National Speech and Debate Tournament
2025 — Des Moines, IA/US
Eungoo Kang 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
7/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
6/91 = 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:
6/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
6/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
As a judge, I value clarity, logical consistency, and respectful engagement. I encourage debaters to prioritize clear organization, strong evidence, and direct clash with their opponents’ arguments. I appreciate signposting and well-structured rebuttals that demonstrate critical thinking. I discourage excessive speed that sacrifices clarity, spreading without impact analysis, or overly aggressive cross-examinations. Respectful tone and professional conduct are expected throughout the round. I also encourage weighing mechanisms and impact comparisons in final speeches to help me make a clear decision. Overall, I reward strategic depth over sheer quantity of arguments.
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.