Speaker points

Speaker points are a measure of speaking ability recorded on a debate ballot. There are six different categories; in each category, the speaker receives a rank from 1 (worst) to 5 (best). Thus, the lowest possible score is 6 and the highest possible score is 30.

Speaker points are subjective, and different judges watching the same round may give different speaker points. In most cases, however, this difference is not extreme (for example, one judge might give the speaker 26 points, while another watching the same round might give the speaker 24 points.)

Speaker points categories are the same in both Team Policy and Lincoln Douglas, except for the name of the Evidence/Support section.

Persuasiveness

 * Main tactics article: Persuasiveness

Persuasiveness is a broad category that measures how convincing the debater's arguments are, but may also implicitly include elements of delivery (like verbal pauses), depending on the judge. Speakers who score highly in persuasiveness generally present clear, believable, and relevant arguments that strongly influence how the judge sees the round. Speakers who score poorly in persuasiveness generally present arguments that are unclear, unbelievable, and/or do not seem relevant to the round.

In most cases, the winning team will have higher persuasiveness points by default (if they weren't persuasive, they wouldn't have won the round.)

Organization

 * Main tactics article: Organization

Organization measures how well the debater arranges his or her content. Many judges decide organization points mainly by how easily they could flow the debater. Speakers who score highly in organization generally use signposting well, provide clear taglines for their arguments, and arrange points in a natural flow. Speakers who score poorly in organization generally do not make it clear what point they are discussing at any given time and/or jump erratically from point to point.

Delivery

 * Main tactics article: Delivery

Delivery is a broad category that measures the debater's verbal presentation. Everything verbal goes in this category, from passion, to verbal pauses, to hand gestures, to use of the lectern, to everything else. Depending on the judge, it may also include clarity of presentation and elements of organization. No content is judged in this category.

Evidence/Support
Evidence (or "support" on Lincoln Douglas ballots) measures the real-world support and backup the debater provides for their arguments. In Team Policy, most judges look mainly at what points the speaker read evidence cards for, but also consider analogies, logic, and reference to general knowledge. In Lincoln Douglas, direct quotes are less common, and thus play less of a role in speaker points.

Speakers who score highly in evidence generally provide relevant, interesting, and convincing support whenever their arguments require it. Speakers who score poorly in evidence generally make unconvincing assertions, or when they do present support, it is confusing or irrelevant.

Cross-examination
Cross-examination measures how the debater performs during cross-examination. Speakers who score highly in cross-examination are generally courteous, adept at managing their opponent's responses, and ask insightful, probing questions that set up their arguments and expose weaknesses in their opponent's position. Speakers who score poorly in cross-examination are generally rude or aggressive, ask irrelevant or unhelpful questions, give vague or confusing answers, and/or ask very few questions.

Most judges consider performance both while asking and while answering questions, but some judges score performance while answering questions as part of "refutation" instead.

Most judges will rank speakers poorly in cross-examination if they attempt to avoid questions or intentionally ramble to waste their opponent's time. A very small minority of judges consider this good strategy, however, and will reward it.

Refutation
Refutation is a fairly broad category that measures how well the debater identified and refuted his or her opponents' arguments. In practice, refutation is often linked to persuasiveness; the speaker the judge finds most persuasive is often the speaker that is best at refutation, and vice versa. Most of the other categories also tie into refutation: if the speaker is disorganized, has poor delivery, or provides little support, their refutation will be hampered.

Speakers who score highly in refutation generally identify the core of their opponents' arguments clearly, and provide clear, convincing responses. Speakers who score poorly in refutation generally misrepresent or misunderstand their opponents' arguments, and/or respond to peripheral issues without addressing the core.