National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US
Jake Hoskins 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
Frequently judge Policy Debate
How many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
41+Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
PolicymakerRATE OF DELIVERY
2/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
3/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
3/91 = communication skills most important9 = resolving substantive issues most important
TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:
1/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
6/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
4/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
First of all, civility and respect are vital aspects of debate. I do not appreciate any kind of bullying or abusive rhetoric.
I try to maintain tabula rasa attitudes towards debate and won't forbid any arguments or styles.
That said, debate is a communication event. I tend to vote for teams that are able to effectively and clearly articulate why their specific and well reasoned arguments should be preferred to the multiple generic or underdeveloped positions.
Analysis of evidence and showing how multiple arguments work together to create a cohesive position is more convincing to me than than ten sub-claims with little to no elaboration or impacting.
Win the argument and tell me why that should win the round.
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.