National Speech and Debate Tournament
2025 — Des Moines, IA/US
Hannah Erdman Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Coach of a teamPolicy debater in high school
Frequently 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
7/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
5/91 = 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:
6/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
6/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
6/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
I prefer argumentation to be specific with clear links. All students in a round should be doing their best to flow and stick to the flow for organization and optimization of arguments. Ability to follow the flow and give clear and concise organizational information is preferred, even if the rate of delivery is rapid. I am capable of judging spread rounds but please clarify with your opponent if they are of able body and mind to keep up with spread in order to make the round as fair as possible. I stick to firm policymaker grounds but I will accept creative argumentation and value clear and logical analytical information. Students should be kind and courteous to each other as not to ruin the fun of this still being an activity that students willfully participate in. Overall, I am a high flow policymaker judge that values organization, respect, and delivery.
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.