Debate isn’t a fixed form. Aside from universally accepted rules on the varying structures, it’s an amalgamation of a variety of different ideas, styles and philosophies influenced by both traditional norms and innovative approaches on what debate should look like. Because of this diversity in debating and judging styles, there is no single objective framework for how debate should be done. From valuing technical precision to rhetorical impact, judges demonstrate their varying perspectives on how wins and losses should be evaluated and decided upon through their paradigms, RFDs, and judging records.

Learning to understand and adapt your debating style and strategic approach to this diversity is key to success. Being able to effectively tailor your language, strategic choices, and overall debating style to your judges expectations ensures that you’re able to win and persuade on multiple levels.

Get To Know Your Judge

Adapting to different judging styles begins with preparation before the round. Making a genuine effort to understand how judges think and what they value by reading through their paradigm is a crucial first step in deciding what strategic choices you will make to adapt to your judge and win them over. This is where you may determine how fast you choose to speak, what arguments you choose to run in the constructives, how you decide to allocate your speech time throughout the debate, and what language you choose to employ. Over time, you may be able to recognize recurring patterns across judging philosophies, allowing you to easily identify indicators of what a judge may value or dislike, whether its a specific stance on off-case arguments like Theory or Kritiks, or their preference between technical line-by-line analyses versus a cohesive narrativization of your contentions.

Not all paradigms are made equal, however, and some may not be as informative as others. When time allows, checking in with your judge before a round to gain clarification on debating preferences, such as speed, Kritiks, or disclosure, can go a long way in avoiding confusion and may be the difference between a win and a loss.

Besides paradigms, RFDs can become an invaluable tool in getting to know your judges the more often you debate. RFDs may provide key insights into what a judge found the most and least persuasive in your debate. Reflecting on the feedback you obtain in every round may reveal not just how you can improve an argument with each iteration, but also how to better align with judges’ evaluative frameworks in future rounds with them.

Reorienting Your Language

One of the most adaptable tools a debater can have is their choice in language and rhetoric. The way you decide to frame and communicate your arguments, both in tone and terminology, can be a key deciding factor in a round depending on your judge. When debating in front of different judges, whether it be a flow or lay judge, it can be helpful to consider how your communication style reflects your awareness of their preferences.

For less experienced, or lay, judges, reducing the amount of technical debate terminology and choosing to slow down may make your case more persuasive and ensure that you are well understood. Rather than relying heavily on terms such as “turn,” “non-unique,” or “de-link,” explaining the reasoning behind your arguments plainly and articulating the significance of your strategic decisions may be the better approach to winning the vote of a judge. Conversely, more experienced and flow-oriented judges may prefer and expect you to utilize such terminology and prioritize a more structured and technical approach to the debate.

Structuring Your Argumentation

Beyond language, the way you organize and present your contentions, rebuttals, and analyses can significantly impact the outcome of a round.

Some judges may prefer a narrative-driven approach to a debate, where arguments are curated to communicate a cohesive story, thorough logical reasoning, compelling examples and a heavy usage of impact weighing. This can be most compelling to judges who value emotional resonance and a ‘real-world’ approach to framing a debate. In front of less experienced judges, employing the use of progressive and tech-heavy arguments such as Theory and Kritiks may be a blunder, since these arguments heavily rely on a judges familiarity of the meta-aspects and norms of progressive debate.

By contrast, more progressive judges may value technical forms of debate, prioritizing the evaluation of line-by-line refutation, sometimes placing less emphasis on the plausibility and truthfulness of the arguments themselves in their decision making processes. This framework may prioritize clarity, control of the flow, and attention to detail of the rules of debate.

Both styles of debating and judging are valid and common in the correct contexts. The ability to adapt and tailor your approach to your judges’ preferences each round is the hallmark of a flexible and effective debater. Reorienting your language and strategic choices isn’t about abandoning your style; it’s about expanding your range. The more intentional you are in your mode of communication in debate, the easier it will be to consistently adapt with each tournament and each round