National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US
Paul DeMaret 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
5/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
4/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
7/91 = 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
7/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
In CX, I'm a real world policy maker judge. I see CX as a training ground for future policy makers and voting citizens, so I want to know if plan makes the world a better place or not. When it comes to weighing the round, I'm not swayed by the magnitude of impacts if they are logically absurd, and I'll accept analyticals that tell me why they are so. I'll vote on T but not if the plan is clearly topical. I'll listen to critical positions, but I am unlikely to vote for them unless they are impacted back to a real world impact. If I can't hear the warrant in a card because of your speed, I'm unlikely to find it persuasive.
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.