Debate Judge Prep Information
Thank you for joining us! We are grateful for your willingness to judge debate, and we hope you enjoy your experience.
League Policies
Volunteer debate judges are encouraged to review the information below in preparation for each tournament.
Orientation and Safety Requirement
Thank you for taking time to review our Judge Orientation and Safety Video and Volunteer Judge and Guest Safety Requirements before your first round. This requirement is the same for both speech and debate and only needs to be completed once per season.
Two Styles of Debate
Please select only one style of debate for each competition round, but we encourage you to try judging both styles over the course of a tournament.
- Lincoln-Douglas Value Debate rounds feature one debater on each side of the resolution and last about 45 minutes. Value debate explores a philosophical clash of competing but desirable values.
- Value debate rounds are scheduled in two flights with staggered start times.
- Team Policy Debate rounds feature two debaters on each team and last about 75 minutes. This form of debate simulates arguing for policy change in a legislative body.
Learn more about our two debate styles from graduated competitors in this short video.
- Lincoln-Douglas Value Debate rounds feature one debater on each side of the resolution and last about 45 minutes. Value debate explores a philosophical clash of competing but desirable values.
Overview | Lincoln-Douglas Value Debate
Value Debate Judge Orientation Video
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 to 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 NOT to 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.
2025-2026 Value Debate Resolution
Resolved: In the exploration and utilization of outer space, international cooperation should be prioritized.
Overview | Team Policy Debate
Policy Debate Judge Orientation Video
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 to 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 NOT to 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.
2025-2026 Policy Debate Resolution
Resolved: The United States Federal Government should significantly reform Congress.
- Assessment of the “status quo” or the way things are
Debate Round Protocols
Introductions and Interactions
When the round is ready to begin, the speakers will introduce themselves and may also ask about your judging experience or background. Feel free to share honestly about your experience or inexperience.
We ask that you refrain from engaging in discussion or asking questions of the debaters about the round and that you not reveal your win-loss decision to anyone during the tournament.
Debater Responsibilities
Debaters are responsible for explaining their arguments in an understandable way. If you are confused by the use of jargon or about something they say, that is their fault, not yours.
Debaters will know their correct speaking order, keep track of their own time limits, and hold one another accountable for following rules.
Completing a Debate Ballot
Our debate ballots require judges to do the following:
- Assign speaker points to each debater using the categories that appear on the ballot
- Choose the winning team
- Type feedback comments to explain your reason for decision
- Type feedback comments for each debater
Our students truly appreciate hearing your thoughts on the arguments they presented in the round.
Our electronic ballots are fairly intuitive, but if you would like to see a demonstration of how to complete a ballot, we have a screencast video.
Assigning Speaker Points
Speaker points are awarded to each speaker individually on the ballot. There are six categories in which debaters can earn speaker points, and we have a Speaker Point Rubric and Guide available to help judges decide which scores best fit what they see from each debater.
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.
Debate Evidence Review Guidelines for Judges
You may request up to two pieces of evidence directly from either debate team for clarification or accuracy. In Team Policy, you may also request to see the specific text of the Team Policy plan. After the round concludes, announce that you would like to review evidence. You may cite the tagline or give a summary statement to identify the evidence. The competitor will provide the specific evidence you requested and both teams will wait outside the room. Return the evidence to the providing team(s) as you exit the room. Please complete any review within 5 minutes to keep the tournament schedule running smoothly.
Additional Details for Online Tournaments
After your verbal request at the end of the round, set the room status to Debate Evidence Review. When the competitor(s) upload the requested evidence the open-folder icon for the Evidence Center at the bottom right of the screen will turn green. Click the button and the link to open the evidence in a separate window. When your review is complete, close the window and let the competitors know you are finished. Competitors will wait with cameras and mics off. If you need further assistance, or if the teams have left the room, please use the Contact Tournament Administration button on the tournament dashboard.
Elimination Round or more than 2 pieces
For both in-person and online tournaments when judging an elimination round or if requesting more than two pieces of evidence in any round, please make this request within 15 minutes of the conclusion of the round. To make this request, select the Contact Tournament Administration button on the tournament dashboard or at in-person tournaments you may also speak with the Compliance staff in the Judge Hospitality area. You may continue to fill out the ballot while waiting for tournament staff to bring the requested evidence.
Choosing a Winner | 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.
Thoughts 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.
Choosing a Winner | 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.
Thoughts 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 questions to ask yourself 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, 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.
Evaluating an Affirmative Policy 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.
Questions to Ask Yourself
- Is reform really needed? Did the Affirmative Team present one or more real and significant reasons to change the status quo? These reasons may be harms of the current system or advantages that cannot be realized without a policy change.
- If the Negative Team presented compelling arguments that the proposed reform is not really needed, then it probably does not make sense to vote to implement the reform.
- Will it work? Would the proposed policy reform work to solve or significantly improve the problems of the status quo? Are there advantages that can only be realized by adopting the affirmative plan?
- If the Negative Team presented sufficiently strong arguments that the proposed plan would not work, then it would not make sense to vote to implement the plan.
- Is it worth it? Would the advantages or justifications presented by the Affirmative Team for their plan outweigh any disadvantages presented by the Negative Team?
- If the Negative Team presented sufficiently strong arguments that the advantages of the proposed plan would be outweighed by disadvantages, it probably does not make sense to vote to implement the plan.
- Is the plan on topic? Does the Affirmative Team’s plan fit within the topic specified by the resolution? Did the Affirmative significantly reform foreign policy toward one or more of the Central American countries listed in the resolution?
- If the proposed reform does not fit within the scope of the resolution, it should not earn a judge’s vote.
Not Sure? If the two teams presented arguments that seem equally valid on all of these questions, then the round was very close. Your decision will have to be based on which arguments you thought were most important and deserve the most weight.
Questions or Problems?
If you have questions about how to handle something in a speech or debate round, please contact our judge support team through your online dashboard or in person in the Judge Hospitality area.
We ask that you not conduct independent research, confer with other judges, or discuss questions with anyone except tournament administration regarding the speech content, rules, or your rankings while the tournament is in progress.
Judge Policies
All volunteer judges are welcome to review our NCFCA Judge Policies which cover the following elements:
- Judge philosophy and eligibility
- Judge Training
- Judge Decisions
- Safety Requirements
- Avoiding Judging Conflicts
- Ballot Completion and Deadlines