FAQs

• What kind of device and/or browser will I need?

  • Top tip: use Google Chrome if possible.
  • Be sure your camera and microphone are enabled.
  • Click HERE for the Technology Guidelines detailing Device and Browser Requirements

• How and when do I check in for the tournament?

  Check In

  • Approximately 45 minutes before the round, please log in to your account on NCFCA.org with a supported browser.
  • Find the Tournament under My Upcoming Tournaments and Enter.
  • Click on Check-in and follow the prompts to confirm your contact information and rounds (Community Judges)
  • Wait for the Select button for the round to display near the top of the screen.
  • See the screenshots below.

  

  Why do I need to log in 45 minutes before the round?

  Ballots are released to judges in groups well ahead of the round. We aim to have all judges on ballots 20 minutes prior to the first speaker. This allows you to have time to check-in and check technology, have a choice of ballots, review event information, and be ready at the competition room before the first competitor’s assigned speaking time.

• How do I select a ballot after logging in?

  About 30-45 minutes before the round begins, judges will begin to see notifications by text and on the tournament dashboard that it’s time to select a ballot.

  

  •  A ballot selection button for the round will appear on your dashboard screen (as shown above).
  • Our system will show two competition room choices at a time with the names of the competitors. 
  • Click to accept a ballot that does not include competitors that you know on a personal basis. 
  • If you need assistance finding a ballot that works for you, please contact Tournament Administration.

• What if I accidentally choose a ballot with someone I know?

  In the event that you discover a conflict with your ballot selection, please contact Tournament Administration as soon as possible for assistance with a reassignment. 

• What should I do after selecting my ballot?

  • Once you have selected a ballot, you will see the room you have selected on your screen with a View button that displays participants. Please check again to be sure you do not have conflicts with competitors.
  • There may be a waiting time while other judges select the rest of the remaining ballots.
  • While you wait, you can read about your selected event and preview a sample ballot.
  • This is also a good time to refill your beverage and prepare for the round which will take approximately 2 hours. Please do not leave the competition room during the round. If there is an emergency during a round, please contact Tournament Administration.
  • When it’s time for the round to begin, you will receive a text and/or dashboard notification from Tournament Administration.
  • For an in-person tournament, the View button will change to Open.
  • For an online tournament you will see a Join button to enter the electronic competition room.

• What do I do if I need help?

  For an issue that must be resolved during the round

  • At in-person tournaments, contact a member of our Communications Team, identified by green name tag inserts and stationed near your room. 
  • At online tournaments, change the room status to “Need Help” in the upper right corner of your screen. If you are not able to use the functionality in the competition room, please try to use the Contact Tournament Administration button on your dashboard and monitor your phone for contact from a tournament representative.

  For help after the round is complete 

  • You may use the Contact Tournament Administration button in the upper right corner of your screen. 
  • At in-person tournaments, you also have the option to consult members of the Compliance Team, identified by yellow name tag inserts. 

• What do I do after the round ends?

  • At the end of the round, please exit the competition room to finish filling out your ballot. For in-person tournaments, please remain at the facility until your ballot is submitted.
  • You will receive a notification indicating the time when ballots are due. In order for the tournament to proceed in a timely manner, please prioritize your decision and speaker rankings, then provide as much additional feedback as time allows. 
  • Once your ballot is submitted, your work for the round is complete.

• Can I get documentation of my volunteer hours for judging?

  Absolutely! If you would like a Volunteer Certification for your time, please contact our Judge Support Team.

• May I take photographs or recordings?

  • Please do not record the round or take photographs of the competitors.
  • Please do not use your cell phone during the round unless you encounter an issue that requires a conversation with tournament administration. 

• Where can I find definitions for common debate terms?

  You can find a list using the link below.

  • Definitions of Common Debate Terms

• Do speaker points affect who wins? How do I assign them?

  Speaker point totals do not determine who wins a round. They are used for a separate set of awards in each tournament, and when necessary they are used to break ties between teams with equal win-loss records. Therefore, we ask that judges refer to the speaker point rubric and try to score as accurately as possible.

• What are the distinctive aspects of Lincoln-Douglas Value debate?

  Value debate challenges students to think critically about the ideals held by individuals and societies. It seeks to discover which values should drive decision-making rather than advocate for a particular course of action. For example, the question of the environment for value debate is not “what should we do to protect the environment?” but rather “should we value the environment above the economy?” 

  Debaters use different ways to structure cases and arguments, but you can anticipate that many rounds will feature the following categories of argumentation. 

  • Precise definitions: The words in a value resolution often have different nuances of meaning, and precise definitions may be required to support an argument. Therefore, the selection and quality of key definitions can be important. 
  • Hierarchy of values: Debaters will appeal to values or ideals that they will contend their side of the resolution best supports. 
  • Criterion or standard: Debaters may offer a defined way to help explain, measure or evaluate which arguments best support the preeminent value they have identified.

• What are some distinctives of Team Policy debate?

  Policy debate challenges students to think critically about laws, regulations, and policies that impact societies. It seeks to identify possible problems with current conditions (the status quo) and weigh the advantages and disadvantages associated with making a change in policy. The requirement that debaters alternate between affirming and negating a resolution helps students learn that there are reasonable arguments for both sides of most policy proposals.

  Debaters use different ways to structure cases and arguments, but most rounds will feature the following elements. 

  • Assessment of the “status quo” or the way things are
    • The affirmative team will generally identify a problem with a current policy (or the lack of policy) and try to explain the resulting harms or benefits withheld.
    • The negative team may call into question whether the alleged harms are really serious, or whether they can be solved some other way. 
  • Clash over a proposed plan to change the “status quo” or the way things are
    • The affirmative team generally proposes a plan for a policy change that will provide advantages when compared with the status quo. 

  The negative team may question whether the proposed plan will actually solve the alleged problems with the current situation. They may also point out disadvantages and argue that those outweigh the possible advantages. Or, they may present an alternative approach.

• What can I expect from Lincoln-Douglas Value debaters?

  What you can expect from experienced value debaters

  • Solid argumentation: Debaters should explain the logical connections between their assertions and the resolution. They may do this through examples, analogies, precepts of philosophy, cited sources, their own analysis, etc. 
  • Clash: Debaters should engage with their opponent’s most important arguments, and explain why their own arguments are superior. They may legitimately decide to agree with their opponent on some issues, but they should also identify areas of disagreement and refute their opponent’s positions regarding those points. 

  What you should NOT expect of value debaters

  • Perfect proof: Positions on desirable but competing values cannot be absolutely proven as right or wrong, and debaters should not be expected to achieve complete proof for their position. They are responsible for proving their side of the resolution is more valid as a general principle. 
  • A plan: Value debate should not propose a plan for change but rather a defense of what should be most highly esteemed between two choices.
  • Answers to every argument: With limited time, debaters must often choose which arguments to prioritize, so ignoring or “dropping” a lesser argument that is outweighed by a more important one should not necessarily be considered a losing move.

• What can I expect from Team Policy Debaters?

  What you can expect from experienced policy debaters

  • Expect Solid Argumentation. Debaters should explain the logical connections between arguments and how those arguments support their position. 
  • Expect Support for Claims. Debaters should support claims they make with examples, analogies, their own analysis, or cited sources (known as evidence). 
  • Expect Clash: Debaters should engage with their opponent’s most important arguments, and explain why their own arguments are superior. While they may legitimately decide to agree with their opponent on some issues, they should also identify areas of disagreement and defend their own positions regarding those points. 

  What you should NOT expect of policy debaters

  • Do not expect a perfect plan from Affirmative Teams: No policy is perfect, so the Affirmative Team should not be held to an unreasonably high standard for what a proposed policy change will achieve.  
  • Do not expect perfect preparation from Negative Teams: The range of policy-change proposals that teams can introduce when they are assigned as the Affirmative Team in a round can be staggering. It is entirely possible for the Negative Team to hear a policy proposal idea for the first time during the first Affirmative speech. This does not remove the burden for the Negative Team to convince the judge that the plan should not be adopted, but it may mean that the Negative Team must rely on probing questions, logical assessments, appeals to common sense, and generic arguments that pertain to evaluating any policy change.  
  • Do not expect answers to every argument: With limited time, debaters must often choose which arguments to prioritize, so ignoring or “dropping” a lesser argument that is outweighed by a more important one should not necessarily be considered a losing move. 

• How do I choose the winning team in Lincoln-Douglas Value debate?

  Every round is different, and the deciding factors will vary. In close rounds, even experienced judges can disagree about who won, meaning that evaluating a debate round comes down to making judgment calls. We simply ask that you decide who was most persuasive to you. Considering the following factors may help you evaluate the round in a fair and reasonable way.

  What to Consider

  • Reasoning: Which debater made the best logical connections between key arguments and the values highlighted as most important in the round?
  • Focus on the resolution: Which debater best addressed the central question(s) of the resolution?
  • Clarity: Which debater was easier to follow and understand? 
  • Quality of arguments: Which debater presented the best quality and depth of arguments in favor of their position?
  • Support: Which debater provided the best support for critical points? When debaters support their arguments by referring to expert sources, look for a verbal citation and direct quotation so that you can judge the quality and accuracy of the evidence.
  • Clash: Which debater best addressed and refuted the opponent’s arguments?
  • Proof of principles: Which debater best supported their side of their resolution as a general principle by the end of the round?
  • Conduct and ethics: A debater who plainly behaves in a deceitful or rude manner toward an opponent should not be granted a win. 

  What NOT to consider

  • Personal opinions or biases: Remember that your evaluation should be based on what the debaters said in the round rather than on what you personally believe about a topic. Approach the topic with an open mind; debaters have been assigned their sides, and they debate on both sides throughout the tournament. Be open to being persuaded on either side of the debate. Feel free to apply a filter of common sense, but try not to give debaters credit for any arguments that they didn’t actually make, and don’t dismiss an argument only because you do not personally agree with it. 
  • Partiality: Set aside partiality based on competitor name recognition, known levels of experience, appearance, etc. 
  • Late arguments: Debaters should present all of their main assertions and lines of argumentation in the constructive speeches. Therefore, judges should set aside any completely new lines of argumentation that were raised in rebuttal speeches because the opponent is deprived of an adequate opportunity to respond.
  • Speaker points: It is possible for a less eloquent and/or less experienced speaker to win a round based on critical points of argumentation but be ranked lower in speaker points.

• How do I choose the winning team in Team Policy debate?

  Every round is different, and the deciding factors will vary, but the following questions can help to evaluate the round in a fair and reasonable way. Keep in mind that in close rounds, even experienced judges may disagree about who won. In every sense, judging debate comes down to making judgment calls, so we simply ask that you decide which team was most persuasive to you.

  What to Consider

  • Quality of the Affirmative Team’s Plan: Does the plan solve a real problem within the resolution without creating disadvantages that outweigh the advantages? See the Decision Table for an Affirmative Case (below) for help with this.
  • Quality of Reasoning: Which team made the best logical connections between key arguments and the issues in the round?
  • Quality of Arguments: Which team presented the best quality and depth of arguments in favor of their position?
  • Clarity: Which team was easier to follow and understand? 
  • Quality of Support: Which team provided the best support for critical points? When debaters support their arguments by referring to expert sources, look for a verbal citation and direct quotation so that you can judge the quality and accuracy of the evidence.
  • Alternative Approaches: If one of the teams used a non-traditional approach to the debate round, did they convince you of the validity and soundness of that approach?
  • Conduct: A debater or debate team who plainly behaves in a deceitful or rude manner toward an opponent should not be granted a win. 

  What NOT to consider

  • Personal opinions or biases: Remember that your evaluation should be based on what the debaters said in the round rather than on what you personally believe about a topic. You are evaluating how well the teams debated each other, not how well they overcame your own biases. Approach the topic with an open mind; debaters have been assigned their sides, and they debate on both sides throughout the tournament. Feel free to apply a filter of common sense, but try not to give debaters credit for any arguments that they didn’t actually make, and don’t dismiss an argument only because you do not personally agree with it. 
  • Partiality: Set aside partiality based on competitor name recognition, known levels of experience, appearance, etc. 
  • Late arguments: Debaters should present all of their main assertions and lines of argumentation in the constructive speeches. Therefore, judges should set aside any completely new lines of argumentation that are raised for the first time in rebuttal speeches because the opponent is deprived of an adequate opportunity to respond.
  • Speaker points: It is possible for a less eloquent and/or less experienced speaker to win a round based on critical points of argumentation but be ranked lower in speaker points.

  Decision Table for an Affirmative Case

  There are a range of reasonable methods judges may use to make a policy debate decision. Debaters may persuade judges to use any reasonable method. In the absence of a clear judging framework, the following questions may be helpful. Remember that it is up to the debaters to make the necessary arguments to earn your vote regardless of how they approach the round.