National Speech and Debate Tournament

2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US

Taylor Dougherty Paradigm

Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy

Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)

Coach of a team
Policy debater in high school
Frequently judge Policy Debate

How many Policy rounds have you judged this year?

31-40

Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?

Tabula rasa
 

RATE OF DELIVERY

8/91 = slow and deliberate
9 = very rapid
 

QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS

5/91 = a few well-developed arguments
9 = the more arguments the better
 

COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

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

TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:

1/91 = often
9 = rarely
 

COUNTERPLANS

1/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
 

GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

1/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
 

CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

2/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
 

DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

1/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
 

CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

1/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:

I am tab, do whatever you are most comfortable with. Impact calculus is important to me, your 2NR/2AR should write my ballot for me. Turns case arguments are particularly convincing. Will vote for affs that don't read a plan-text, but am willing to vote on F/W. 

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.