Judging Policy Debate Reference Sheet
Policy at a Glance:
 2 on 2 debate.
 Approximately 1 hour 30 minute debates.
 Plan debate.
 Evidence Debate
 2014-15 Policy debate topic: Resolved: The United States Federal Government should
substantially increase its non-military exploration and/or development of the Earth’s oceans.
Speech Times:
8 min. aff 1st constructive.
3 min. cross-examination neg to aff.
8 min. neg 1st constructive.
3 min. cross-examination aff to neg.
8 min. aff 2nd constructive.
3 min. cross- examination neg to aff.
8 min. neg 2nd constructive.
3 min. cross-examination aff to neg.
5 min. neg 1st rebuttal.
5 min. aff 1st rebuttal.
5 min. neg 2nd rebuttal.
5 min. aff 2nd rebuttal.
Each team has 5 minutes of prep. time to use between speeches at their own discretion.
General Argumentation:
 The Aff will present and defend a plan that has to do with the topic. The Neg can use an
assortment of arguments to show that the plan is non topical, bad, or should not be passed.
 The Aff has an unconditional advocacy and the neg has a conditional one meaning that if the neg
wins definitively on one single argument, they win the debate. The aff must defend the plan
universally.
 After the first speech, debaters will start out with a quick untimed roadmap which lists the points
that their speech will cover in order.
Types of Arguments:
 Topicality: The neg can say the plan presented by the aff is not within the parameters of the
debate resolution.
 Inherency: The neg can argue that the plan is not needed because it may have already been done
or will be done in the status quo.
 Solvency: The neg can argue that the plan will not be feasible and can’t accomplish its goals.
 Harms: The neg can argue that the impacts of the plan are either inevitable or not as substantial as
the aff suggests.
 Disadvantages: The neg may say the plan will result in a bad thing.
 Counterplans: The neg can present a favorable alternative to the plan and argue that it is better
than the original plan.
 Kritiks: Arguing about the advocacy of one team linking to or implying something bad or wrong.
 Theory and Framework: These arguments can be seen on all levels of debate. A team offers an
interpretation of a term or a rule for the debate. These interpretations are argued with standardsspecific reasons to prefer one interpretation.
Your Responsibilities:
 Bring a timing device, paper, and writing utensil. Formal dress is not required.
 Make sure that the teams have the correct code and are on the correct side—aff on the left and
neg on the right. Time speeches.

Allow debaters to time themselves. Cell phones and other devices are acceptable timers as long as
they are not connected to the internet.
 Before the debate, tell the debaters your Paradigm which is what you want the debate to be like
and what key thing or things that you judge off of.
Some of the most common paradigms for beginner judges are:
 Communications. Coms judges look for speaking skills and effective communication.
 Stock Issues. Stock Issues judges prefer the debate to center around arguments that apply
directly to the plan. (Topicality, Inherency, Harms, Solvency, Advantages, Disadvantages)
 Tabula Rasa. Tab Ras judges have no set preferences for type of arguments or debating
style.
Also tell the debaters:
 How fast you’d like them to talk. (Slow, Medium, Fast, Very Fast.)
 How familiar and experienced you are with judging policy.
 Anything else about your preferences or specific judging style.
 Listen, take notes, and don’t interrupt during the round.
 After the round, shake the debaters’ hands.
Judge Based On:
 How well your paradigm was met.
 Communication skills.
 Preparedness.
 Use of evidence.
 Impact calculus.
 Voters (key reasons to vote one way) given by debaters in their last speeches.
 Courtesy and ethics.
 Validity or arguments.
Don’t Judge Based On:
Filling Out the Ballot:
 Rate speaking skills with speech points. Don’t be overly generous or critical. A well prepared and
effective debater deserves top or near top marks.
 Record key points about each debater’s arguing.
 Include an objective and thoughtful reason for decision.
 Give and advice and constructive criticism you feel will be helpful.
 Carefully write the correct code of the winning team.
If you have any other questions, ask around the tab room, or just ask the debaters themselves.