National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US
Jeremy Guevin Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Coach of a teamPolicy debater in high school
Occasionally judge Policy Debate
How many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
0-10Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
Speaking skillsRATE OF DELIVERY
3/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
1/91 = 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:
5/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
9/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Impacts and the expression of those impacts are the most important aspects of CX debate to me. I would much rather see a few, well-communicated arguments than a plethora of half-baked arguments puked out to win on flow. Courtesy to your opponents, partners, and myself is also a virtue I expect to see in every debate, no matter how heated the argument gets.
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.