National Speech and Debate Tournament
2022 — Louisville, KY/US
Alison Ambrose Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Coach of a teamNDT/CEDA debater in college
Policy debater in high school
Occasionally judge Policy Debate
How many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
11-20Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
Tabula rasaRATE OF DELIVERY
7/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
3/91 = 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:
4/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
2/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
4/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
I love to see well thought out positions that you are passionate for. You can see my full paradigm for more information, but this is the general sense. - Policy Affs: I find that structural impacts are more convincing than nuke war, for example. However, do you. - K Affs: I think you should have some connection to the topic at hand in a general sense. - FW/Theory: Love it, do it if that is your strategy. - DA: Impact calc is very important to me. Specific links are better. - CP: PICs, state, consult, process are all okay. Word PICs get a little tricky for me, but I will still hear them.
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.