National Speech and Debate Tournament
2025 — Des Moines, IA/US
Paul English Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Coach of a teamFrequently 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
3/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
4/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
2/91 = communication skills most important9 = resolving substantive issues most important
TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:
9/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
8/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
8/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
6/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
Delivery and Communication Preferences
Clarity is crucial. I prefer debaters to speak at a conversational rate and prioritize clear, understandable delivery over speed. If arguments are delivered too quickly for me to follow or comprehend, I may not be able to flow or evaluate them fully. I value quality over quantity: carefully selected, well-explained evidence carries more weight than a large volume of rapidly presented cards. I honestly consider understandability in delivery to an important and vital component of comprehension. If you are attempting to pack as much information into your argument time and are sacrificing comprehensive diction and enunciation for speed, I will not credit information I can not comprehend.
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.