National Speech and Debate Tournament
2025 — Des Moines, IA/US
Alec Gasowski Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Coach of a teamOccasionally judge Policy Debate
How many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
0-10Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
Tabula rasaRATE OF DELIVERY
7/91 = 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:
2/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
2/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
4/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
All debate events are about how well you can convince the judge that your team has the better argument; not about who provided more evidence, who spoke better, who tackled solvency better, or who had the most impactful harm, or value. All of these are necessary to use as tools to win, but if utilized ineffectively, they will not help you win. You have to be strategic, relentless, and factual, and never disrespect your opponents.
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.