Monroe Cup 2014 Tab [RESULTS]

The competition was very ably tabbed by Tito Brian. The original can be found at but I sadly cannot directly embed the spreadsheet, and so have created a slightly altered and amalgamated form of the tab so both speakers can be seen in relation to their teams.


Team Score-Points Speaker 1 (Rank) Speaker 2 (Rank)
1 CAMBRIDGE PA 10-669 Ben Adams (1) Freddy Powell (5)
2 Liberty Megazoid 10-662 Ashish Kumar (3) Jordan Anderson (8)
3 Heirs of Bakunin 10-661 Harish Natarajan (1) David Jones (15)
4 Two Young Tories and a Packet of Crisps 9-660 Fred Cowell (4) Scott Ralston (9)

ASDC 2014 Tab and Break [UPDATED]

Tournament Tab

Unofficial break for to the octo-finals for the 2014 Asian Schools Debating Competition in Malaysia thanks to Sukhdev Malhi for the Open Break and Ny Yong Sheng for the Novice Break. There apparently wasn’t an ESL break.
Obviously this is yet to be officially confirmed, and so there may be errors, both in the content and in my transcription.

Oxford Schools Debating Competition 2014 [RESULTS]

Unfortunately I wasn’t even able to actually attend this year’s Finals which is a pity because I’ve heard that it was pretty awesome.
I did manage to fish the tab off another website ( which I hope is accurate.

Dulwich Grand Finalists: (L-R) Ronan Patrick, Louis Collier, Will Cook, Raffy Marshall

Grand Final
Motion: THBT All WW1 Centenary Commemorations Should Exclude Any References to Bravery, or Positive Experiences of Participants

Dulwich RR: Raffy Marshall, Ronan Patrick
Eton ET: Harry Elliott, Toby Tricks
Latymer Upper A: Sam Feinberg, Joe Rachman
Dulwich CC: Louis Collier, Will Cook

The Grand Final was won by Dulwich CC: Louis Collier and Will Cook

WSDC 2013 – Final Team Tab [RESULTS]

The final team tab that factors in the results of the knock-out rounds following the preliminary team tab.


Rank Team Wins Ballots Average Score per Debate
1. (5) GF Australia 7 20 768.5
2. (2) GF Swaziland 7 21 764
3. (3) SF Singapore 7 21 763
4. (9) SF Ireland 7 17 759.5625
5. (4) QF South Africa 7 21 758.0625
6. (6) QF England 7 20 757
7. (7) QF Mexico 7 20 755.0625
8. (16) QF Canada 6 14 752.875
9. (1) OF New Zealand 8 21 763.375
10. (8) OF Peru 7 19 752

WSDC 2013 – Speaker Tab [RESULTS]

Top 50 Individual Speakers based on the scores for the 8 preliminary rounds

Position. Name (Country) Debates – Average
1. Bo Seo (Australia) 6 – 73.694
2. Fanele Mashwama (Swaziland) 8 – 73.542
3. Pavan Hegde (Hong Kong) 4 – 73.333
4. Darion Jin Hotan (Singapore) 8 – 73.229
5. Thomas Simpson (New Zealand) 7 – 73.214
6. Zoe Brown (Australia) 4 – 73.208
7. James Lo (Hong Kong) 7 – 73.143
8. James Penn (New Zealand) 6 – 73.028
9. Adohan Peelo (Ireland) 7 – 72.976
10. Tyrone Connell (Australia) 5 – 72.967
11. Charlie Holmes (Scotland) 6 – 72.917
11. Anisah Mahomed (Canada) 6 – 72.917
13. Teck Wei Tan (Singapore) 8 – 72.771
14. Deigo Cepeda (Mexico) 7 – 72.667
15. Nicholas Salmon (Australia) 5 – 72.633
16. Edward Foley (New Zealand) 5 – 72.567
17. Oliver Havelock Mills (Swaziland) 8 – 72.542
17. James Stratton (Australia) 4 – 72.542
19. Siddarth Shrikanth (India) 8 – 72.521
20. Jose de los Heros (Peru) 6 – 72.417

WSDC 2013 – Preliminary Team Tab

As with previous years, teams are ranked based on their total wins, total ballots and then speaker scores. This is merely a ‘preliminary’ team tab in that the final rankings also account for performance in the out-rounds.

As some of the debates did not actually occur for various reasons, the ordinary method of ranking by total speaker scores could not work given that the total would be skewed against those who didn’t do a full set of 8 debates. Thus, the CAP appear to have averaged speaker scores over the number of debates done by each team to reach the total.

Note that each adjudicator can award a maximum of 350 points to a team (100 for 3 speakers and 50 for the summary). Thus the average for each round is capped at 1,050. In reality, the WSDC Adjudicator’s Guide suggests 70 as the median speech, the average should be 735. 30 of the 50 teams were considered to be above the average.


Rank Team Wins Ballots Average Score per Debate
1. New Zealand 8 21 763.375
2. Swaziland 7 21 764
3. Singapore 7 21 763
4. South Africa 7 21 758.0625
5. Australia 7 20 768.5
6. England 7 20 757
7. Mexico 7 20 755.0625
8. Peru 7 19 752
9. Ireland 7 17 759.5625

The maths behind allocating adjudicators

I was recently looking at a debate tournament and the question arose about how to allocate adjudicators at any given tournament.

The first question is to ask how many adjudicators you have. Some tournaments run a ‘n-1’ rule, usually in BP format, whilst ‘n=1’ is more common in 3on3 tournaments or their variants. In both instances, n represents the number of teams at the tournament. ‘n-1’ makes things far more complicated because you have no real way of knowing for certain how many adjudicators will attend even if you have the number of teams. (You could have 12 teams from 12 institutions and thus no adjudicators, or 12 teams from 3 institutions giving you 9 adjudicators) It also doesn’t help that you have four teams to a debate. This isn’t too big of an issue, but does nonetheless make things more complicated. I will thus concentrate for the time being on 3on3 debates.

If you assume a strict ‘n=1’ rule and that all debates have an odd number of adjudicators (thus avoiding the awkward situation of a perfectly split panel without a deciding ballot). GIven n teams, you would then have n adjudicators and only n/2 debates. You would then nominally have 2 adjudicators per debate. But the preference for odd panels would thus give rise to the question, how many panels of 3 can you afford to have while still providing adjudicators for all the debates?

If there are 12 teams, you can have 6 panels of 3 and 6 panels of 1
If there are 13 teams, you can have 6 panels of 3, 7 panels of 1 and will still have 1 extra adjudicator
If there are 14 teams, you can have 7 panels of 3 and 7 panels of 1
If there are 15 teams, you can have 7 panels of 3, 8 panels of 1 and will still have 1 extra adjudicator

I could continue, but you may already see a pattern emerging. A strict n=1 rule means half, or just under half the debates can get panels of 3 while the rest have panels of 1.

But this is under a strict ‘n=1’ rule. What if more or fewer adjudicators are available? To cut a long explanation short, it turns out you can easily find how many debates get panels of 3 and thus by deduction how many get panels of 1. The formula is simply:

number of 3 person panels = (number of adjudicators minus number of teams) divide by 2

Unfortunately, this only works with panels of 1 and 3. But it is a start, and frankly I think very few tournaments can afford to have panels of more than 3 at tournaments anyways.