Just a little logic here. Sure, it would take a freaking long time to judge the first round, but you knew that it would be hard and you still decided to go ahead with the competition because you wanted the Debate Hall to flourish and grow. I can only assume that you had good solid reasons for going ahead with the contest. Are those reasons refuted now? If they are, then we can just screw the competition, which I am personally against. But if they aren't, then why not go ahead? Competitions like this take time, it doesn't mean that they can't be done. And if you persevere, then you can learn from what happened this time and improve on the next competition - if you want another. Back to the first sentence, sure, judging the first round will be hell just through sheer numbers, but the second will be half as difficult. The third will be half as difficult as the second, and so on. I know that I don't have the right to be telling you this stuff, but I don't want to see this thing go down the drain. I believe that there's something valuable here and that is should be preserved.
[/rant]
EDIT: In response to UK's post below, I think that the people who actually care about the debates for the prizes are those who have hopes of winning. Since these people have hopes of winning, I can only assume that they are either experienced debaters or conceited. If they're experienced, the they probably like debating and would probably go ahead with it anyway. If they're conceited, I wouldn't want them here in the first place. And I don't that that that category fits anyone here. The other people who don't have any hopes of winning (like me) really don't care about the prizes and just want to do this for fun. Example: I already wrote my admissions essay to submit after the tourney.