point increments for the things you dislike about the rebuttal. You will have one minute to give your critique (longer if necessary).