Judge Adaptation
Because BQ judges range from total lay judges to experienced philosophy-adjacent coaches, adapting your delivery and argument selection to the specific judge in the room measurably improves outcomes. You will be able to describe how to adjust strategy based on judge type.
Reading Judge Paradigms
Many judges post a 'paradigm' on the tournament's online judge database (like Tabroom) describing their preferences — some explicitly say 'I am a lay judge, please avoid jargon,' while others note they have a philosophy background and welcome more technical argumentation. Always check the paradigm before the round if possible, and ask politely before the round starts if no paradigm is available.
Adjusting Without Changing Your Case
Judge adaptation should change your delivery and emphasis, not the actual substance of your case — for a lay judge, spend more time on plain-language explanation and vivid examples; for an experienced judge, you can move slightly faster through translations they don't need and spend the saved time on additional depth or nuance.
A debater has two rounds back to back: one judge's paradigm says 'lay judge, first year judging,' the other says 'I have a philosophy degree and enjoy technical argumentation.'
For the lay judge, the debater slows down, defines every term, and leans heavily on the puppet analogy for determinism. For the philosophy-background judge, the same debater skips the puppet analogy, spends the saved time explaining a more nuanced distinction between hard determinism and compatibilism, and uses precise technical vocabulary the judge is comfortable with.
1. Where can a debater often find a judge's stated preferences before a round?
Answer all 1 to check.
Check judge paradigms when available and adjust delivery pace, jargon use, and depth — not your case's actual substance — to fit the judge in the room.