National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US
Joseph Tyler 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?
11-20Which 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:
1/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
2/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
I tend to err condo bad once neg goes beyond 6 off case arguments. However, I'll still vote on it. This is just a warning in advance that neg has to do a bit more work than aff does to win a condo debate if you exceed my baseline threshold. I dislike tag teaming. I prefer cross to be closed and I'm not a fan of passing notes during your speech. Accessibility is incredibly important to me. If there are members of the debate (judges/competitors) who don't like or can't follow rapid debate then I don't believe it's fair to exclude them from the round.
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.