Most every debater will prepare multiple versions of their cases and other arguments to give them the flexibility to deal with widely varying judge paradigms. I

Most every debater will prepare multiple versions of their cases and other arguments to give them the flexibility to deal with widely varying judge paradigms. It can be as simple as not presenting certain cards (evidence) and arguments to accommodate slower speeds or avoiding entire types of arguments (that's especially common when you're the negative with a wide variety of positions prepared). For major tournaments, you'll either know about a judge ahead of time or will hear them lay out their paradigms and preferences at the beginning of the round. And even then, different things ("tabula rasa," or a tab paradigm being a great example) can mean very different things to different people. You can't really avoid lay judges (those with no exposure to the debate community, who tend to default to a more appearance-oriented paradigm), but you can adapt to a degree. The big reason why most debaters tend to dislike debating in front of lay judges is that their ballot decisions can often seem arbitrary. You may ask about their judging philosophy, but even if they provide one, there's no guarantee that they'll actually stick to it. Not because they're "dumb" or "don't understand," but because it's actually a really hard question to answer. It involves a lot of very specific self-reflection that's radically different than what most are used to. Even experienced judges tend to get it wrong, or fall victim to self-delusion. Experience is what helps a judge learn to know themselves (as a judge).