National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US
Lennon Rauhoff Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Coach of a teamPolicy debater in high school
Occasionally judge Policy Debate
How many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
0-10Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
Tabula rasaRATE OF DELIVERY
9/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
7/91 = 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
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
The affirmative should defend a hypothetical plan passed by the USFG. Also, I love good cp debates. I also love ev indicts. I don't care about formalities, but you don't get three speeches. I will flow brief partner interruptions. Cross-x is binding & I'll flow it.
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.