Tabroom.com

National Speech and Debate Tournament

2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US

Philip DiPiazza 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?

41+

Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?

Tabula rasa

RATE OF DELIVERY

9/91 = slow and deliberate
9 = very rapid

QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS

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

COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

5/91 = 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

1/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable

DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

1/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable

CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

1/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable

Additional remarks: "Tabula rasa" may be a bit of a misnomer -- I definitely have some proclivities and predispositions (see full paradigm on tabroom), but "Policymaker" felt too confining. Like every judge I look for smart, well-reasoned arguments. Do what you’re good at, and I will do my best to render a careful, well thought-out decision.Teams can generate clash over questions of an argument’s substance, its theoretical legitimacy, or its intrinsic philosophical or ideological commitments. I think spin control is extremely important in debate rounds and compelling explanations will certainly be rewarded. And while quantity and quality are also not exclusive I would definitely prefer less cards and more story in any given debate as the round progresses. I also like seeing the major issues in the debate compartmentalized and key arguments flagged. As for the standard array of arguments, there's nothing I can really say that you shouldn't already know. I like strong internal link stories and nuanced impact comparisons. I really don't care for "risk of link means you vote Aff/Neg" arguments on sketchy positions; if I don't get it I'm not voting for it. Two other things that are worth noting: 1) I flow on paper…probably doesn’t mean anything, but it might mean something to you. 2) I think there is a difference between intensity and rudeness. Please be mindful of this.

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.