National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US
Anna Herrig Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Coach of a teamPolicy 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?
Tabula rasaRATE OF DELIVERY
8/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
5/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
8/91 = communication skills most important9 = resolving substantive issues most important
TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:
1/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
I compete in college. You can go for anything. All I ask is that you send speech docs and slow down on taglines. I will disclose. I believe if I can't defend my decision then it probably wasn't a good one. You should also probably read my full paradigm on tabroom...
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.