National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US
William Soper Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Coach of a teamNDT/CEDA debater in college
Policy debater in high school
Frequently judge Policy Debate
How many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
41+Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
Tabula rasaRATE OF DELIVERY
5/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
2/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
9/91 = communication skills most important9 = resolving substantive issues most important
TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:
3/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
I did NDT/CEDA debate at the University of Kansas for four years. Evidence is very important to me, teams should try to read high quality evidence to support their position. I am usually more persuaded by arguments which are specific to the topic over process CPs and generics. I have a paradigm on tabroom if you search my name.
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.