National Speech and Debate Tournament
2022 — Louisville, KY/US
Madelynn Einhorn Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
NDT/CEDA debater in collegePolicy debater in high school
Occasionally 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
9/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
6/91 = 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:
1/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Please reference my tabroom paradigm. I competed for four years of college in NFA-LD (one-person policy) and competed in policy in high school (I put NDT/Ceda, because the type of debate I was doing was fairly synonymous and seemed like the closest explanation to experience). When I debated, I liked fast debate, robust case coverage, then read several DAs, a CP or two, and a theory argument (or a K and theory argument) as offcase. I like smart arguments more than gotcha arguments. Feel free to ask any questions!
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.