National Speech and Debate Tournament

2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US

Shawn Daugherty Paradigm

Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy

Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)

Coach of a team
Frequently judge Policy Debate
Occasionally judge Policy Debate

How many Policy rounds have you judged this year?

21-30

Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?

Policymaker
 

RATE OF DELIVERY

1/91 = slow and deliberate
9 = very rapid
 

QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS

7/91 = a few well-developed arguments
9 = the more arguments the better
 

COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

8/91 = communication skills most important
9 = resolving substantive issues most important
 

TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:

5/91 = often
9 = rarely
 

COUNTERPLANS

1/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
 

GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

1/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
 

CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

1/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
 

DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

1/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
 

CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

1/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:

Background:
-Current high school coach
-Coach of a state championship policy debate team (2022)
-Member of a college program that won two (of 12) titles in the Pi Kappa Delta National Overall Champions (2007, 2008)

Voters:
-Spreading just to spread can be perceived as abusive to a team that is not familiar with that style of policy debate
-Ks, theory, and CPs are always welcomed
-I focus on the reality of a plan in the realm of actual government instruction and institution, not weighing on theoretical "it'll just happen" in the world of politics; please come prepared with full knowledge of topics
-Be kind, similar to Pi Kappa Delta, debate should be, "The art of persuasion beautiful and just"

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.