Paradigms:
A paradigm is a term used to describe what judge's look for in
debaters and on what basis the make a decision when they judge a
debate round. Occasionally, a judge will give his paradigms
before the round begins or a debater may ask him if he has any
preferences; but, generally the debater will not know. A debater
must be aware of and cover a wide range of concepts in order to
win consistently. Because every round is important, you cannot
afford to lose to a Hypothesis Tester even though you may only
encounter this type of judge 1 out of every 20 rounds. Judging
stances include:
- Skills: Lay judges,
people who have little experience with debate, may
believe that the most important item in a debate is the
communication skills. Many high school debate coaches
will stress this paradigm even though they won't admit
it. (Odds 1:10) Introductions, internal summaries,
signposting, and conclusions are an absolute must. Rapid
fire will result in large penalties, perhaps the loss of
the round. Must explain all stock issues used and gently
instruct the judge of why they are used. Use of
abbreviations, i.e. DA, PMN, PMA, may confuse the judge -
explain before use.
- Stock Issue: Most
high school debate coaches will use a 100% stock issues
paradigm. (Odds 5:10) Affirmative must win all stock
issues with only rare exception. Topicality is an
important issue; to loose topicality is to die. All stock
issues are of equal importance including inherency and
significance. The negative is expected to organize their
attacks following the affirmative flow. Most will expect
the 2AC to follow a rebuttal format.
- Policy Making: The
judge acts as a lawmaker and will choose the best policy
course offered within the debate round. (Odds 2:10) Stock
issues continue to play an important role within the
debate but are not absolute. Inherency and significance
are of less importance than solvency and desirability.
Disadvantages and Advantages will be weighed to determine
outcome. Negative must offer an alternate philosophy
including solid disadvantages.
- Gaming: The judge
is more interested in debating skills, how the game is
played, than the substance of the topic or resolution,
usually college students. (Odds 1:10) Rules, procedures,
and ethical concerns are flexible and should adjust to
the round. Rapid fire is acceptable- could have a
positive or negative impact on speaker points. Solvency,
esp. enforcement, is an absolute must. Debating
strategies are important- squirrels, evidence tests,
extratopicality, and debate theories. A large number of
issues, esp. disadvantages, are expected.
- Tabula Rosa: Tabula
Rosa means "blank slate." Hypothetically, the
judge makes no prior judgments or commitments before the
round begins. (Odds 1:20) Affirmative's burden of proof
is diminished. Stock issues and speaker duties are only
as important as the debaters make them. The debater's
primary job is to persuade the judge that his position is
correct.
- Hypothesis Testing:
The judge is a scientist who looks for how the truth
(validity of the resolution) is tested by each team. (Odd
1:20) Debaters must establish principles (standards) and
test issues according to those principles. There is a
strong presumption against the Affirmative; thus,
inherency is crucial. Does the affirmative justify the
resolution? The answer is the basis for the decision.
Return to top
Return to main directory
Tips:
Several paradigms contradict one another, i.e. inherency is
vital to a Hypothesis Tester but is much less important to the
Policy Maker, rapid fire is unacceptable to a Skills judge but
expected by a Gaming judge. A debater must develop flexibility
and adjust their style and presentation according to the judge.
Return to top
Return to main directory
