National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US
Alex Zavala Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
NDT/CEDA debater in collegeOccasionally judge Policy Debate
How many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
11-20Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
Tabula rasaRATE OF DELIVERY
4/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
8/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
7/91 = communication skills most important9 = resolving substantive issues most important
TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:
5/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
4/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
4/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
6/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
6/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
Not a fan of tricks/friv theory but will vote on it only if opponent responds poorly enough
Fine with theory/tshells but they tend to dominate rounds when brought up
Prefer impact heavy/analysis focused rounds
Clash is great
Topical affs >>>>> questionably topical affs
Being respectful to your opponents gets you far
Slow down for most important voters
COLLAPSE IN THE DEBATE
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.