National Speech and Debate Tournament
2025 — Des Moines, IA/US
Andrew Phifer Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Coach of a teamPolicy debater in high school
Frequently 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
3/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
3/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
5/91 = communication skills most important9 = resolving substantive issues most important
TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:
5/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
7/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
6/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
8/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
Speak clearly at a rate at which i can take detailed notes of what you are saying for me to review for my RFD. Try to run arguments that you personally believe, it will make it much easier for your to convey them. Always try to tie your contentions back to your (or your opponent's) plan text, makes for a much more convincing and easy to flow case.
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.