National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US
Theo Van Hof Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
NDT/CEDA debater in collegePolicy debater in high school
Frequently judge Policy Debate
How many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
21-30Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
Games-playingRATE OF DELIVERY
6/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
3/91 = 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:
8/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
2/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
Explain your arguments. Do not shadow extend arguments, even if they are dropped. The last two speeches should cover 1-3 issues at most, any more than that and you have not narrowed the debate properly.
When I say to explain your arguments, I mean that you must explain what you have said and why it is more important and/or more persuasive than what your opponents have said. Explain why you win the argument or issue.
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.