How To Judge a Debate Like a Pro

Debate Resolution for October/November 2012:

"Resolved: Barack Obama should be re-elected for a second term as President of the United States."

For the Affirmative: President Barack Obama. 

For the Negative: Former Governor Willard "Mitt" Romney. 

Here is a helpful instructional video explaining how to judge a debate:

 

Here are some of the "Judging Paradigms" used in standard debate (from Wikipedia):

Stock issues.  A stock issues judge believes that the affirmative plan must fulfill all their burdens (see Stock Issues under Theory). 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.

Tabula Rasa.  From the Latin phrase that translates to clean slate, tabula rasa judges claim to begin the debate with no assumptions on what is proper to vote on. Tab judges expect teams to show why arguments should be voted on, instead of assuming a certain paradigm. While a generalization is unfair, most tab judges will be comfortable with fast speeches, along with counter-plans, disadvantages, and kritiks. However, it is best to ask a tab judge on his or her preference in regard to specific types of arguments.

Policymaker. Policymaker judges tend to take the theoretical viewpoint that they are the "policymaker," and as such, they vote for the side that presents the best policy option. Typically, Policymakers vote heavily on disadvantages and counter-plans, and may not vote on kritiks or topicality arguments. However, more and more policymakers are beginning to incorporate parts of the gamer (see below) paradigm into their views, making them more open to kritical arguments. The basic policy of this paradigm is the weighing of the affirmative's advantages versus the negative's disadvantages.

Games player.  Games judges were common in the 1990s, especially among young college debaters judging High School rounds. As the name suggests, these judges believe that debate is a game, and any argument that forms a coherent syllogism is "fair play" in round. Games judges will have no qualms about voting for a policy that vaporizes the moon, disbands the U.S. government, or any other policy action that would normally be considered "absurd" as long as one of the teams can prove that the aforementioned action is the most advantageous choice in the round. 

Appearance.  Appearance judges, often known as lay judges, judge based on appearance and eloquence of speech. Appearance judging is normally discouraged, however, some judges lack experience with the complexities of debate theory and delivery and therefore subliminally resort to this style of judging. Speeding, Kritiks, jargon, and counterplans are strongly discouraged, and disadvantages should be run slowly and with detailed explanation.

Here is a pretty good rule-of-thumb explaining how debates are scored (from Wikipedia):

The judge has the responsibility of not only voting for the side that he or she thinks won the round, but also giving each speaker "speaker points." This is a numerical evaluation of the debater's speaking skills ranging from 1–30. The standard variation, however, is 25–29.5, with 30s reserved for "the best speaker you've ever seen." Half points are allowed, such as 26.5, and at the end of a debate tournament the best speakers are recognized. At most tournaments, the teams who "break" into elimination rounds - where the winner of the entire tournament will be decided by single-round elimination - are selected primarily by win-loss record, with ties broken, and match-ups determined, by speaker points.

And here is a link to the National Forensic League site, should you want to review some of the finer points.

OK, you are now (more or less) fully prepared to judge a debate just like they do inn the majors.

Have at it, citizen!