National Speech and Debate Tournament
2025 — Des Moines, IA/US
Sergio Porras Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Coach of a teamFrequently judge Policy Debate
Occasionally judge Policy Debate
How many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
11-20Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
Speaking skillsRATE OF DELIVERY
5/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
7/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
6/91 = communication skills most important9 = resolving substantive issues most important
TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:
5/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
8/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
I would like to hear how the resolution can have a plan put into place that will have a positive impact, and if there is not enough to support the plan, I want to hear why it is not solvent.
Note: if you wish for your pronouns to appear the debaters you judge on text/email blasts, log into Tabroom, click Profile at top, and add them in the Pronouns field.