Learn to judge a round in forty minutes.
Five short modules, a practice ballot, and a ten-question quiz. No debate experience needed. Finish with eight or more correct and print the completion note to bring to your first tournament; CUDL staff still walk every new judge through the ballot in person.
Companion to the judging guide and the vocabulary flashcards.
The five modules
Read them in order. Each takes five to eight minutes.
1What you are decidingYou decide who argued better, not who is right.
A debate round is a contest of arguments made in the room. Your opinion of the resolution stays outside. You vote for the side whose arguments, as made and answered in the round, were more persuasive. Both sides know this, and it is what makes the activity fair: a student who draws the side they disagree with can still win by arguing well.
Write down every argument as it is made. That record, the flow, is what you decide from. If you did not write it down, you will not remember it accurately, and the students deserve accuracy.
2The formats in two minutes eachSpeech order and what each speech is for.
Lincoln-Douglas is one-on-one: six-minute affirmative case, three minutes of questions, seven-minute negative case, questions, then rebuttals of four, six, and three minutes. The affirmative supports the resolution; the negative opposes it. Rounds usually turn on the framework (value and criterion) and one or two contentions.
Public Forum is two-on-two: four-minute constructives, crossfire, four-minute rebuttals, crossfire, three-minute summaries, grand crossfire, two-minute final focuses. No new arguments in final focus. Rounds turn on which contentions survive and how the teams weighed them.
Policy is two-on-two with eight-minute constructives and five-minute rebuttals; the affirmative proposes a plan. The formats page has the full table.
3Dropped, extended, weighedThree words that decide most rounds.
An argument that goes unanswered is dropped, and you treat it as true as the debater explained it, even if you personally disagree. An argument carried through later speeches with its impact is extended; one that is not extended cannot win the round in the last speech. When both sides have surviving arguments, you look for weighing: did either side explain why their impact matters more? If they did, follow it. If neither did, decide which impact is more probable and larger, and say on the ballot that you had to do the weighing yourself.
4Delivery and conductSpeed, clarity, courtesy, and speaker points.
You are not required to follow a speaker you cannot understand. Decide on what you could follow and write on the ballot that clarity cost them. Speaker points score speaking quality separately from the win: clarity, organization, persuasion, and courtesy. Rudeness in questioning costs points and should be named. Keep your own time; time limits are rules, and judges make mistakes.
5Writing the ballotDecision, reason, one note for each side.
The ballot is the most valuable thing a student takes home. Write: the decision; the deciding issue and who won it and why, in two or three sentences; one specific thing each debater did well; one specific thing each should fix. Avoid "good job." Prefer "your second contention had no impact until final focus, so I could not weigh it." Ten minutes of writing gives a student a week of improvement.
Practice ballot
A Public Forum round on the September/October 2026 topic, reduced to the two final focuses. Read both, pick a winner, then compare your reasoning to the model reason for decision.
Pro final focus (summary)
"The round comes down to household prices. We showed with the Department of Energy report that data center demand is doubling and that utilities recover grid costs from every customer. Con said states are fixing cost allocation, but they never answered our point that the fixes are not in place in most states now, and the rate increases are happening now. Even if a moratorium does not fix cost allocation forever, it stops the new load until the rules exist. That is the probable, present harm; their competitiveness harm needs three assumptions. Vote pro."
Con final focus (summary)
"Two things. First, the moratorium does not solve: cost allocation is a state utility decision, and a federal construction ban does not change one rate. Second, the moratorium's harm is certain: construction stops, and with it the investment and the computing capacity every hospital and school relies on. Pro's price impact is real but small and fixable with a tariff. A certain, large harm to fix a small, fixable one is a bad trade. Vote con."
You voted . Either decision is defensible; what matters is the reason. A model reason for decision:
"The deciding issue is whether the moratorium solves the price harm. Pro's strongest move was the 'even if' weighing: the pause stops new load until rules exist, and the harm is happening now. Con's strongest move was solvency: cost allocation is a state decision the moratorium does not touch. Pro answered that partially ('the fixes are not in place now') and con did not respond to that answer in final focus. I vote pro on probability and timeframe, and I tell con that a one-sentence response to pro's 'not in place now' argument would likely have flipped the round." A ballot that voted con on the certainty of the moratorium's costs, explaining why solvency comes before weighing, would also be sound. What is not sound is a ballot that says "I agree with con about data centers."
Judge quiz
Ten questions. Eight or more correct means you are ready for a novice round.
Charlotte Urban Debate League
Judge training completed
Volunteer judge
completed the online judge training modules and quiz on . Bring this note to your first tournament; CUDL staff will pair you with a novice round and walk you through the ballot.
704-650-2313 | In-person training the week before each tournament.
Sixty students get feedback because you gave a Saturday.
Tell us your availability and we will match you with a tournament.