National Speech and Debate Tournament
2025 — Des Moines, IA/US
Joel Martin Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Occasionally judge Policy DebateHow many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
0-10Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
PolicymakerRATE OF DELIVERY
1/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
1/91 = 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:
8/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
4/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
6/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
I value content primarily, but I find spreading to be counterproductive; there is little use for an argument that is presented too rapidly to be comprehended. I prefer debaters to make a few points well as opposed to making a lot of points. Seriously, DO NOT SPREAD!
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.