There is a common misconception that if you can debate well, you can judge well. This is incredibly false, as the ability to wholistically and even objectively judge a round takes special skill and lots of practice. The format of judging, like debating, is also not entirely fixed. Every tournament warrants its own kind of judging. For instance, while judges at Novice Championships and High School tournaments generally look for good role fulfillment, judges at pro tournaments are more concerned with the arguments and analysis of a case. That said, there are several key aspects of a round that weigh a judge's decision.

What Judges Are Looking For

There are fives things that judges in general will consider when determining who won the round of debate. They are as follows:

  1. CLASH: Simply stated, clash is when both teams were discussing and replying in the same areas of debate. When the teams are avoiding the issues that the other raises, there is said to be a lack of clash. No judge enjoys watching a round of debate in which it seems that the teams were giving their speeches from different rooms. Judges look for a round of debate that is akin to an on going dialogue between both teams.
  2. Moving the Ball Forward: In any round of debate there a several key issues. Judges consider who raised these issues and who developed these issues. So while a team may objectively have the better side, the judge will look at what happened with the key issues during the round.
  3. Burden: Over the past few years, the importance of government introducing a case with a sufficient government burden has been growing. Some teams have met with this demand by running cases with heavy government burdens, such as THB that the shooting of abortion doctors by pro-life activist is justified. No matter the degree of burden government takes on, it is crucial that there is sufficient government burden.
  4. Ballot Math: In some cases, while one speaker may have done fairly well, it will come down to ballot math to decide who will win. This is what is referred to as the A-C v.s B-B problem (A, B, C being similar to letter grades). If you are in the A-C team you should try to ensure that the A supports what the C said and that the C stays in the round through POIs. If you are in the B-B team try to focus on attacking the A's arguments. Weakening the A means the judge will have difficulties justifying a high A score so that the total A-C score cannot beat the total B-B score.

While no problem means an automatic loss, it is hard to win with a severe problem such as the following

  1. Tight/ening: : If a case is tight, it is highly difficult for the government to win the round. If the government tightens the case, for instance introduces a new element to the resolution in the MC speech, the likely consequence is that the judge will punish the MC for this poor strategy and reward the LO if they manage to properly deal with it.
  2. Knifing: If an individual states something that openly contradicts what his/her partner said, and the opposing team made note of it, this will be reflected in the scores of the individual who did the knifing.
  3. Contradiction: This is somewhat similar to knifing, but it is when the debater has knifed him/herself.
  4. Muddled Round: If the government sets up a confusing case or if the opposition misunderstands a clear resolution, then the first speaker of the team that muddled the round will be punished. The second speaker likely is also punished, but generally it is the first speaker of "team-muddle" that bares the brunt of the punishment.
  5. Points & ResolutionIf the points do not relate to the resolution, and the opposing team has made note of this it will reflect in the speaker's score. This often happens in need/plan cases, in which the government points to solely prove the existence of an obvious need, as opposed to dealing with the issue of the plan.
  6. Playing Ball: If a team runs a case that you do not enjoy, it is important that you "play ball" and debate the issue. In the situation in which the case paints you into a corner in which you have to argue offensive things, there are always ways out while still playing ball.