National Speech and Debate Tournament
2025 — Des Moines, IA/US
Vanessa Chapa Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Coach of a teamPolicy debater in high school
Occasionally judge Policy Debate
How many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
0-10Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
PolicymakerRATE OF DELIVERY
5/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
5/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
4/91 = communication skills most important9 = resolving substantive issues most important
TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:
1/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
7/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
4/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
I completed in policy for 3 years in high school, judged throughout college, and have coached policy for 19 years. My main goal in the round is to evaluate the policy, taking all arguments into account. I am not a huge fan of speed, especially if it keeps others from being able to participate in the round. I will vote on CPs, Theory, and Ks, provided they are run well and add to the education of the round, too many times people run them incorrectly or missing key components, which muddies the debate. I do expect all debaters to be courteous to one another and to take the debate seriously.
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.