Judging Paradigms

1. Judging Paradigms Debate and Argumentation Mrs. Schaffer

2. Adapting to Judges Watching the entire debate. Watching you before the round, before you speak, working with your partner, etc. Comparing you with your opponents. If they do something irritating, make sure not to. Be strong where they are weak. Make the choice clear between you. Expecting a dignified and tasteful performance. Be professional and there for a reason. Interested in the debate, not your ego. Sell the issues in the debate, make them your focus, not your desire to win. A sender of non-verbal signals. These can tell you what they like, what they don't like, and whether they are lost or not. Aware that some of your arguments are better than others, and the same goes for your opponents. Don't claim to "win everything,� make a real and credible call on how things are going. Correct. It is your job to please them, not the other way around.

3. Perceived Role Types for Judges TYPE A - JUDGE OF ACADEMIC DEBATE CONTEST This is the judge we prepare you for. The judge is open minded about debate, works hard during the round, wants to make an unbiased decision, has decent knowledge of the topic and debate procedures. TYPE B - EDUCATOR COACH OF LEARNING DEBATES All judges are there to educate, but Type A does it through making a good decision. This judge wants to "teach you� something and you had better be ready to learn. TYPE C - ESTEEMED JUDGE OF ENTERTAINING DEBATES All judges like to be entertained in the round, but Type C expects you to put on a show that they will enjoy, and thus call it a "good debate.� This is often a lay judge ("Here's a ballot, go judge a debate"), or a judge who is disenchanted with the current form of debate, or someone who hasn't judged in a LONG time .

4. How Judges Decide Who Wins Analysis: Getting to the heart of the question. Proof: Supporting contentions with sufficient and convincing evidence. Argument: Sound reasoning; logical conclusions. Adaptation: Clashing with the opposition. Refutation: Destroying opponent's contentions; reinforcing your own. Organization: Clear, logical presentation of material. Speaking: Effective delivery;� favorable impact on audience.

5. The Importance of Paradigms A paradigm can be thought of as a lens through which we view the world. Different lenses entail different assumptions about the nature of the world and the ways in which we should attempt to understand it. Debate is the skill of a student understanding and adapting to the paradigm of a judge.� A judge, any judge, has a paradigm � or way of judging a debate.� The key is to understand what the judge is looking for and efficiently deliver materials related to the judge�s preferential paradigm.

6. Stock Issues A stock issues judge believes that the affirmative plan must fulfill all their burdens If the negative proves that the affirmative is lacking in any one of the issues, it is grounds for the plan to be rejected. Stock issue judges generally prefer a clear, eloquent presentation of issues in round, and dislike arguments that seem to not relate to the topic on the surface.

7. Policymaker The win is determined by which side presents sufficient evidence and logical argument to persuade the judge that their position/policy is either more advantageous or presents fewer disadvantages.

8. Tabula Rasa Usually a varsity-level paradigm meaning 'blank slate'; also called Tabs.� The win is determined by which side presents sufficient evidence and logical argument to persuade the judge their position impacts society more (carries more weight). Focuses on key arguments and telling the judge how to weigh the round.

9. Hypothesis Testing Usually used only on the Varsity level. Also known as 'hypo test' and is the least used paradigm at the high school level.� The win is determined by the affirmative finding the 'ideal' approach to fulfilling the resolution. Aff must prove it is necessary to adopt its plan or the resolution and must identify the cause of the problem they choose to solve. Justification and explanation of theory behind the case and plan are necessary. Counterplans, critiques and conditional arguments are often employed by the negatives in these rounds.

10. Games Player This paradigm views debate as a game. There are only a few rules, like time limits. The judge makes a decision based solely on the arguments presented in the round, and debaters are expected to assist the judge in making decisions

11. Speaking Skills/Style A style judge prefers that exhibit sound delivery skills. The issues and arguments that you present, the content, are not as important to a style judge as the way you present your arguments. Remember the five C�s of sound delivery to win over a styles judge.

12. Argument Argument judges place emphasis on all arguments presented in the debate. Persuasive delivery is not important. As long as the judge can understand the argument, then the argument is acceptable. Argument judges will generally expect you to speak at a faster pace and will allow/may prefer technical debate jargon.

13. Identifying Judging Preferences Ask other debaters or coaches about judge�s preferences and paradigms. Always ask your judge their paradigm or any stylistic preferences. Read previous ballots so you can identify those elements which are and are not desirable to specific judges.

14. Resources Code of the Debater: http://debate.uvm.edu/code/100.html Judge Paradigm Submission Page: http://vanfl.org/paradigms/ WHSFA: http://www.whsfa.org/ Thomas, David A. & John P. Hart. Advanced Debate: Readings in Theory, Practice, and Teaching. IL: NTC Publishing Group, 1992.