First Negative Rebuttal (1NR/Kara/2 min)
Kara must beat back whichever 2AC points Mark did not get to in an effort to win back arguments she made in the 1NC. Arguments that are not extensions of things said previously should not be listened to or voted for.

First Affirmative Rebuttal (1AR/Shannon/2 min)
Shannon must answer all of the arguments made by the 2NC and the 1NR. It is very important that Shannon answer all of them because it will be too late for the 2AR to pick them up again.

Second Negative Rebuttal (2NR/Mark/2 min)
Mark must select which arguments he thinks are the most important for proving that federal IFQs are not critical to preventing overfishing.

He must answer back each of the 1AR arguments that were made to each of the negative arguments that he is trying to win. This is not a time to “sum up” but to specifically refute previous arguments and explain (in specific terms) why those specific points prove that the current system is good and the proposed affirmative plan is bad.

Only arguments that are extensions of things the negative said in the 2NC and 1NR are allowed (no new arguments). Also, if the 2NR points out that the 1AR did not address an argument made in the 2NC/1NR, then the negative automatically wins that point. (Winning a point only means that the particular argument will be weighed in for the negative; they do not automatically win the round).

Second Affirmative Rebuttal (2AR/Jason/2 min) Jason must beat back whichever 2NR arguments Mark went for. This is not a time to “sum up” but to specifically refute previous arguments and explain (in specific terms) why those specific points prove that establishing a federal IFQ program is good. Only arguments that are extensions of things the affirmative said in the 1AR are allowed. Also, if the 2AR points out that the 2NR did not address an argument made in the 1AR, then the negative automatically wins that point. (Winning a point only means that the particular argument will be weighed in for the negative; they don’t automatically win the round).

How to decide which side won
Your main job as a judge is to carefully listen to the arguments made by each side and based upon those arguments, decide whether or not you agree that having a federal IFQ program is a good idea.

It is important to remember that the argument content of the speeches is the most important factor here. Cross-examination is used to clarify points but can never win or lose rounds alone. Speaking ability is a part of speaker points; it does not determine which side won the round.

Imagine it as a pro and con list where the affirmative is the pro side and the negative represents the con side of the plan. Consider all of the points by each side. After weighing those arguments, if you agree that having a federal IFQ program is, on balance, good based on the arguments presented in the round, then you vote affirmative. If you think that it is, on balance, bad, then you vote negative.

Taking careful notes (we call it “flowing”) will help enormously. Write what each speaker says in a column so that it looks like this...

Speaker points
Speaker points are for assessing how well someone spoke. The student who sounds the worst may also make the best argument and may have won the round. However, you can note her or his poor speaking ability by assigning lower speaker points.

30—An amazing job.
It is one of the most impressive speeches you have seen. You have only very minor suggestions for improvement. These should be rare.

29—Excellent job.
The speaker was clear, confident and made a minor error or two but was very impressive overall.

28—Very good job.
You were impressed but not blown away by the quality of the speeches.

27—Good job.
The speaker made some errors but was speaking clearly, was generally organized, and you understood most of their arguments.

26—Average job.
There were problems with organization, the speaker did not clearly refer to arguments made by the other side and respond to them, but they made a good effort and did their best.

25—Below average job.
The speaker still followed procedure but made very few arguments, was terribly disorganized or read a canned speech during rebuttals instead of referring to specific arguments. This is generally the lowest score given in middle school.

24 and below—Terrible job.
The speaker was uncooperative, rude or otherwise not even trying; scores below 25 are rarely used and are reserved for extreme cases.