Please pin unless you wish to edit/correct this.

Update on voting rubric

Preamble/clarification:

Frameworks

Frameworks are a more comprehensive set of conclusions about what each side must prove in a debate, often based on additional arguments about what makes something “good” or “bad".

A common framework is utilitarianism. So one side might argue for utilitarianism and then say, “in order to win, my opponent must show that the total pleasure in society will increase because of this policy.” Even if the other side criticizes this framework, if they fail to provide an alternate framework, voters should default to the only framework provided.

To count as a framework, it should be presented as one or something synonymous (e.g. “goalposts for this debate,” etc.)A preamble, argument summary, or topic headings on their own do not automatically constitute a framework.

Similarly, if one side says something more broad about burdens (“Pro must prove this policy is always good,” but doesn’t say what makes it good), and then Pro comes along and says something more specific about what makes something good (i.e. use a utilitarian calculus), then Pro’s criteria should be treated as a framework and defaulted to as the only one in the debate, while Con’s claim about Pro’s BoP is simply a claim about burdens that will be treated as conceded unless challenged.If multiple frameworks are provided, the debaters then have room to argue which is superior. These arguments can take the form of:

Clarity - arguing the framework is not clear about what burdens need to be met, so it can’t fairly be used to judge

Quality - the most straightforward kind of argument, such as arguing that categorical imperatives are superior to utilitarianism or something along those lines to justify a particular framework

…or other arguments that the debaters feel are relevant

As a general rule, voters should judge based on arguments about the better framework provided by the debaters themselves, rather than their own personal opinions about what a good framework is. (Although if neither side addresses the other’s framework, yet one framework is extremely unclear to the point of being impossible to use, voters can prefer the only usable framework without the debaters pointing out the obvious vagueness.)If no framework is provided, voters should weigh arguments case by case, based on arguments made by the debaters about one point being more important than another, or implied reasons to weigh some arguments over others. (This forces the voter to use some personal judgement how things should be weighed based on what is implied and makes it harder to be objective, so debaters are advised to use frameworks.) Again, voters should try to be as objective as possible here, looking specifically for what is said by debaters as a basis for preferring one impact to another.

VOTING RUBRIC UPDATED

5 Excellent

1. Analyzes the overall strategies of each side and explains how the clash of these respective strategies led to the outcome.
2. Explains how a side could have argued more successfully to win on a point they lost on.
3. Compares the quality of evidence and sources and explains how this impacted the debate outcome.
4. Analyzes the clarity and presentation of arguments, explaining how points were either easily understandable or could have been improved.
5. Analyzes how the weight of arguments or margin of victory shifted over the course of the debate.
6. Analyzed hypothetical frameworks debaters could have used in the debate, or gave advice about arguments they could have utilized against or for a particular framework that were not used.

4 Sufficient

1. Votes solely based on relative strength of arguments made in the debate, and analysis of these arguments by the debaters, including relevant responses and weighing analysis.
2. Explains why the arguments analyzed are enough to determine the outcome, not ignoring key arguments that could change the outcome.
3. Displays neutrality, making clear that any personal opinions mentioned do not affect how arguments are weighed.
4. Votes based on the scope set by the debate resolution and rules.
5. Votes based on a framework provided in the debate, or, if none was given, weighs arguments case by case.
6. If disagreeing with the debate's framing, the voter clearly establishes why their interpretation is more faithful and how it influences their vote.

3 Almost Sufficient

1. Voting based on arguments not made in the debate.
2. Voting on arguments without considering rebuttals or further analysis.
3. Voting based on something other than argument strength (e.g., conduct).
4. Voting based on personal opinions rather than the debaters' analysis.
5. Ignoring one or more key arguments or pieces of evidence.
6. Displaying significant bias that calls neutrality into question.
7. Not voting based on the scope set by the resolution and rules.
8. Ignores frameworks provided in the debate, or arguments in favor of or against said frameworks, inventing a different weighting mechanism based on the voter’s personal opinion.
9. Rejects a framework based solely on their personal opinion of what the resolution means, despite the framework not explicitly contradicting the resolution or description.

2 Insufficient

1 Irrelevant

Hope the updates and changes before rubric are noticable enough for anyone wanting to summarize.