National Speech and Debate Tournament

2022 — Louisville, KY/US

Michelle Kelsey Paradigm

Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy

Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)

Coach of a team
NDT/CEDA debater in college
Policy debater in high school

How many Policy rounds have you judged this year?

11-20

Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?

Policymaker
 

RATE OF DELIVERY

7/91 = slow and deliberate
9 = very rapid
 

QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS

7/91 = a few well-developed arguments
9 = the more arguments the better
 

COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

7/91 = communication skills most important
9 = resolving substantive issues most important
 

TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:

1/91 = often
9 = rarely
 

COUNTERPLANS

1/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
 

GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

1/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
 

CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

1/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
 

DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

1/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
 

CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

1/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks: I have noted all arguments as acceptable in the scales above--what this means to me is that all types of arguments are acceptable to the extent you justify and win them. My exceptions here are content specific--I find racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. arguments unacceptable and will not reward teams or debaters who engage in them. Overall, be clear, win how you want me to use the ballot and why, and be respectful. I will default to policy making without any arguments about the role of the judge or ballot in a debate.

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.