National Speech and Debate Tournament
2022 — Louisville, KY/US
Owen Burroughs 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?
Speaking skillsRATE OF DELIVERY
1/91 = 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:
3/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
6/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
6/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
4/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
6/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
7/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
My background is in Extemporaneous speaking, and I have a degree in Political Science. I prefer substantive debate about policy issues and EFFECTIVE communication and debate of policy ideas. I am willing to hear arguments on debate theory if it is very relevant, but I prefer arguments to be rooted in the policy issues at hand. I will largely judge based on these criteria. I am unlikely to place much weight on arguments which do not directly pertain to the resolution or debate-issues directly related to the issue (for example, vague/irrelevant counterplans or irrelevant Kritiks).
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.