National Speech and Debate Tournament

2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US

Robert Rumans Paradigm

Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy

Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)

Coach of a team

How many Policy rounds have you judged this year?

0-10

Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?

Speaking skills
 

RATE OF DELIVERY

5/91 = slow and deliberate
9 = very rapid
 

QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS

6/91 = a few well-developed arguments
9 = the more arguments the better
 

COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

6/91 = communication skills most important
9 = resolving substantive issues most important
 

TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:

5/91 = often
9 = rarely
 

COUNTERPLANS

5/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
 

GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

5/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
 

CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

5/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
 

DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

5/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
 

CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

5/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:

I am a novice policy judge.  I would want students to shy away from spreading and they must uphold the highest levels of sportsmanship.  We can have spirited debate while still being respectful of one another.  As I am a novice judge, you should avoid jargon or abbreviations unique to Policy.  I am experienced with and coach LD and PF, so I will have no trouble flowing your arguments, just do not make it difficult for me to do so with your pace and language.  My inexperience will not get in the way of your scoring, but a paradigm is here for a reason. A good debater adjusts to the judge before them, not vice versa.  As paradigms are made available, I have assumed you have read it when you are in a round with me.  Please be considerate of it.

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.