National Speech and Debate Tournament
2025 — Des Moines, IA/US
Ian(Kail) Hollander Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Coach of a teamOccasionally judge Policy Debate
How many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
11-20Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
Stock issuesRATE OF DELIVERY
4/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
4/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
7/91 = communication skills most important9 = resolving substantive issues most important
TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:
4/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
4/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
8/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
8/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
I don't like spreading at all, I have a hard time following it and it isn't the method of practice in debate where I'm at. I prefer a slightly fast, but easily understandable pace of speech. I don't value kritiks or debate theory arguments. Just show me why we should or shouldn't pass the plan. Debate jargon is completely acceptable. I value reasoning and analysis over just reading additional pieces of evidence. Anyone can find the right card, it's your job to tell me why the card matters.
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.