National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US
Andrea Thompson 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
6/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
2/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
7/91 = 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
8/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
I do not mind some speed, but I would like if debaters at least slow down for taglines so we can all keep track of where the debate is taking place on the flow. Please be organized so I know where to write down your arguments on my flow. I really enjoy stock issues debate/on case argumentation. DA's and CP's are alright, too -- just adequately connect them to the case at hand! Theory and Kritiks are okay as long as you can explain them clearly and convincingly, and you actually link them to the case. I have voted for NEG on T's before, but I'm rather skeptical about them as a whole -- if you legitimately think the AFF is kind of untopical, go for it, but T's shouldn't be used as a mere time-suck. In the end, I always use my flow to determine who has won the round. I'm excited for some beautiful policy fun!!!
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.