National Speech and Debate Tournament
2022 — Louisville, KY/US
Richard Wolff 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?
Speaking skillsRATE OF DELIVERY
6/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
3/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
4/91 = communication skills most important9 = resolving substantive issues most important
TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:
3/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
6/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
6/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
I am an individual with a wide range of educational and life experiences that assist me in understanding and appreciating a variety of perspectives. When judging a debate, a thorough explanation and a logical approach are more likely to have me see your position as favorable. I am an optimist who always looks for a possible solution to the challenges life hands us. I would suggest not running a doomsday scenario because I will be less likely to see your position as favorable.
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.