National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US
Daniel Porisch Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Coach of a teamPolicy debater in high school
How many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
21-30Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
Tabula rasaRATE OF DELIVERY
6/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
4/91 = 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:
5/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
4/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
6/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
6/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
6/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
If I put my pen down, you are speaking too quickly, and I won't vote on anything not on my flow. Give me voters. Substance is the first thing I look for in weighing an argument.
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.