National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US
Gunther Clark Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Coach of a teamPolicy 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?
Stock issuesRATE OF DELIVERY
2/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
2/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
5/91 = communication skills most important9 = resolving substantive issues most important
TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:
5/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
4/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
8/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
8/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
9/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
I judge on a 7 stock issues paradigm (Harms, Significance, Inherency, Workability, Solvency, Advantages, and Topicality). Affirmitive must uphold all 7 issues to carry the day.
Debate is a competition that takes place through the spoken word, all speeches must be delivered at a pace and in a matter so as to render them intelligible to the judge in real time or they don't go on the flow.
Kritiks are a very weak form debating, generally a last priority for evaluating my decision. Kritiks claiming exclusive access to any arguments or issues will be rejected outright.
Theory arguments are acceptable within the bounds of the paradigm if they have some bearing on the round, but they must be an accompaniment to, rather than a substitute for, debating the substantive issues of the resolution. (ie. Arguing perm theory in order to run a counterplan)
I am willing to vote on topicality if and when it genuinely applies, but keep in mind most teams have had the foresight to write topical plans, so if you are running topicality every round that is a sign of a problem with you not your opponents.
I value good analysis and higher order thinking, clever use of arguments (turns, re-frameworking the round, identifying internal inconsistency in an opponent’s position, etc.) is better than spewing cards and expecting me to vote on 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.