National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US
Marissa Moore Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Coach of a teamOccasionally judge Policy Debate
How many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
0-10Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
PolicymakerRATE OF DELIVERY
6/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
1/91 = 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:
5/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
4/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
2/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
4/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
4/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
I like to mostly judge as a policymaker but I'm a bit tab as well. I will only flow what you say. I may have comments about my own issues with your evidence but if your opponent doesn’t point it out, then it will not affect my RFD. I do have somewhat of a STEM background so that may influence my writing, but not my decision.
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.