National Speech and Debate Tournament
2025 — Des Moines, IA/US
Bethany Baldes 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?
Tabula rasaRATE OF DELIVERY
4/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
9/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
6/91 = communication skills most important9 = resolving substantive issues most important
TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:
4/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
7/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
7/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
4/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
6/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
I'm a newer judge familiar with policy debate structure and flow. I evaluate based on what’s on the flow, please use clear extensions, clash, and impact comparison to win rounds. I can handle moderate speed, but clarity matters. I default to competing interps, presumption neg, and offense over defense unless told otherwise. Ks and theory are fine if explained clearly. Don’t assume I know every debate term—define things like “perm” or “turns case.” Help me weigh impacts and write the ballot. I won’t insert my own views, so win the round with good argumentation, structure, and explanation. I’m happy to give feedback after. I am extremely smart and work in the political field, don't assume because I am new to this that I am not intelligent, I will keep up with you and then some.
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.