Judge style
How closely the judge follows the line by line, and how much clarity or delivery matters.
Judge paradigms, in plain English
Pick the judge before the judge picks the ballot.
Two honest judges can hear the same round and disagree. One follows every technical drop. Another cares most about what a reasonable listener would believe. Choose the audience you want to practice for.
New to this? Pick Lay judge for a general audience, Flow judge for most tournaments, or Match the format and let Debatable choose.
Paradigm
The rule used to decide the winner. Net benefits, strict burdens, technical concessions, or real-world truth.
AI brain
The model doing the reading. The same style and paradigm instructions go to every brain.
Choose a judge style
This is the useful first choice. It changes how much the judge cares about the flow, technical drops, and presentation.
Recommended
Match the format
Public Forum gets its normal mix of persuasion and flow. Policy gets a technical flow. Worlds gets matter, manner, and method.
Use it when: you want the most realistic default for the format.
Choose this judge
Clear and persuasive
Lay judge
Rewards explanations a smart newcomer can follow. Jargon gets no credit by itself, and a missed technical point does not automatically end the round.
Use it for: parent judges, public audiences, classrooms, and early PF.
Choose this judge
Tracks every response
Flow judge
Follows each argument through the round. Warranted extensions and important drops matter when a debater explains their ballot impact.
Use it for: most competitive tournament practice.
Choose this judge
Strict line by line
Technical judge
Tech can outweigh the judge's prior view of truth. A plausible, warranted, extended, and unanswered argument can decide the ballot.
Use it for: national-circuit Policy or LD and fast, technical PF.
Choose this judge
Content and delivery
Communication
Clarity, structure, responsiveness, and delivery can break a close tie. Presentation cannot rescue a case with no surviving offense.
Use it for: Worlds, Asian Parliamentary, Congress, and public-facing rounds.
Choose this judge
Choose a decision paradigm
A paradigm is the judge's decision rule. These presets summarize patterns that recur in public judge philosophies.
Format default
Choose for me
Uses the decision rule normally expected for the selected or detected format, then names it in the ballot.
Best for: a first ballot, or a round where you do not know the judge.
Use this paradigm
Debaters set the rules
Tabula rasa
The judge starts from a blank slate. The debaters establish the framework, burdens, and voting issues. The judge minimizes intervention.
Best for: Policy, circuit LD, and rounds with clear judge instruction.
Use this paradigm
Net benefits
Policymaker
Compares the proposal with the status quo and any counterproposal. The winner offers the best warranted balance of benefits, costs, and solvency.
Best for: plans, disadvantages, counterplans, and implementation debates.
Use this paradigm
The proposal carries each burden
Stock issues
Tests topicality, harms or significance, inherency, and solvency as distinct burdens. A missing burden can defeat the proposal.
Best for: traditional Policy, classroom debate, and novice rounds.
Use this paradigm
Tech over truth
Games player
Treats debate as a technical competitive game. Dropped, warranted arguments are concessions, even when the judge personally doubts the claim.
Best for: fast circuit rounds with strict line-by-line debating.
Use this paradigm
Truth over tech
Truth seeker
Prefers credible evidence, sound warrants, and real-world plausibility over tricks or claims that survive only because they were missed.
Best for: lay PF, traditional LD, public debates, and mixed audiences.
Use this paradigm
Test the whole motion
Hypothesis tester
Treats the motion as a general claim and tests it across the most important likely cases, not only one narrow model or example.
Best for: Parliamentary motions and general propositions.
Use this paradigm
The room matters
Communication
Evaluates substance alongside clarity, structure, responsiveness, and audience adaptation. Delivery may settle a close round.
Best for: Worlds, Asian Parliamentary, Congress, and classroom debate.
Use this paradigm
Rehearse a known judge
Custom paradigm
Paste a real judge's public paradigm or write your own preferences. The instructions can change emphasis, but cannot name a winner or dictate points.
Best for: tournament preparation when the pairing is already out.
Paste a paradigm
Choose the AI brain
The paradigm controls the judging philosophy. The brain changes the reasoning voice. Claude is the recommended default; the others are useful second opinions.
| Brain | Useful when | Access |
|---|---|---|
| ClaudeAnthropic | Long transcripts and structured, careful ballots. | Recommended |
| GPTOpenAI | A direct, conversational explanation of the result. | Signed-in plan |
| GeminiGoogle | A second read on long, evidence-heavy transcripts. | Signed-in plan |
| GrokxAI | A skeptical read that presses weak warrants. | Signed-in plan |
| DeepSeekDeepSeek | A sharp technical read for line-by-line rounds. | Signed-in plan |
| Open LabOpenRouter | An open-weights alternative for a different second opinion. | Signed-in plan |
Run the same round twice.
Try a lay judge, then a technical judge. The split tells you whether your case travels.