National Speech and Debate Tournament
2022 — Louisville, KY/US
Valentin Jimenez Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Coach of a teamPolicy debater in high school
Frequently judge Policy Debate
How many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
11-20Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
Stock issuesRATE OF DELIVERY
7/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
7/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
8/91 = communication skills most important9 = resolving substantive issues most important
TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:
5/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
4/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
8/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
4/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
7/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
I tend to be "old school" and prefer to judge a policy round and therefore look for the Stock Issues in a debate. Solvency is big for me as this is what true policy debate is about. I don't like too many arguments on framework as this is progressive talk about the stock issues in essence. Evidence is important, but i wish for you to talk to me about the importance of the evidence. Reading card after card and then telling me to cross apply it to multiple arguments is a weak form of offense and defense. If it is so important, don't say my Jimenez 22 card, but actually tell me what it says and explain it. I don't meddle in debates, so be clear in your positions and give voters at the end.
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.