National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US
Ryan Morgan Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Coach of a teamNDT/CEDA debater in college
Policy debater in high school
Frequently judge Policy Debate
How many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
41+Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
Tabula rasaRATE OF DELIVERY
8/91 = 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:
7/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Real paradigm here: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=269562. Idk that the NSDA paradigm is very helpful, so just read my regular one. I did Nat Circuit debate in high school and then did NDT/CEDA debate in college. I coach and judge for Interlake, which had a lot of success the last two years, so I'm used to judging Nat Circuit elims. My threshold for clarity is probably a little higher, so if you are straight-up incomprehensible, slow down. I'm not the best judge for joke arguments (unless done well) or stuff like wipeout. But honestly, do whatever you want.
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.