Embedded Files
Judge Adaptation Basics
Judge Adaptation Basics
The Guiding Principle of this Guide will be the quote:
“Every speech in a debate round should be a direct conversation with the judge in front of you.”
This concept can be applied to ALL rounds, regardless of the skill level of judges and opponents.
Before we begin, to clarify, this guide’s aim is to explain the general trajectory at how a debater should deliver, structure, and revise their arguments to best-fit a judge, once again, regardless of their skill level.
Specific judge adaptation judges with different backgrounds and skill levels are discussed furthermore in detail in the Intro to Lay and Intro to Tech guides (both hyperlinked in the sentence). There will definitely be some overlapping in topics, but if you wish to explore more in-depth with each minority, feel free to explore!
There will also be some example rounds of GREAT judge adaptation linked at the last section.
Topic 1: Paradigm, Records, Inquiries, oh my!
Topic 1: Paradigm, Records, Inquiries, oh my!
A prerequisite to understanding how to adapt to a judge is to learn about them first.
The most common way is Paradigms. Nowadays, many tournaments require Judges to publish paradigms (a short introduction about their judging preferences) on their profile prior to tournaments that debaters can view when pairings are released.
The way a judge writes their paradigm is often extremely insightful in their background. For example, a judge who lists their experience as a student debater, a debate coach, and strong technical background would be considered a “technical” judge with more experience whereas a judge who has had their child write their paradigm (yes, this happens a lot for this minority) are most likely inexperienced parents who prefer a slower and more conversational pace.
It is also worth noting that Tabroom now also publishes a Judge’s judging records along with their paradigm, so you could also use that to take away information about the judge as well.
Common Question: What if my judge’s paradigm is too vague, not clear, or not existent?
Answer: Do your best to communicate with them before the round, whether that is contacting them by email or speaking with them!
The reality is that “deciphering” a judge’s profile should never just be glancing at their paradigm. Often, especially true at in person tournaments, debaters often seize the 15-or-so minutes before the round starts to ask the judge questions inside of the room that weren’t clarified on the paradigm (e.g. what is their speed/argument preference) with their opponents as well. That way, everyone benefits!
One last note is that for online tournaments where judges often join rooms VERY close to the start time, debaters could also reach out to the judge by email if they list one on their paradigm.
Topic 2: Content of Arguments
Topic 2: Content of Arguments
Depending on the Judge’s profile, debaters can adjust the arguments they pursue in a round strategically.
This can be based off of two main pieces of information:
Whether the judge explicitly SAYS (in-person or on their paradigm) what arguments they choose to evaluate/exclude OR
Based off of the judge’s skill level
The obvious implication of the latter is that parent judges with less debate arguments are exponentially less prone to vote and be convinced of inflated arguments (such as an impact of extinction) versus realistic ones, whereas more experienced judges who evaluate the round more technically would be the opposite.
This also means that when prepping for a tournament, a strategic team will prep different versions of affirmative and negative cases (often called Lay or Tech constructives) to pre-empt that. A more in-detailed explanation of that strategy is found in the Intro to Lay and Intro to Tech guides linked in the introduction.
An additional implication on how the back half of the debate is structured is mentioned in the Backhalf section.
Jargon
Jargon
Adding on to the previous point about argument strategy, debaters must also actively consider the words/jargon they are using within their speeches off of a Judge’s background.
Besides the obvious implication of choosing to use different technical vs. conversational phrases with experienced and inexperienced judges respectively, debaters who truly master all of their rounds and get high speaker points from all judge backgrounds understand what must remain constant between the minorities.
What that means is that there are some practices (listed below, expected or unexpected) that are beneficial and frankly, expected to be presented to all judges.
A: Debate Jargon
Even extremely technical judges do not always appreciate excessive use of debate argument terms (such as concessions, link turns, non-uniques) within a speech. This is not to say these terms being used are BAD and not-useful, but instead to suggest that you give your speech in a way so you are clearly articulating your points without seeming like spamming.
B: Topical Jargon
The universal truth for every debate topic whether it is sports betting, rare earth minerals, or encryption, is that a lot of judges do not have topic knowledge. What this means is that debaters should also try to provide at least one moment in their earlier speeches explaining the terms they are using or defaulting to more simpler ones.
A common misconception with this point is that technical judges always understand jargon being used OR they don’t care if they don’t understand it. This is wrong. A great majority of technical judges in Public Forum nowadays are former debaters themselves, meaning they might not necessarily have the best thought at what collusion, PMCs, or insert whatever crazy term you are using means. Even doing something as small as highlighting a bit more of your cards (piece of evidence) that explains what a technical term means, defining acronyms, or finding alternative terms to use in its place can do wonders for the Judge.
One more important point to highlight from this subpoint is that if a judge (regardless of their background) does not understand an argument, they often do not vote on it. Once again, debaters often misconceptualize tech judges as information receptors able to gulp down everything and anything at it and vote on it. The truth is, even if some technical judges vote off of the flow instead of the truth, it often still requires previous knowledge of what the arguments are about (i.e. if you are clearly winning your argument regarding quantum energy and have won the weighing debate of quantum energy, but the judge doesn’t understand what quantum is and how your side of the resolution affects it, they are automatically significantly disobliged to vote on it).
C: (Extra) Speed:
This is discussed much more heavily in the following section, but just because a judge is receptive to faster arguments doesn’t mean you should pursue the fastest-level of debate alive (i.e. spreading on analytics, being incoherent throughout your speech). When you are able to, always double check that you are being as cohesive as possible and your arguments are being articulated the way you want it to be (which often involves slowing down).
Speed & Pen Time
Speed & Pen Time
One of the biggest misconceptions debaters make when adapting to judges is how they change their speed.
This is not to say one shouldn't go at a conversational pace with a Lay judge and a quicker pace with a tech, but rather how some debaters are still excluding the judges themselves.
Specifically, as discussed previously, a lot of debaters misconceptualize judges (of all backgrounds) as an info-receiving machine, able to absorb information the second they receive it. What this eventually leads to, especially in higher technical rounds, is debaters going excessively fast during their speeches (oftentimes not sending a speech doc) and making as many possible arguments as possible. This is a, nicely put, horrible practice in debate.
Even technical judges themselves don’t adore excessive speed. Indeed, Judges are human. That means that they are still most likely to receive the most moderately paced, well explained argument better compared to a blippy, panicked one. What this means is that if the round and arguments warrant it, it will always prove to be more useful to deliberately slow yourself down when you find yourself snowballing down the speed slope and give yourself a better chance at articulating arguments more clearly.
Indeed, even great debaters such as Mac Hays agree that in some extremely hyper-technical rounds with many arguments being run, the level of speed ran by the debates was still wildly greater than what needed to be in order to win the round.
One last implication for all judges alike (once again, regardless of experience), is Pen Time. Pen Time is a practice most debaters use that combines the previously explained skill of speed with signposting. Most simply put, it is the practice of inserting small pauses in between large portions of a speech.
A great example is when one is responding to an opponents’ 3 contention case, they might give the judge a 3-5 second pause between each contentions’ responses to give them a time to digest the responses.
This practice would in term not only give the judge the additional chance to understand the terminal implication of your argument and write it down on their flow, but also give the debater a chance to quickly recollect their thoughts before moving on.
The Backhalf
The Backhalf
One last “universal” practice for all judges when considering how to adapt to them is framing the back half.
Similar to the idea presented in the “Speed” section, many judges (technical or a bit-more layback) prefer quality versus quantity in terms of argumentation.
The implication is that especially in later speeches in PF (which are undoubtedly much shorter), going for all of the arguments you have made is another bad practice.
Instead, by focusing on one or two pieces of offense, a couple of weighing mechanisms, and one to two key responses to an opponent's argument, you will find it much more easier to a) go at a much more slow, chill pace, b) explain and articulate the arguments to the judges more, but also c) be better able to rebut your opponents arguments with precision, henceforth giving you a much better chance at earning a ballot.
Furthermore, debaters should also find it incredibly helpful to use Judge Instruction in the backhalf. This term effectively describes rhetoric used by teams to instruct the judge to evaluate impacts, responses, and break clashes. As an example, if both teams are going back and forth on one response, making absolutely no comment about each others’ claims but instead saying the same thing over and over again, the Judge would find it extremely difficult to evaluate the argument, and worse, may never evaluate it at all. However, if one team framed the argument to the judge and broke the clash (for example, emphasizing their evidence is more recent and should therefore be preferred), the judge would have clearer insight on how to evaluate the argument.
Great Examples
Great Examples
When watching the examples below, we encourage you to…
Flow down the rounds themselves! It never hurts.
Observe the different elements the debaters are using (such as judge instruction, case construction strategy, moderate speed) to gain better appeal to the judges.
Assign yourself to one side and give a speech off of that flow (even if it might be pure nonsense, practice is still important). Afterwards, compare your speech’s characteristics (what responses you chose to go for, how fast you spoke) to what the actual debater said and reflect on what you (or THEY) could’ve done better.
Barkley Forum 2026 Finals: (Nueva AG vs. Strake Jesuit MS) ~ Slow tech round
Harvard 2026 Finals: (Plano West AB vs. Germantown Friends LZ) ~ Progressive Lay Round
Judge Adaptation Basics
Judge Adaptation Basics
The Guiding Principle of this Guide will be the quote:
“Every speech in a debate round should be a direct conversation with the judge in front of you.”
This concept can be applied to ALL rounds, regardless of the skill level of judges and opponents.
Before we begin, to clarify, this guide’s aim is to explain the general trajectory at how a debater should deliver, structure, and revise their arguments to best-fit a judge, once again, regardless of their skill level.
Specific judge adaptation judges with different backgrounds and skill levels are discussed furthermore in detail in the Intro to Lay and Intro to Tech guides (both hyperlinked in the sentence). There will definitely be some overlapping in topics, but if you wish to explore more in-depth with each minority, feel free to explore!
There will also be some example rounds of GREAT judge adaptation linked at the last section.
Topic 1: Paradigm, Records, Inquiries, oh my!
Topic 1: Paradigm, Records, Inquiries, oh my!
A prerequisite to understanding how to adapt to a judge is to learn about them first.
The most common way is Paradigms. Nowadays, many tournaments require Judges to publish paradigms (a short introduction about their judging preferences) on their profile prior to tournaments that debaters can view when pairings are released.
The way a judge writes their paradigm is often extremely insightful in their background. For example, a judge who lists their experience as a student debater, a debate coach, and strong technical background would be considered a “technical” judge with more experience whereas a judge who has had their child write their paradigm (yes, this happens a lot for this minority) are most likely inexperienced parents who prefer a slower and more conversational pace.
It is also worth noting that Tabroom now also publishes a Judge’s judging records along with their paradigm, so you could also use that to take away information about the judge as well.
Common Question: What if my judge’s paradigm is too vague, not clear, or not existent?
Answer: Do your best to communicate with them before the round, whether that is contacting them by email or speaking with them!
The reality is that “deciphering” a judge’s profile should never just be glancing at their paradigm. Often, especially true at in person tournaments, debaters often seize the 15-or-so minutes before the round starts to ask the judge questions inside of the room that weren’t clarified on the paradigm (e.g. what is their speed/argument preference) with their opponents as well. That way, everyone benefits!
One last note is that for online tournaments where judges often join rooms VERY close to the start time, debaters could also reach out to the judge by email if they list one on their paradigm.
Topic 2: Content of Arguments
Topic 2: Content of Arguments
Depending on the Judge’s profile, debaters can adjust the arguments they pursue in a round strategically.
This can be based off of two main pieces of information:
Whether the judge explicitly SAYS (in-person or on their paradigm) what arguments they choose to evaluate/exclude OR
Based off of the judge’s skill level
The obvious implication of the latter is that parent judges with less debate arguments are exponentially less prone to vote and be convinced of inflated arguments (such as an impact of extinction) versus realistic ones, whereas more experienced judges who evaluate the round more technically would be the opposite.
This also means that when prepping for a tournament, a strategic team will prep different versions of affirmative and negative cases (often called Lay or Tech constructives) to pre-empt that. A more in-detailed explanation of that strategy is found in the Intro to Lay and Intro to Tech guides linked in the introduction.
An additional implication on how the back half of the debate is structured is mentioned in the Backhalf section.
Jargon
Jargon
Adding on to the previous point about argument strategy, debaters must also actively consider the words/jargon they are using within their speeches off of a Judge’s background.
Besides the obvious implication of choosing to use different technical vs. conversational phrases with experienced and inexperienced judges respectively, debaters who truly master all of their rounds and get high speaker points from all judge backgrounds understand what must remain constant between the minorities.
What that means is that there are some practices (listed below, expected or unexpected) that are beneficial and frankly, expected to be presented to all judges.
A: Debate Jargon
Even extremely technical judges do not always appreciate excessive use of debate argument terms (such as concessions, link turns, non-uniques) within a speech. This is not to say these terms being used are BAD and not-useful, but instead to suggest that you give your speech in a way so you are clearly articulating your points without seeming like spamming.
B: Topical Jargon
The universal truth for every debate topic whether it is sports betting, rare earth minerals, or encryption, is that a lot of judges do not have topic knowledge. What this means is that debaters should also try to provide at least one moment in their earlier speeches explaining the terms they are using or defaulting to more simpler ones.
A common misconception with this point is that technical judges always understand jargon being used OR they don’t care if they don’t understand it. This is wrong. A great majority of technical judges in Public Forum nowadays are former debaters themselves, meaning they might not necessarily have the best thought at what collusion, PMCs, or insert whatever crazy term you are using means. Even doing something as small as highlighting a bit more of your cards (piece of evidence) that explains what a technical term means, defining acronyms, or finding alternative terms to use in its place can do wonders for the Judge.
One more important point to highlight from this subpoint is that if a judge (regardless of their background) does not understand an argument, they often do not vote on it. Once again, debaters often misconceptualize tech judges as information receptors able to gulp down everything and anything at it and vote on it. The truth is, even if some technical judges vote off of the flow instead of the truth, it often still requires previous knowledge of what the arguments are about (i.e. if you are clearly winning your argument regarding quantum energy and have won the weighing debate of quantum energy, but the judge doesn’t understand what quantum is and how your side of the resolution affects it, they are automatically significantly disobliged to vote on it).
C: (Extra) Speed:
This is discussed much more heavily in the following section, but just because a judge is receptive to faster arguments doesn’t mean you should pursue the fastest-level of debate alive (i.e. spreading on analytics, being incoherent throughout your speech). When you are able to, always double check that you are being as cohesive as possible and your arguments are being articulated the way you want it to be (which often involves slowing down).
Speed & Pen Time
Speed & Pen Time
One of the biggest misconceptions debaters make when adapting to judges is how they change their speed.
This is not to say one shouldn't go at a conversational pace with a Lay judge and a quicker pace with a tech, but rather how some debaters are still excluding the judges themselves.
Specifically, as discussed previously, a lot of debaters misconceptualize judges (of all backgrounds) as an info-receiving machine, able to absorb information the second they receive it. What this eventually leads to, especially in higher technical rounds, is debaters going excessively fast during their speeches (oftentimes not sending a speech doc) and making as many possible arguments as possible. This is a, nicely put, horrible practice in debate.
Even technical judges themselves don’t adore excessive speed. Indeed, Judges are human. That means that they are still most likely to receive the most moderately paced, well explained argument better compared to a blippy, panicked one. What this means is that if the round and arguments warrant it, it will always prove to be more useful to deliberately slow yourself down when you find yourself snowballing down the speed slope and give yourself a better chance at articulating arguments more clearly.
Indeed, even great debaters such as Mac Hays agree that in some extremely hyper-technical rounds with many arguments being run, the level of speed ran by the debates was still wildly greater than what needed to be in order to win the round.
One last implication for all judges alike (once again, regardless of experience), is Pen Time. Pen Time is a practice most debaters use that combines the previously explained skill of speed with signposting. Most simply put, it is the practice of inserting small pauses in between large portions of a speech.
A great example is when one is responding to an opponents’ 3 contention case, they might give the judge a 3-5 second pause between each contentions’ responses to give them a time to digest the responses.
This practice would in term not only give the judge the additional chance to understand the terminal implication of your argument and write it down on their flow, but also give the debater a chance to quickly recollect their thoughts before moving on.
The Backhalf
The Backhalf
One last “universal” practice for all judges when considering how to adapt to them is framing the back half.
Similar to the idea presented in the “Speed” section, many judges (technical or a bit-more layback) prefer quality versus quantity in terms of argumentation.
The implication is that especially in later speeches in PF (which are undoubtedly much shorter), going for all of the arguments you have made is another bad practice.
Instead, by focusing on one or two pieces of offense, a couple of weighing mechanisms, and one to two key responses to an opponent's argument, you will find it much more easier to a) go at a much more slow, chill pace, b) explain and articulate the arguments to the judges more, but also c) be better able to rebut your opponents arguments with precision, henceforth giving you a much better chance at earning a ballot.
Furthermore, debaters should also find it incredibly helpful to use Judge Instruction in the backhalf. This term effectively describes rhetoric used by teams to instruct the judge to evaluate impacts, responses, and break clashes. As an example, if both teams are going back and forth on one response, making absolutely no comment about each others’ claims but instead saying the same thing over and over again, the Judge would find it extremely difficult to evaluate the argument, and worse, may never evaluate it at all. However, if one team framed the argument to the judge and broke the clash (for example, emphasizing their evidence is more recent and should therefore be preferred), the judge would have clearer insight on how to evaluate the argument.
Great Examples
Great Examples
When watching the examples below, we encourage you to…
Flow down the rounds themselves! It never hurts.
Observe the different elements the debaters are using (such as judge instruction, case construction strategy, moderate speed) to gain better appeal to the judges.
Assign yourself to one side and give a speech off of that flow (even if it might be pure nonsense, practice is still important). Afterwards, compare your speech’s characteristics (what responses you chose to go for, how fast you spoke) to what the actual debater said and reflect on what you (or THEY) could’ve done better.
Barkley Forum 2026 Finals: (Nueva AG vs. Strake Jesuit MS) ~ Slow tech round
Harvard 2026 Finals: (Plano West AB vs. Germantown Friends LZ) ~ Progressive Lay Round
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse