National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US
Parsa Amini 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?
PolicymakerRATE OF DELIVERY
7/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
4/91 = 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:
4/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
4/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
2/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
LD background
Not a fan of tricks/friv theory but will vote on it if opponent responds poorly enough
familiar with progressive arguments
Ok with theory/tshells but they tend to dominate rounds when brought up
My ideal round is impact heavy/analysis focused
prefer good clash (65 35 negs obligation to provide) while aff has to remain tangentially topical or risk being dropped
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.