Harvard WST Judge Test 2024

JavaScript isn't enabled in your browser, so this file can't be opened. Enable and reload.

Email *

Record my email address with my response

Name *

Email
*

What is the scoring range for a constructive speech? *

1 point

65 to 85 (most speeches between 70 and 80)

60 to 80 (most speeches between 65 and 75)

70 to 80 (most speeches between 72 and 78)

50 to 90 (most speeches between 60 and 80)

60 to 70 (most speeches between 62 and 68)

What is the scoring range for a reply speech?
*

1 point

10 to 40

25 to 45

20 to 30

30 to 40

0 to 50

How are speaker points broken down across a constructive speech? (out of 100 possible points)

1 point

40 points for logic; 20 points for delivery; 20 points for empirical knowledge; 20 points for engagement

40 points for content; 40 points for style; 20 points for strategy

30 points for argumentation; 30 points for refutation; 30 points for ; 10 points for POI engagement

50 points for content; 20 points for style; 30 points for strategy

A speaker is speaking too quickly to be understood without intense focus, repeats some ideas several times, and is mostly reading off their notes without making eye contact. However, their arguments are still clear and understandable. What should you do?
*

1 point

Reduce their style points; pace, repetition, and eye contact are important parts of effective delivery

Nothing; as long as they are clear, you should allocate speaker points based on the substance of their ideas

Reduce their strategy points; speaking too quickly is unstrategic

Pause the speech and ask the speaker to slow down

Other:

What is the latest speech in which an opposition team can challenge proposition definitions?
*

1 point

1st opp

2nd opp

3rd opp

Opp reply

What kind of new material can be credited in a third speech?
*

1 point

Any new material in a 3rd proposition speech; only new responses in a 3rd opposition speech

Any new material; the other team can still respond in replies

Only new examples and weighing

Any new responses; constructive arguments if they have been explicitly flagged in a 1st speech

The motion is "This House supports the use of geoengineering in combating climate change." The proposition team argues that solar geoengineering is an empirically low-risk strategy and that many studies prove the efficacy of marine cloud brightening technology.

You, the judge, have been involved in geoengineering research and know this argument to be unambiguously false. The opposition team, however, does not point this out. What should you do?

Climate engineering (also called geoengineering) is a term used for both carbon dioxide removal and solar radiation management, also called solar geoengineering, when applied at a planetary scale.

1 point

Discard their argument because it is false

Credit the argument fully; they have cited evidence and the average voter would not know the argument to be false

Credit the argument partially; the average voter would not know the argument to be false, but "studies" is not a sufficient justification for this claim

Do some brief research during the deliberation period to confirm that the argument is false

How long should a point of information be, at maximum?
*

1 point

10 seconds

12 seconds

15 seconds

20 seconds

A speaker is offered multiple POIs throughout the course of their speech, but does not take any. What should you do?
*

1 point

Nothing; POIs are often helpful but speakers should not be punished for refusing to take them

Inform the other team that they are no longer obliged to take POIs in their next constructive speech

If the speaker engages with the other team's case regardless of POIs, their speaker score should not be impacted; if they do not engage with the other team's case, speaker points should be deducted

Reduce their speaker score by 1-2 points due to limited engagement

You are the chair judge in a room with two panellists. You start the deliberations and ask the panel for their initial calls; you and Panellist #1 think proposition has clearly won, while Panellist #2 thinks opposition has won. After a minute-long justification from Panellist #2, you are not compelled by their reasoning. What should you do?
*

1 point

Explain in some level of detail why you disagree with Panellist #2. If they agree, call a consensus decision immediately; if they disagree, call a 2-1 decision for prop

See if Panellist #1's view has changed. If it has, call a 2-1 decision in favour of the opposition and have one of the panellists deliver the OA; if it hasn't, call a 2-1 decision in favour of prop and start preparing an OA

Call a 2-1 split in favour of proposition; spend the rest of deliberation time writing a detailed oral justification

Break the debate down into different clashes and ask for your panellists' opinions on each one, noting where you disagree. If you cannot reach consensus after 15 minutes, call a vote

Send me a copy of my responses.

Submit

Clear form

Never submit passwords through Google Forms.

This form was created inside of Harvard College. Report Abuse

Forms