# data[].attributes.body
1.-Content, Arguments and Rebuttal 25%
2.-Clarity, Organization and Language 25%
3.- Delivery- Convincing, Articulation , Fluency Theuse of non verbal comunication 25%
4.-Team work 25%

# data[].attributes.body
Evaluation Criterira
1. Content- Arguments & Rebuttals- 40%
relevance, logic, evidence, organization
2. Language & Creativity - 20%
Grammar, vocabulary
3. Delivery - 20%
Articulation, body language, eye contact
4. Team Work - 20%
Collegiality, respect, fair-play

# data[].attributes.body
Criteria for Adjudication
I. Preparation- 20%
- understanding the topic
-team work
-notes
- timing
II. Arguments- 30%
- relevance
-logic
-evidence
- language
-timing
III. Rebuttal-30%
-relevance
- respect
-evidence
-language
-timing
IV. Presentation-30 %
-body language
-eye contact
-fluency/ confidence
Total: 110%

# data[].attributes.body
Criteria for Adjudication:
Persuasiveness - logical and convincing arguments.
Delivery - communicated clearly and confidentally.
Rebuttal - adressed all opponenet arguments with counter evidence.

# data[].attributes.body
-Content 40%

- presentation 30%

-rebuttal 20%

-fluency10%

# data[].attributes.body
content: They have clear content 40%
presentation: bringing and providing examples, the presenter was clear and organzied 20%

langauge: correct examples and good grammar, has suitable vocabulary 20%

Teamwork: 20% They work togather

# data[].attributes.body
-Content 40%

- presentation 30%

-rebuttal 20%

-organization 20%

-body language 10%

# data[].attributes.body
1)      Content: 40 %

2)      Presentation: 20%

3)      Language: 15%

4)      Clarity and organization: 15%

5)      Teamwork: 10%

6)      Confidence : 10%

# data[].attributes.body
the criteria to use to adjudicate
1)content:40%
do they have all the knowledge they need? do they understand the topic completely?
2)presentation:30%
do they present the topic convincely?  do thay state it well?
3)teamwork:15%
do they work as a team?
4)rebuttal:30%
do they respond to the other team?

# data[].attributes.body
Criteria for Adjudication:

1. Content – 40%

Show knowledge and understanding of the subject matter.

The message is organized, conveyed clearly and easy to understand.

The arguments, facts and examples are presented well.

2. Rebuttal – 30%

Respond to what have been said by the opposing team.

Well organized, to the point, give examples that are relevant to what has been said or claimed.

3. Presentation – 15%

The presenter is fluent and coherent.

Body language, tone, voice, speed and style of presenting are appropriate.

Appropriate dress code.

4. Language – 15%

Proper and correct use of grammar.

Rich and appropriate use of vocabulary.

# data[].attributes.body
1) Content and organization-  explaining the speaker's ideas based on the argument. It has to be strong, logical, relevent and organized. 50%

2) Presentation and teamwork- the way the speaker present his\her ideas. It includes the voice's tone, body language, ability to engage others etc. And how well the teams members help each other 30%

3) Rebuttal- The ability to convice others in the argument he\she has made. 20%

# data[].attributes.body
Criteria
Presence or Style 50 pts
Content and Organization 40 pts
Language 30 pts

# data[].attributes.body
Criteria for adjuction
Presentation- Understanding topic relevant clash25%

Content-bringing evidence and highlights25%.

Language - clarity and organization25%

style: body language and eye contac25%

# data[].attributes.body
Criteria:

1. Content - Clear, strong, informative, relevant and organized arguements - 40%

2. Presentation - Body language, respectful communication, eye-contact, intonation, articulation, coherence - 25%

3. Rebuttal - Proper and convincing response to the other team's arguments - 20%

4. Teamwork - Respect among the members of the team, fair play - 15%

# data[].attributes.body
1)     Criteria:

Content- The strength of arguments (40 Points)

Organization – The order and logic of presenting the arguments (25 Points)

Clarity and Delivery – The arguments are clear (20)

Posture- The way the speaker stans and talk, intonation, etc (15)

2)      Importance

·       Content- The strength of arguments

Important as it emphasizes on the most important part of speaking- the WHAT- what you actually say

·       Organization – The order and logic of presenting the arguments

This is important as a good speaker should know how to right and strongest way to present the ideas

·       Clarity and Delivery – The arguments are clear

Sometimes the content is excellent but the delivery of the contents is so not clear that the whole point is missed. Thus, the way you present the ideas is very important.

·       Posture- The way the speaker stans and talk, intonation, etc…

The way the speaker stands, talks, his or her intonation, use of the voice etc... is of high importance as it determines a lot how attracted the listeners are to listen to you

# data[].attributes.body
1.  criteria : Content, clarity and organization 45%, Rebuttal 15%, Presentation 20%, teamwork 20%

2. Content must be relevant to clash, presented in a clear and organized manner which reflects concise thought process necessary to win an argument

Rebuttal - the argument must include a rebuttal to reflect the students' ability to think both ways and be prepared for anything that comes their way.
Presentation - body language, eye contact and tone of voice are no less important when presenting an argument than the language itself. Students should speak slowly and clearly so that they may be heard and understood.
Teamwork - last but not least, there are several participants on the team and no one student is more important than the other. Therefore all positions on the team should be practiced by all. In addition when writing the arguments and rebuttals students should brainstorm together to produce the best product possible. "Three heads are better than one."

# data[].attributes.body
criteria:
Content: The speaker has clearly done their research and their case is logically coherent and sophisticated. 40pt

Fluency and clarity: the speaker was easy to understand and follow. The level of English and organization were appropriate. 30pt

Teamwork: the speaker supported the rest of the team and worked in unison with them. 15pt

Role fulfillment and respectful manners. 15pt.

# data[].attributes.body
Defining criteria for adjudication
1) The content  - Is the content relevant to the main clash.  40%
2) Clarity - Is the argument written clearly and is it organized well.  20%
3) Rebuttal - Does the argument include a rebuttal.  20 %
4) Presentation - Does the speaker present  argument in a convincing way?  20 %

# data[].attributes.headline
Yunona Kondratyeva                        Criteria for adjudication

# data[].attributes.subject
Yunona Kondratyeva                        Criteria for adjudication

# data[].attributes.body
1. Content: the arguments are organized and  fully on motion - 40%
2. Presentation Style: organization, clarity, body language, logical pauses, voice and tone - 20 %
3. Language: proper use grammar and vocabulary - 20%
4. Rebuttal - 20%

# data[].attributes.body
CRITERIA FOR ADJUDICATING
Arguments-content and clarity,originality,consistency and relevance,creativity and whether or not they fail to address the motion.
Presentation-tone of voice,body language,eye contact etc.
Form-timing and structure
Team Work-playing fair

# data[].attributes.body
1. clarity and organization 20%
2. information 20%
3. Rebuttal 20%
4. Deleviry20%
5. presentation style 20%

# data[].attributes.body
1. Presentation style 30%
2. Content 15%
3. Rebuttal 25%
4. The use of evidence 15%
5. clarity and org- 15%

# data[].attributes.body
Style:  Deals with HOW content is presented.
a.  effective use of language (clarity, rhetorical tools ).
b.  Body language (eye contact, effective use of gestures, movement, stance)
c. Voice and tone (tonal variation, audibility, speed, use of pauses) d. Demeanor (appropriate use of humor or emotion; in general, rudeness is unpersuasive)
(40% overall, 24 – 32 pts for main speeches, 12 – 16 pts for reply speeches)
Content:  Deals with WHAT is being presented
a.The material presented by a speaker on its own terms (ex. arguments, refutation,  definition, etc.) as though it were written down
b.Assessing the quality of analysis (logical links) and evidence presented
c. Accurate grasp of opponents’ arguments and quality of responses
(40% overall, 24 – 32 pts for main speeches, 12 – 16 pts for reply speeches)
Strategy: The question: WHY is content being said
a.Does the speaker/team demonstrate an understanding of the key issues of the debate?
b. Do they have a reasonable interpretation of the motion/tactical choices about challenging/broadening the definition?
c. Does their team position/stance in the debate help their side win?
(20% overall, 12 – 16 pts for main speeches, 6 – 8 pts for reply speeches)

# data[].attributes.headline
FELLOUS NATHALIE CRITERIA FOR ADJUDICATION

# data[].attributes.subject
FELLOUS NATHALIE CRITERIA FOR ADJUDICATION

# data[].attributes.body
1. Organization and Clarity of the delivery :  speech organised and  fully on the motion .Time limit not ecxeeeded 20 points
2. Use of Arguments that fit the clash : reasons are given to support viewpoint.  Arguments are relevant 20 points
3. Use of Examples and Facts: examples and facts are given to support arguments  The examples show a deep knowledge of the topic 20 points
4. Use of Rebuttal: ability to respond to arguments from the other team effectively 20 points
5. Presentation Style:  attitude, tone, body language, eye contact,respect for other team, dress code also maybe 20 points

# data[].attributes.body
Rubrics for adjudication:
PREPARATION:
1. Is the speaker prepared?
2. Are notes well organized?
3. Does he/she know his/her speech?
PRESENTATION:
1. Can you hear and understand the person?
2. Does he/she have the audience’s attention?
3. Is his/her pace/posture/eye contact good?
CONTENT/ARGUMENT:
1. Is the presentation orderly and logical?
2. How well does he/she support his/her ideas with examples, facts or other clarifying statements?
3. Do the arguments complement each other or are they redundant?
4. Is the content relevant?
QUESTIONS/REBUTTAL:
1. How logical is the rebuttal?
2. How many holes does he/she find in the opponent’s argument?
3. What weaknesses and errors in fact are pointed out?
4. Can he/she answer questions posed to him/her?

# data[].attributes.body
1. The relevance and coherence of the speech.
How the content is relevant to the subject of the speech and and how coherent  the ideas presented are. If we do not have enough relevance and coherence, the speech will not make the desired effect, failing to convince us.
40 %
2. The presentation of the speech. How skillful is the speaker? Is he confident? Does he use tonation and body language properly? Is he clear and convincing? This criteria is very important because the way something is presented plays an important role on the effectiveness of -especially public speaking-. 40 %
3. The organization of the speech. How organized the speech is in order to have the desired effect. Does it have all the necessary parts like repetitions, illustrations, etc? If a speech is not well-organized, that means that there are some logical and influencing gaps in it. This results in a less convincing speech. 20 %

# data[].attributes.body
Evaluation Criterira
1. Content- Arguments & Rebuttals- 40%
relevance, logic, evidence, organization
2. Language & Creativity - 20%
Grammar, vocabulary
3. Delivery - 20%
Articulation, body language, eye contact
4. Team Work - 20%
Collegiality, respect, fair-play

# data[].attributes.body
1- ARGUMENTS-

How relevant,  strong, and onpoint  the arguments are. was  a thorough and comprehensive  research done before the speech, from which proper examples could be elicited? .

2- FORM-

It should include several factors  humorous and well structured. coherent and emotionally engaging  :

,.

3- TEAMWORK and ENGAGEMENT

the rules of a proper and civil debate are kept and all team members contribute..

Engagement assesses how well opponents are addressed  specifically:The quality of their rebuttal,

# data[].attributes.body
Criteria for adjudication:
1. Arguments - this criteria regards both the content of the speech and the research done for it.
a. how consistent the speech is
b. how pertinent or logical it is
c. how original the arguments are
d. if the students confuse the arguments with examples
e. if they fail to address the motion
f. if they are illogical or contradict themselves

2. Form - structure of the speech, timing

3. Presentation
a. body language
b. varying his or her voice in tone, pitch, volume
c. eye contact with the audience
d. being charismatic and acting out the speech instead of simply reading or telling it

# data[].attributes.body
My criterias are in order of importance:
The first criteria would be choosing the motion, the speakers must relate to the motion and be able to go into detail.
Then there are the clashes, they must be relevant to the topic and they must represent 2 opposite points.
The last criteria would be the arguments, there must be 2 arguments represented for each claim in the argument.
I would grade all students out of 120, when the choice of motion would receive 25p. the clashes would receive 35p and the arguments 60p. (15 points for each argument) .
Within each step percentages will be considered as follows:
Content and relevancy is at the highest priority and will be 35%
The use of language which will include vocabulary and correct use of words will be second with 25%
Fluency will be 3rd with 20%
Correct use of grammar will be the last priority and will also be 20%

# data[].attributes.body
1- ARGUMENTS-
How consistent,  original, pertinent or logical, the arguments are. Whether substantial research has been carried out for the speech, the examples that are used to illustrate the arguments are of sufficient quality and pertinence.
2- FORM-
It includes several elements:
Structure of the speech, timing,
use of rhetorical devices,
use of humour, pathos, or other emotions to draw the audience in.

3- TEAMWORK and INGAGEMENT
Teamwork regards team spirit, the coherence within a team, and how well speakers respect their respective roles within said team.
Engagement takes into account how well teams interact with their opponents, and specifically:The quality of their rebuttal, Their capacity to react to their adversary's arguments as a whole, and to adequately adapt their own line of argumentation to match and counteract their opponent's.

# data[].attributes.body
Adjudication Criteria:

1)Matter/ content (40%)

the quality of what has been said in the debate.
* Logical and relevant to the point.
*Easy to follow.

-Arguments:
- what are you trying to prove is clear and relevant.
- Giving examples and facts are given to support reasons.

* Rebuttals:
- arguments made by the other teams are responded to and dealt with effectively.

2) Manner / Presentation (40%)

- Body language.
- clear voice, variation in tone.
-Maintained eye contact with the audience and the judge.
- Being charismatic.
- Being persuasive.

3) Method (20%)

how you organize what you say.
* Understanding the Issue of the debate
* Structure
* Time Management
* Consistency
* Teamwork: the coherence within a team, progression , and not contradicting each others.

# data[].attributes.headline
1- Identifying the clash (10): If the team / individual cannot identify a (the?) clash in the topic. They have not researched effectively or have been able to make themselves clear in their presentation.             2- Responding to the prior point (10) Like in identifying the clash, being able to respond to the points established by the opposition shows an understanding of the topic and a readiness for debate. 3-  Defining the position  (10)         If this  is not clear for the judge or teacher, it will not be clear for the opposition.                                        4- Supporting your argument (20) The ability remember information and retrieve it when needed.          5-Diction / enunciation (30) / Body language (10) -  Being understood correctly is half the battle.             6- Fair play - (10)      

# data[].attributes.subject
1- Identifying the clash (10): If the team / individual cannot identify a (the?) clash in the topic. They have not researched effectively or have been able to make themselves clear in their presentation.             2- Responding to the prior point (10) Like in identifying the clash, being able to respond to the points established by the opposition shows an understanding of the topic and a readiness for debate. 3-  Defining the position  (10)         If this  is not clear for the judge or teacher, it will not be clear for the opposition.                                        4- Supporting your argument (20) The ability remember information and retrieve it when needed.          5-Diction / enunciation (30) / Body language (10) -  Being understood correctly is half the battle.             6- Fair play - (10)      

# data[].attributes.body
The rubrics for criteria:
1- use of facts - Arguments are supported by facts, statistics, and examples. The information given is precise. 30%
2- structure - All the arguments are organized logically around the main idea.20%
3- Presentation and language - use of eye contact, tone of voice, enthusiasm, and proper language 20%
4- clashes and rebuttal -  The contrary arguments are strong and relevant. 30%

# data[].attributes.body
Gali Barel
The Motion: relevant/ interesting/ rich /
Clashes: Relevant / deep/ exact
Argument: Clear / sharp/ creative / exciting / convincing
Delivery: coherent / confident / persuasive / attentive

# data[].attributes.body
Structure: Did the speaker follow the correct format 25
Content: Did the speaker make a clear case with points and examples.25
Presentation: Speaking skills, ease to understand, fluency, body language, intonation 25
Rebuttal: Did they use rebuttal skills 25

# data[].attributes.body
Criteria for students ordered by importance in my opinion:
1. content & coherence: relevance of the topic, how clear was the presentation of the arguments,  were they persuasive. (40 points)
2. rebuttal: well constructed, coherent response to the other side's. (30 points)
3.  presentation: body language, eye contact, intonation, volume etc..(20 points)
4. language: grammar, rich vocabulary. (10 points)
5. creativity bonus : exceptional examples or presentation. (10 points)

# data[].attributes.body
Criteria for adjudication:
1. Respect: 20 pts.
All statements, body language and responses were respectful.
2. Information: 20 pts.
All information presented in the debate were clear and accurate. The use of language (grammar/vocabulary/fluency)
3. Rebuttal: 20 pts.
Relevant and strong points.
4. Organization: 20 pts.
arguments clearly tied to the idea.
5. Understanding: 20 pts.
Understanding of the topic.
6. Style: 20 pts.
presentation style such as eye contact, tone of voice, body language and enthusiasm in the topic.

# data[].attributes.body
Unit 7- Task 1

Criteria for adjudicating a speech

1.    Structure - Opening-Body-Ending – 20
Guided activities are very important for any students. It helps organizing their ideas and helps to create a unity and clarity in their work. In addition, following rules is part of any system and we must teach it.

2.    Opening-Clarity of Topic/motion- 20
When the topic is clear, it means that all listeners will be able to understand the following arguments and stay focused.

3.    Argument is relevant and clear (being to the point)- 10
When the students know that they have to be relevant in their arguments, it will help them not to get carried away with their emotions, and again, they will be coherent and maintain unity.
1.    Fluency- 10
Being fluent is part of learning a language, and in speech it's important in order to be understood and persuasive.

2.    Grammar- 10
The mechanism has to be part of the grade, even for native speakers, as we firstly teach language.

3.    Use of varied vocabulary and connectors- 10
When vocabulary is limited, students sound rehearsed and unsure. This may cause the speech to be unimportant, misunderstood or even to be considered nonsense.

4.    Body language, tone of voice, being persuasive- 10
When presenting a speech, the way you look matters. The tone of your voice sometimes leaves more impression than what you really say. Also, in a speech or debate you have to make an impression.

5.    Ending- summarizing while being precise and clear- 20
The ending of a speech is as important as the opening. The listeners may need to be reminded again, and strongly, what your main message or goal was.

# data[].attributes.body
Criteria for adjudication:

1.Content –clear +cohesive arguments ,
including a persuasive response to counter arguments (rebuttal )
40 points

2. Delivery –organization and a logic way that the arguments are put together, also body language which reflects confidence and pronunciation.
40 points

3. Grammar+vocabulary- correct use of grammar and use of rich vocabulary .
20 points

# data[].attributes.body
1. Content  - relavance, on topic, understand the topic well, convey idea properly
2. organization -  Does the debate follow the proper structure. Is the structure logical?
3. Rebuttal\ arguments - Was the debater ready with enough to data to support his idea \ contradict his opponent's argument.
4. delivery - diction, body language..

# data[].attributes.body
Criteria for judging a speech:
1. Content and organization - 30%
The content must be relevant to the topic and supported by conveying arguments. It is also has to be followed by persuasive examples.
In order to do so the speech has to be well organized  and structured.
2. Grammar and Vocabulary - 20%  correct use of grammar and proper vocabulary.
3. Clashes and Rebuttals are included - 20%
Relevant clashes and convincing rebuttals.
4. Creative and pensioned presentation. 30%
Speakers are well prepared, ease to understand, using body language and excitement when speak.

# data[].attributes.body
The criteria for educating speech:

The first criterion is content :

Was the content informative and relevant?

Was there sufficient use of logic, facts, examples, and expert opinion?
Was there response to the counter arguments (rebuttal)

The second criterion as organization :

Was the speaker clear and appropriate to the topic?

Did he tie everything together in a logical presentation of ideas?

The third criterion is delivery - in terms of language and physical style:

Was the speech delivered in a suitable language?

Was it correct grammar wise?

Did the speaker exhibit poise and confidence?

# data[].attributes.body
Criteria for adjudication:
1. Understanding of Topic: Making a convincing case and understanding the other side's weakness
2. Rebuttal: The debater anticipated/responded to the other side's case.
3. Delivery: Used appropriate body language, diction and volume.
These are assessed for each debater.
I'd say the first two are equally important and the last one is less important. The point allocation would be 40/40/20 respectively.
*I've used a Debating Matters to Us tournament rubric since I think it is simple and fits well.

# data[].attributes.body
Criteria for adjudication

Ranked by order of importance:

1.Relevance - the arguments are relevant to the motion, to the main point being made, and to the clash being discussed

Important because: if points aren't relevant to the motion it doesn’t really matter how well they’re made

30 pts

2. Persuasiveness - the point is well explained and persuasive

Important because: the main goal in debate is to be persuasive in your argumentation

30 pts

3. Vividness - the student gives examples and explanations that help represent the argument in a vivid, easy to understand way

Important because: helping the listeners paint a good picture of the argument makes it easier to understand if the point is complicated

20 pts

4. Structure - a good structure and order

Important because: having good structure helps the listeners follow the logic and understand the main points of the argument

10 pts

5. Rhetoric & language - a good use of language, rhetoric and questions to explain the point

Important because: use of good language makes the speaker sound more intelligent, and therefore persuasive

10 pts

# data[].attributes.body
1. Content  - relevant, on topic, understand the topic well, idea is conveyed clearly

2. organization -  Does the debate follow the proper structure. Are the proper terms used.

3. arguments  - are the arguments clear and persuasive.

4. Evidence - are the arguments supported with relevant and convincing evidence.

5. Rebuttal s - is  the debater ready with enough to data to support his idea \ contradict his opponent's argument. 4. delivery - diction, body language..

# data[].attributes.body
Criteria for Adjudication of SPEAKING (speech) by ranking and grade values:

1. Content - 50%
relevancy to the topic/question, detailed, logically organized.
[this rubric determines the basis of the task, once this is done correctly and well-planned, the rest will be easier to execute. Moreover, it does not require a special skill so everybody can perform it well]
2. Vocabulary - 30%
variety and richness, use of linking words, appropriate register.
[this rubric shows a bit beyond basic understanding of the language and further possibilities of levels of communication]
3. Language use - 20%
structure of sentences, complexed sentences, correct grammar (tenses, pronouns, etc.)
[this rubric deals with the most dreadful part of language for most students - and teachers - but it is still a must, and therefore receives less credit ]
4. Delivery - BONUS 20%
Confidence, fluency, punctuation (no run-ons)
[this rubric is a bonus since this is a skill which takes time to develop and not everyone naturally holds it]

# data[].attributes.body
Criteria for adjudicating:

1) Structure -  speech is well organized and clear. Starts with an opening-body-summing up. Using "flags" in his speech.  30 points

2) Clashes – well-formed, logical and relevant clashes. 30 points

3) Rebuttal- Convincing arguments against the other group 20 points
4) Vocabulary – use of varied vocabulary and connectors.
10 points

5) Fluency and accuracy - 10 points

# data[].attributes.headline
Rivka Tubul                              Criteria for Adjudication:  

# data[].attributes.subject
Rivka Tubul                              Criteria for Adjudication:  

# data[].attributes.body
1. Content of specch: this is the most important criterion since the speaker has to express knowledge with the topic being debated. The content has to be relevant, to include persuasive arguments to support his opinion and relate to the motion and clashes that were suggested. 35%
2. Coherence and Cohesiveness: this criterion is crucial in order to make the speech flow and easy to follow, it has to be well-organized in terms of structure: opening, body, closing. 15%
3. Correct use of language: the speaker has to use correct grammatical structures, advanced ones are recommended but not a must, and use a rich and varied vocabulary suiting the topic being debated. 20%
4. Delivery: the speaker has to express confidence and be persuasive by using the appropriate body language, as well as intonation, diction and level of volume while speaking.  15%
5. Rebuttal: the speaker has to respond properly to the other group's arguments with convincing and well-based counter arguments. 15%

# data[].attributes.headline
BSD'                                                                                                          'ID Number: 033136730     Criteria foradjunction Relevance- All supporting arguments are relevant.(30 points)                    Organization & Clarity:  Main arguments and responses are outlined in a clear and orderly way. 30 points)                     Use of Argument: Reasons are given against the resolution. (30 points) Presentation   Style: Tone of voice, clarity of expression, precision of arguments all contribute to keeping audience’s attention and persuading them of the team’s case. (30 points)            

# data[].attributes.subject
BSD'                                                                                                          'ID Number: 033136730     Criteria foradjunction Relevance- All supporting arguments are relevant.(30 points)                    Organization & Clarity:  Main arguments and responses are outlined in a clear and orderly way. 30 points)                     Use of Argument: Reasons are given against the resolution. (30 points) Presentation   Style: Tone of voice, clarity of expression, precision of arguments all contribute to keeping audience’s attention and persuading them of the team’s case. (30 points)            

# data[].attributes.body
Ruty Da n

# data[].attributes.body
CRITERIAַ FOR  ADJUDICATION:
1. STRUCTURE: what are the main arguments in each side ? are the ,Logic and well understood? did each team managed to prove their motions without contradicting each other?
2. Style:  it is important that the style is clear and well understood
! if the style is so terrible that the judges couldn't understand what the team mumber said, it has a big impact on how well the arguments were. Since if the judge couldn't understand the arugements, thus the arguments didn't convinced them enough!  therefore, style is an important part of contenct! they go together and can't be separated! when giving adjudication.
3. CLASHES& REBUTTALS:
This is for me the most important criteria when judging sa debate. After we eliminated the arguments that were "weak" and not strong enough, what's left is the clashes and rebuttals from each side that still stand. in this stage the judges will judge how strong the clashes and rebuttals were and if they managed to weaken the other team's arguments.
RANKS:
The first and most important criteria from my point of view will be : number 3 then number 1- the structure and finally number 2- the style.

SIVAN EDRI