National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US
Bernard Kamerman 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?
Hypothesis testerRATE OF DELIVERY
4/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
3/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
6/91 = communication skills most important9 = resolving substantive issues most important
TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:
4/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
4/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
7/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
I find debate to be interesting, but it's more of the connection to real-world scenarios that intrigues me the most. Aside from adequate speed and clear enunciation, it will be in the debater's best interest to run arguments understandable to the general audience (Ks are heavily discouraged) and keep it simple.
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.