National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US
Nicole Owens Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Occasionally judge Policy DebateHow many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
0-10Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
Speaking skillsRATE OF DELIVERY
2/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
5/91 = 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:
3/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
8/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
I am not a typical Policy judge. I will vote on things like Topicality and Kritiks, but they need to be well-explained and thought out with unique arguments to convince me they are truly applicable.
I hate spreading. I have hearing aids and do not follow spreading well at all.
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.