Account
Log in

Help/FAQs/Rules

Rules: Debate Contest Procedures

  1. Categories offered: Congressional and World Schools Debate as defined by the National Speech & Debate Association (NSDA).
  2. Contest participation regulations
    1. Submitting registration obligates a school to pay WISDAA dues and contest registration fees whether or not the school actually participates.
    2. All schools are subject to WISDAA Interscholastic Participation Rules, including Eligibility/Participation §2.1, §2.2, and §2.3 pertaining to supervision and youth protection.
    3. In all festivals participants’ school identity shall not be made known to adjudicators until results are announced.
    4. Member schools may participate with nonmember schools in contests other than those sponsored by the Association, but such participation will not qualify contestants for WISDAA participation certificates.
    5. Electronic/digital recording is prohibited at any WISDAA event. This does not apply to videos of entry presentations submitted by coaches for adjudication in virtual contests.
    6. The coach must attest that they have followed their school’s policies regarding virtual participation of students (i.e., obtained parental permission/release forms). Coaches are responsible for ensuring their students have access to devices and an internet connection that will give students access to Zoom and Tabroom.com.
  3. Contest levels
    1. The State office will operate one monthly, weeknight open contest for any school to participate in.
    2. The State office will hold an in-person and/or online culminating State Festival that students will qualify to as outlined in §5.
  4. Registration: Entries must be registered online via Tabroom for open festivals to be eligible to qualify for the State Festival; open festival managers have the right to require entering schools to honor reasonable entry deadlines.
    1. An entry is defined as an individual student, except for three-person teams in World Schools Debate.
    2. A student may not enter more than one debate category at any given contest, including as a substitute.
    3. In the event member(s) of a group entry as defined in §4.2 are unable to appear at a Festival, any other eligible student(s) not already entered may be substituted, but not after the contest has begun.
    4. WISDAA schools will participate for free; non-member, Wisconsin schools will pay a modest fee per entry; non-Wisconsin schools will pay a slightly higher fee. All participating schools must provide adjudicators or will be assessed a uniform, uncovered adjudicator fee per however many adjudicators they are obligated.
    5. Accessibility requests: when registering entries, the coach should note accommodations and other requests required by any contestants as per their school’s protocols for doing so. Those will be reviewed by the state office, with specific instructions shared with each contest level. It is the coach’s affirmative responsibility to specify this information when registering entries; contest officials will ensure information is kept confidential.
  5. Adjudicators, ratings, and advancement
    1. Each round will be assessed by at least one adjudicator, with a panel if more are available
    2. Schools will be asked to provide adjudicators in the following ratios or fractions thereof: one per each two World Schols; one per each six Congressional Debate entries.
    3. In head-to-head debate rounds (World Schools Debate), adjudicators will award a win and a loss. Adjudicators also will award speaker points, but these are to provide a frame of reference, and have no bearing on contest results.
    4. In Congressional Debate, each speech and legislation presided will be rated on a 1-6-point scale
    5. Adjudicators’ ballots are considered an official record; once submitted and tabulated, no result may be changed except to correct a recording error.
    6. To qualify for the State Festival, any student must:
      1. Attend at least two open festivals (or the coach may submit an application for consideration, documenting extenuating circumstances)
      2. In Congressional Debate, earn an average score of ≥ 4; in World Schools Debate, earn at least 2 round wins.
    7. For open contests, certificates will be shared electronically with a each student’s win-loss record or points earned.
    8. At the State Festival, students will earn awards as follows:
      1. Congressional Debate: Gold medal = avg. of 5.66+; Silver medal = avg. of 5-5.65; Participation certificate = avg, of <5.
      2. World Schools: Gold medal = 3 wins; Silver = 2 wins; Participation certificate = ≤ 1 win
    9. To receive awards, participants must attend the contest, in person or virtually. Participation in contests not run by the WISDAA will not qualify participants for WISDAA.
  6. Contestant Usage of Internet-Enabled Devices
    1. Contestants may use electronic devices (including laptop computers, tablets, and/or cell phones) to access the internet during debate rounds with the following conditions:
      1. Computers or other electronic devices may not be used to receive information for competitive advantage from non-competitors (coaches, assistant coaches, other non-competing students) inside or outside of the room (virtual or in-person) in which the competition occurs. Information that would be restricted would include but not be limited to coach/non-participating competitor generated arguments, advice on arguments to run, questions to ask during cross-examination, and other information not generated by the participating competitors in a round.
      2. Internet access may be used to retrieve files, exchange evidence and/or arguments, research arguments, debate partner to partner communication, and communication between other participants in the round. These electronic device guidelines do not limit communication between debate partners during the debate round.
    2. Penalty: Contestants found to have violated these provisions will be disqualified from the contest and will forfeit all rounds and records from that event.
    3. Availability of Evidence: Contestants electing to use computers have the responsibility to promptly provide a copy of any evidence read in a speech for inspection by the adjudicator or opponent. Printers may be used. Evidence may be printed in the round or produced electronically but must be provided in a format readable by the opposing team and the adjudicator.
    4. Contestants electing to use computers are responsible for providing their own computers, batteries, extension cords, and all other necessary accessories. Contest hosts will not be responsible for providing computers, printers, software, paper, or extension cords for contestants. Host schools may provide wireless internet access, but will not guarantee that contestants will be able to gain access when needed.
    5. Contestants choosing to use laptop computers and/or related devices accept the risk of equipment failure. Adjudicators and/or contest directors will give no special consideration or accommodation, including no additional speech time or prep time, should equipment failure occur.
    6. By choosing to use electronic devices in the round, debaters and other relevant parties are consenting to give contest officials the right to search their devices in the event of a protest. The device may only be searched by contest officials and must be restricted to files and/or electronic exchanges relevant to the protest. Failure to comply would result in the upholding of the protest. Debaters and coaches should be present as their device is searched. Debaters who do not wish to consent should not use electronic devices in the round.
  7. Evidence Rules for Debate: Evidence is one of the important components of arguments in debate rounds. All debaters involved are expected to act in an ethical manner that is in accordance with the rules. These rules have been adapted from the NSDA, and in keeping with the NSDA Code of Honor, all participants are expected to use and interpret evidence, evidence rules, and procedures in good faith.
    1. Responsibilities of Contestants Reading Evidence
      1. Evidence defined. Debaters are responsible for the validity of all evidence they introduce in the debate. Evidence includes, but is not limited to: facts, statistics, or examples attributable to a specific, identifiable, authoritative source used to support a claim. Unattributed ideas are the opinion of the student competitor and are not evidence.
      2. Oral source citation. In all debate events, contestants are expected to, at a minimum, orally deliver the following when introducing evidence in a debate round: primary author(s)’ name (last) and year of publication. Any other information such as source, author’s qualifications, etc., may be given, but is not required. Should two or more quotations be used from the same source, the author and year must be given orally only for the first piece of evidence from that source. Subsequently, only the author’s name is required. Oral citations do not substitute for the written source citation. The full written citation must be provided if requested by an opponent or adjudicator.
      3. Written source citation. To the extent provided by the original source, a written source citation must include:
        1. Full name of primary author and/or editor
        2. Publication date
        3. Source
        4. Title of article
        5. Date accessed for digital evidence
        6. Full URL, if applicable
        7. Author qualifications
        8. Page number(s)
      4. Paraphrasing, authoritative source versus general understanding. If paraphrasing is used in a debate, the debater will be held to the same standard of citation and accuracy as if the entire text of the evidence were read. Paraphrasing may be used to shorten or clarify one specific portion of an original source. It should not be confused with general summary of an entire book, chapter, study, etc., which may only be used for information that is widely considered to be common knowledge. Paraphrasing focuses on a single idea, while summary focuses on a general concept. For example, if a debater references a specific theory by a specific author, the debater must also be able to provide an original source as well as the specific text from the original source which is being paraphrased. If a debater were to reference social contract theory in general, that would not be an authoritative source that would require citation. However, if the debater references “John Locke’s Social Contract,” evidence would need to be available.
      5. Ellipses prohibited. In all debate events, the use of internal ellipsis (…) is prohibited unless it is a replication of the original document. Debaters may omit the reading of certain words; however, the text that is verbally omitted must be present in the text of what was read for opposing debaters and/or adjudicators to examine. The portions of the evidence read including where the debater begins and ends must be clearly marked (as outlined in 7.1.7.2.).
      6. Availability of evidence.
        1. In all debate events, for reference, any material (evidence, cases, written citations, etc.) that is presented during the round must be made available to the opponent and/or adjudicator during the round if requested. When requested, the original source or copy of the relevant (as outlined in 7.1.6.2.) pages of evidence read in the round must be available to the opponent in a timely fashion during the round and/or adjudicator at the conclusion of the round.
        2. Original source(s) defined. Understanding that teams/individuals obtain their evidence in multiple ways, the original source for evidence may include, but is not limited solely to, one of the following:
          1. Accessing the live or displaying a copy of a web page (teams/individuals may access the internet to provide this information if requested).
          2. A copy of the page(s) the evidence is on, the page preceding, and the page following, or the actual printed (book, periodical, pamphlet, etc.) source.
          3. Copies or electronic versions of published handbooks.
          4. Electronic or printed versions or the webpage for a debate workshop or the NDCA sponsored Open Evidence Project or similar sites.
        3. Debaters, even if they have acquired the evidence other than by original research, are responsible for the content and accuracy of all evidence they present and/or read.
      7. Distinguishing between which parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round. In all debate events, debaters must mark their evidence in two ways:
        1. Oral delivery of each piece of evidence must be identified by a clear oral pause or by saying phrases such as “quote/unquote” or “mark the card.” The use of a phrase is definitive and may be preferable to debaters. Clear, oral pauses are left solely to the discretion of the adjudicator.
        2. The written text must be marked to clearly indicate the portions read or paraphrased in the debate. See 7.2.B.3 for the penalty for failing to clearly indicate paraphrased text. In the written text the standard practices of underlining what is read, or highlighting what is read, and/or minimizing what is unread, is definitive and may be preferable to debaters. The clarity of other means of marking evidence is left to the discretion of the adjudicator.
      8. Private communication prohibited. Private, personal correspondence or communication between an author and the debater is inadmissible as evidence.
    2. Definitions of Evidence Violations
      1. “Distortion” exists when the textual evidence itself contains added and/or deleted word(s), which significantly alters the conclusion of the author (e.g., deleting ‘not’; adding the word ‘not’). Additionally, failure to bracket added words would be considered distortion of evidence.
      2. “Non-existent evidence” means one or more of the following:
        1. The debater citing the evidence is unable to provide the original source or copy of the relevant pages when requested by their opponent, adjudicator, or contest official.
        2. The original source provided does not contain the evidence cited.
        3. The evidence is paraphrased but lacks an original source to verify the accuracy of the paraphrasing. If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round.
        4. The debater is in possession of the original source, but declines to provide it to their opponent – or adjudicator in Congressional Debate – upon request in a timely fashion (as outlined in 7.4.3.).
      3. “Clipping” occurs when the debater claims to have read the complete text of highlighted and/or underlined evidence when, in fact, the contestant skips or omits portions of evidence.
      4. “Straw argument” is a position or argumentative claim introduced by an author for the purpose of refuting, discrediting or characterizing it. Reliance on a straw argument occurs in a debate round when a debater asserts incorrectly that the author supports or endorses the straw argument as their own position. Note: A debater who acknowledges using a “straw argument” when verbally first read in the round, would not be misrepresenting evidence. However, if the debater fails to acknowledge the use of a “straw argument” and their opponent questions the use of such an argument, then that debater has committed an evidence violation.
    3. Procedures for Resolving Evidence Violations in World Schools Debate
      1. Adjudicators are responsible for resolving disputes between debaters regarding oral citations (7.1.2.); written source citations (7.1.3.); distinguishing between what parts of each piece of evidence are and are not read in a particular round (7.1.7.). When the adjudicator(s) have such a dispute in the round, they must make a written note on the ballot or inform the tabulation committee of the dispute. They must do so particularly if it impacts the decision in the debate. These decisions may not be appealed.
      2. An appeal can only be made if the issue has been raised in the round with the exception of the issues listed in 7.3.3. Appeals may only be made if adjudicator(s) have misapplied, misinterpreted, or ignored a rule.
      3. A formal allegation of violation of the evidence rules is permitted during the round only if the debater(s) allege a violation of 7.2.1. (distortion); 7.2.2. (nonexistent evidence); 7.2.3. (clipping). If a formal allegation of violation of these rules is made during a round, the following procedures must be followed: (see section 7.3.4. for procedures for making a formal allegation after the conclusion of the round):
        1. The team/individual alleging a violation must make a definitive indication that they are formally alleging a violation of an evidence rule.
        2. The team/individual alleging the violation of the evidence must articulate the specific violation as defined in 7.2.1.; 7.2.2. and/or 7.2.3.
        3. The adjudicator should stop the round at that time to examine the evidence from both teams/individuals and render a decision about the credibility of the evidence.
          1. If the adjudicator determines that the allegation is legitimate and an evidence violation has occurred, the team/individual committing the violation will be given the loss in the round. Other sanctions may apply as well as articulated in 7.3.5.
          2. If the adjudicator determines that the allegation is not legitimate and that there is no violation, the team/individual making the challenge will receive the loss in the round. Note: Teams/individuals may question the credibility and/or efficacy of the evidence without a formal allegation that requires the round to end. Teams/debaters may make in-round arguments regarding the credibility of evidence without making a formal allegation or violation of these rules. Such informal arguments about the evidence will not automatically end the round, and will be treated by the adjudicator in the same fashion as any other argument.
        4. Tabulation staff is authorized to hear: (1) appeals, pursuant to 7.3.2., claiming that a adjudicator ignored, misinterpreted or misapplied rules other than those from which no appeal is permitted pursuant to 7.3.1.; (2) appeals from a adjudicator’s decision, pursuant to 7.3.3., on a formal in-round allegation of distortion or non-existent evidence (note: adjudicator decisions regarding clipping may not be appealed); and (3) a formal allegation of distortion or nonexistent evidence that is made for the first time after conclusion of the debate.
        5. The procedures for making an appeal or post-round formal allegation are as follows:
          1. A coach or school-affiliated adult representative from the school(s) competing in the debate or a adjudicator for the round must notify the tabulation committee of intent to submit an appeal or formal post-round allegation within 20 minutes of the end of the debate round. The 20-minute time period begins once the last ballot from all rounds (if flighted, both flights) has been collected by the tabulation committee.
          2. The coach must submit the post-round formal allegation to the tabulation committee within 10 minutes of the formal notification of the intent to appeal. The allegation must be in writing and articulate the specific evidence violation that is being challenged. The challenged contestant and coach will then be notified.
          3. If the tabulation committee determines that the original protest has merit, the coach or school affiliated adult and contestant(s) being challenged will be given 20 minutes to provide evidence denying, or to the contrary of the claim. If such evidence cannot be offered, the challenged debater(s) will be given the loss in the round and may be subject to additional penalties. If the tabulation committee determines that the allegation is not legitimate and that there is no violation, the team/individual making the challenge will receive the loss in the round.
          4. The tabulation committee has the discretion of extending the time limits for these actions if circumstances do not allow a coach or school-affiliated adult to be available within the prescribed time limits.
        6. The tabulation committee’s decision to disqualify a student can be appealed by the coach or school affiliated adult. The following procedure should be followed:
          1. The appeal must be submitted in writing to the tabulation committee within 10 minutes of the notification to disqualify.
          2. The tabulation committee will then submit the appeal to the state office referee(s). The committee will contact the state office referee once the written appeal has been received. Both sides will be able to provide written explanations and supporting evidence to defend their individual side.
          3. A decision will be rendered in a timely manner. The decision of the state office shall be final and cannot be appealed.
          4. No more than one round may occur between the round being protested and the decision of the state office referee.
          5. If the appeal is successful and the contestant(s) may now continue in the contest, they will be put into the appropriate bracket for pairing the debates.
        7. If appeals are made in rounds in which multiple adjudicators are being used, normal procedures should be followed to ensure each adjudicator reaches their decision as independently as possible. Adjudicators will be instructed not to confer or discuss the charge and/or answer to the potential violation. It will be possible for one adjudicator to determine that an evidence violation has occurred and the other adjudicator(s) to determine no violation has occurred. The tabulation committee will record the panel’s decision in the same fashion as a normal win or loss; the outcome is thus tabulated in the same fashion as a round in which an evidence violation has not occurred. If the majority of the panel finds an evidence violation did not occur, no sanction may be applied to the team/individual charged with the violation. If the majority finds a violation has occurred, the appropriate penalties will be administered.
      4. Procedures for Raising Evidence Questions in a Congressional Debate Round
        1. Congressional Debate contestants must rise to a point of information after a speech to formally request a copy of the evidence cited, the citation, or the original source of evidence. When requested during the point of information, the presiding officer will instruct the debater being challenged to produce the copy of the evidence, citation, or original source. The debater being challenged must produce the requested materials in a timely fashion. Should a debater feel they are not receiving the information they requested in a timely fashion, they may rise to another point of information for the presiding officer and adjudicator(s) to address the situation.
        2. Debaters who request the information may receive the evidence from the presiding officer within a period of two speeches. The round would not be put on hold for the request to be completed. For example, if a debater rises to a point of order after speech #4, then by the conclusion of speech #6, the requested evidence should be presented to the presiding officer.
        3. If after reviewing the evidence in question, a debater feels that an evidence violation has occurred, they may submit a formal allegation by completing an evidence challenge form, and, after moving a personal privilege motion to approach the chair, the debater will present the form to the presiding officer and adjudicator.
        4. All evidence challenges must occur during the round of Congressional Debate where an alleged violation took place, and should happen before a vote on the pending legislation. If the concern arises during the last cycle of speeches, the adjudicator may grant a challenge after the vote, prior to the first speech on a new piece of legislation.
        5. The adjudicator(s) – one designated as a parliamentarian, when there is more than one – is responsible for resolving disputes between debaters regarding oral citations (7.1.2.); and written source citations (7.1.3.). When the adjudicator has such a dispute in the round, they must submit the protest form to the tabulation committee. All protest forms will be submitted to the tabulation committee.
          1. The adjudicator will determine the legitimacy of the challenge, and if they consider the request justified, the debater making the allegation will move a point of order to address the allegation to the chamber.
          2. The debater being challenged will be recognized by the presiding officer for a response to the evidence violation.
          3. The adjudicator will evaluate the legitimacy and severity of the charge and make a recommendation to the presiding officer for action. The recommendation may be charged against either student involved in the dispute. Depending upon the severity of the offense, the adjudicator may opt to censure the debater(s). Refer to section 7.5. for an outline of the severity of offenses and corresponding actions.
          4. The presiding officer will announce the adjudicator’s decision and recognize either/both debaters for consequent action.
        6. Procedures for Appealing the Adjudicator’s Decision
          1. An appeal can only be made if the issue-in-question has been raised by a student, in the round. Appeals may only be made if the adjudicator has misapplied, misinterpreted, or ignored a rule.
          2. A coach or school-affiliated adult representative must notify the tabulation committee of intent to submit an appeal of the adjudicator’s ruling within 20 minutes of the end of round as recorded by the adjudicator for that chamber.
            1. The coach must submit the post-round appeal to the tabulation committee within 10 minutes of the formal notification of the intent to appeal. The allegation must be in writing and articulate the specific evidence violation and ruling that is being challenged.
            2. If the tabulation committee determines the appeal has merit, both parties involved in the original dispute will be given 20 minutes to respond.
            3. The tabulation committee will make a decision and has the discretion of extending the time limits for these actions if circumstances do not allow a coach or school-affiliated adult to be available within the prescribed time limits.
          3. At an invitational contest, the tabulation committee’s decision to disqualify a student’s rankings for that round can be appealed by the coach or school- affiliated adult. The following procedure should be followed:
            1. The appeal must be submitted in writing to the tabulation committee within 10 minutes of the notification to disqualify.
            2. The tabulation committee will then submit the appeal to the state office representative(s). The committee will contact the state office representative once the written appeal has been received. Both sides will be able to provide written explanations and supporting evidence to defend their individual side.
            3. A decision will be rendered in a timely manner. The decision of the state office representative shall be final and cannot be appealed.
            4. If the appeal is successful, any student(s) involved will receive the appropriate rank as if the evidence challenge was never called into question.
          4. At the State Contest, the appeal will go directly to the Rules Adjudication Panel, and accepted procedures and practices will be followed.
      5. Penalties for Evidence Violations
        1. If the adjudicator(s) determines an entry has violated one of the rules listed in 7.1. and 7.2. (oral citation, written citation, indication of parts of card read or not read, use of private communication), the adjudicator(s) may at their discretion disregard the evidence, diminish the credibility given to the evidence, take the violation into account (solely or partially) in deciding the winner of the debate/points awarded, or take no action.
        2. If a debater(s) commits an evidence violation for “clipping” (7.2.3.), the use of a “straw argument” (7.2.4.), or the use of “ellipses” (7.1.5.), it will result in a loss for the debater(s) committing the evidence violation. The adjudicator should award zero speaker points (if applicable), and indicate the reason for decision on the ballot. In Congressional Debate, a adjudicator also may apply censure to limit the contestant from further speaking or presiding.
        3. If debater(s) commits an evidence violation of “distortion” (7.2.1.) or have used “non-existent evidence” (as defined by 7.2.2.) the offending debater(s) will lose the debate/any points awarded and be disqualified from the contest. However, if a debater(s) loses a round due to “non-existent evidence” (7.2.2.) violation during an in-round formal allegation, but can produce it after the round within 20 minutes to the tabulation committee, the committee may decide not to disqualify the entry. The loss that was recorded by the adjudicator may not be changed. If a post-round protest is levied against a debater for not providing evidence or an original source in round (non-existent evidence), and the adjudicator confirms they in fact did not provide the evidence in a timely fashion when requested in round, the debater(s) will lose the round and be disqualified from the contest. However, if a debater(s) produces the evidence within the post-round challenge period, that debater(s) may avoid disqualification.
        4. Evidence infractions violate the NSDA Code of Honor. Depending on the severity, an offense may result in notification of said offense to the contestant’s high school administration and coach/advisor by the state office.
      6. Contest Adjustments
        1. Under no circumstance will a contest or part of a contest be re-run because of a violation of these rules.
        2. In the case of a disqualification (or Congressional censure) of a debater(s), all ranks and decisions of other debater(s) made prior to the start of the round being protested stand and no revision of past round ranks will take place. Penalties listed in 7.5. will be applied.
        3. When a round has been held between the round being protested and a final decision regarding the protest, the result of that round will be recorded as follows:
          1. World Schools Debate
            1. If the protest is upheld, and a debater is disqualified, the opponent of the disqualified debater will receive a forfeit win.
            2. If the protest is overruled, and the protesting debater won the protested round, no revision of the result on the ballot will take place.
            3. If the protest is overruled, the protesting debater lost the protested round, and had no previous losses, no revision of the result on the ballot will take place.
            4. If the protest is overruled, the protesting debater lost the protested round, and had a previous loss, the opponent will receive a forfeit win regardless of the result on the ballot.
          2. Congressional Debate: when a round has been held between the round being appealed and a final decision regarding the protest, the result of that round will be recorded as follows:
            1. If the protest is upheld, all ranks and scores will remain as recorded. The evidence violation would apply only to the round in which it occurred and not affect prior or subsequent rounds.
            2. If the appeal is upheld, the adjudicator and/or parliamentarian will restore any ranks and scores that were earned by that debater.
  8. Concerns/protests
    1. Contest managers handle concerns with adjudicators or potential rules violations; within five calendar days of the event, appeals of their decision must be made to the state office, who will investigate and communicate to the complainant within a week
    2. The state office shall appoint a referee committee of at least three people, to review complaints or appeals submitted after contests. Any possible disqualifications or adjudication concerns shall be referred to this group for resolution.
    3. Contest managers and Referee Committee may reduce the prescribed penalty for a rule violation in debate based on the severity of the infraction, such as: issue a warning; lower speaker points for the offending debater; award double wins; loss of round instead of disqualification
    4. Adjudicator concerns
      1. Any coach may register a concern regarding evaluation(s) by completing the online form identifying concerns, with a copy of ballot(s). The State Office will investigate, determine the validity of the complaint, and render a decision. If valid, the state office will send written feedback to the adjudicator explaining the concern, and the concern will be documented in the adjudicator’s certification record. If invalid, the state office will share written feedback with the complainant, explaining why it is not a valid concern.
      2. State Contest
        1. Violations of rules and evidence violations will be investigated and vetted by the E.D. and brought to the committee for consideration when the situation requires further deliberation. Process:
          1. A coach, contestant, or adjudicator may lodge a concern by completing a form within one (1) hour of the round in question, including specific details of the issue, including which rule(s) were violated.
          2. The E.D. or their designee will review the submission and corroborating information to determine if a penalty will be applied. If the situation requires further information or deliberation, it will be brought to the Referee Committee.
          3. The committee will consider the request to review and render a decision.
          4. The decisions of the committee are final and cannot be appealed to the E.D. or Board of Control
        2. Any concerns regarding an adjudicator’s application of a rule or criterion shall be referred to this group for resolution. Process:
          1. The coach must complete a form regarding an adjudicator’s application of a rule or criterion. This can be done on-site at the festival, or online within five calendar days.
          2. The committee will consider the request to review and render a decision.
          3. The committee will not interpret adjudicators’ written comments, nor reconsider point deductions; it will only consider an adjudicator’s application of a rule or criterion.
        3. The decisions of the committee are final and cannot be appealed to the executive director or Board of Control since this committee is already an appeal of adjudication.
          1. Any adjudication concern not filed within five calendar days of the event will not be considered.
  9. Contest parameters
    1. Adjudicators: a contest must use a consistent number of adjudicators each round throughout the contest unless unavoidable due to the sudden absence of an adjudicator later in the contest.
    2. Forfeits: Adjudicators should notify contest officials of a contestant who arrives to their round more than 15 minutes after the posted start time. If there are multiple judges in the round, all must agree that the student was more than 15 minutes late. Debaters who are 15 minutes late forfeit the round, but the contest manager may waive the penalty.
    3. Congressional chambers will be randomly sectioned with 10-20 contestants.
    4. World Schools Debate pairings will:
      1. Separate schools, when possible
      2. Avoid any entry debating more than one opponent from the same school
      3. Avoid any school drawing a bye (due to uneven numbers) more than once
      4. Separate entries that have debated one another at that contest before
      5. Balancing sides debated by an entry
  10. Harassment & Discrimination: The Wisconsin Interscholastic Speech & Dramatic Arts Association is committed to fostering safe and supportive learning environments for all student participants and adults at our interscholastic events. This requires mutual respect on the part of all people present. Accordingly, WISDAA prohibits all forms of harassment and discrimination by and to any person, whether written or oral, based on race, color, religion, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, marital status, citizenship, national origin, age, disability, genetic information, or any other characteristic protected by any applicable federal, state, or local law. Individuals found to have violated this policy will be subject to a full range of sanctions, up to and including removal from the festival premises.
,
Updated on 01/02/2024
How helpful was this article?