National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US
Miles Owens Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Coach of a teamPolicy 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?
Tabula rasaRATE OF DELIVERY
9/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
5/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
9/91 = communication skills most important9 = resolving substantive issues most important
TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:
1/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
My full paradigm on Tabroom is more comprehensive than this questionnaire.
I’m perfectly fine with speed, but please do whatever makes you most comfortable.
The frequency with which I vote neg on topicality is exclusively a function of the quality of the debating happening in a given round, not my “willingness to vote on topicality.”
I think communication skills should work in service of the resolution of substantive issues.
The desirability of conditional negative positions is a debatable question that can be resolved in the space of a round.
Feel free to ask questions!
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.