How to Judge Each Event
Judging PF
(Public Forum Debate)
In Public Forum debate, teams of two argue a monthly topic with sides assigned randomly. They present structured arguments with cited evidence and participate in a questioning period called crossfire. Judges listen, take notes, and vote for the team that debates best, also assigning speaker points. The event emphasizes clear communication on current societal issues for a general audience.
​​
Judging LD
(Lincoln Douglass Debate)
In this one-on-one debate event, students argue philosophical topics that change several times a year. They prepare both affirmative and negative cases in advance and are randomly assigned a side for each round. Debaters typically use a Value and Criterion to weigh the round, supporting their arguments with structured contentions and cited evidence. In more progressive settings, they may also use advanced strategies like disadvantages, counterplans, kritiks, or topicality. Judges determine the winner based on argumentation and assign speaker points.
​
Judging Policy
Policy Debate is a two-person team event where students debate one resolution for the entire year. This year's resolution is “The United States federal government should significantly increase its exploration and/or development of the Arctic.” Each round, teams are assigned to either affirm or negate the resolution. The affirmative team proposes a policy to support the resolution and explains its benefits, while the negative team argues against it by highlighting its flaws or disadvantages. Debates are highly research-driven and focus on detailed policy analysis. Judges must ignore personal biases and decide based solely on the arguments presented. The affirmative wins if their policy is shown to improve the status quo; the negative wins if it does not.
​
Sample Ballot​​
Judging Congress
(Congressional Debate)
In this event, students simulate a session of Congress by debating legislation on a set docket. They give persuasive speeches for or against each bill, supported by strong arguments and evidence. A student-elected Presiding Officer manages the chamber's procedure. After each speech, the speaker answers questions from peers. Judges score speeches based on a rubric and rank all participants from first to last at the end of the round.
Your Paradigm
In debate, a paradigm is a judge’s statement of their expectations and beliefs about how a round should be evaluated. Debaters ask for a judge’s paradigm to tailor their arguments and style accordingly. New judges are encouraged to be honest about their experience and share basic guidance, such as asking for clear delivery and analysis. Judges can post their paradigms on Tabroom, and it’s helpful to read others’ paradigms for reference. Over time, judges should develop and post their own paradigms that ensure fairness and support educational value.
Examples from newer judges:
-
"I'm new to judging this event, so I appreciate clear structure and explanations."
-
"I'm a volunteer judge. I've looked over the topic and watched an example round, but I'm still learning."
-
"Please speak at a reasonable pace and make sure to clearly explain your main reasons for winning at the end."
​
To create your paradigm:
1. Log into Tabroom
2. On the right side of the page, click on the light blue Paradigm button in the "Judging" box.
3. Type in your paradigm and SAVE.​​​​​
Assigning Speaker Points
​​​
Speaker points are separate from the win/loss decision and are used to reflect the individual performance and skill of each debater. Most speaker points should fall between 26–30. A score of 25 should only be given if a debater was rude or made insulting comments, and must be explained in writing on the ballot. The ballot table may follow up for clarification if low points are not justified.​​​​​
RFD
The Reason for Decision is a key part of educational feedback. Clearly explain which arguments and points of clash influenced your decision, so that both students and coaches can easily understand how and why you chose the winner.
​
​
​
​
Comments
Individual comments to debaters or teams are valuable for growth. You can offer feedback on specific skills, speaking style, how well they adapted to your judging preferences, or give positive encouragement. Both debaters and coaches use this input to improve future performance.
Judging with Care
Judges should offer kind, supportive feedback, remembering their role as educators and ambassadors for new debaters. Focus decisions on debating skill, not personal beliefs, and avoid bias. Comments should never reference a student's identity or circumstances. Strive for a balance of praise and constructive critique, treat all students respectfully, and maintain positive non-verbal signals. Aim to create a fair, welcoming experience for every competitor.
Where to go:
Upon arrival, check in at the Ballot Table (also called Judge or Info Table) to confirm details and get schedules or maps. Look for signs or ask students in suits. If you're early, you can wait in the Hospitality Room, where refreshments are usually available.​​​
What to bring:
- Timer/Phone
- Pens
- Paper/Notebook
- Laptop/Tablet
- Water bottle
What to wear:
Most judges dress casually and comfortably. Jeans and t-shirts are common, especially among college students.