Paradigm (or “Judging Philosophy”)

  • Date 2022-07-21

General Definition: A judge’s educational philosophy; a perspective that guides a judge’s decision. All judges have assumptions about the relative importance of substance, style, technical argumentation, and even format, and while judges are instructed not to allow their personal bias to influence their decision, debaters should do their best to learn a judge’s experience and preferences and adapt to those expectations.

  • Public Forum: In PF, judges often write a public paradigm that is available on Tabroom and students should read fully before the round. Regardless of whether the judge has a public paradigm or not, students should engage with the judge before the round to ask questions about their personal preferences and what they want to see in a good debate round.
  • World Schools Debate: In WSD, a judge will not typically have a public paradigm. WSD judges are encouraged to consider content (40%), style (40%), and strategy (20%) when evaluating the debate. WSD norms encourage certain things like staying at the center of a topic and prioritizing communication.
  • British Parliamentary: In BP, judges are instructed to evaluate rounds from the perspective of “the reasonably well-informed voter”, and to not let their own background knowledge or biases influence their adjudication. However, all judges will inevitably be influenced to some degree by these factors. So BP debaters should be ready to adjust their style to judges with different levels of experience and from different backgrounds.
  • Canadian National Debate Format: In CNDF, judges are instructed to evaluate rounds from the perspective of “the reasonably well-informed voter”, and to not let their own background knowledge or biases influence their adjudication. However, all judges will inevitably be influenced to some degree by these factors. So CNDF debaters should be ready to adjust their style to judges with different levels of experience and from different backgrounds. See “ballot” for CNDF-specific differences with BP judging.