National Speech and Debate Tournament
2022 — Louisville, KY/US
David Watkins 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
How many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
41+Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
PolicymakerRATE OF DELIVERY
1/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
2/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
2/91 = communication skills most important9 = resolving substantive issues most important
TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:
8/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
8/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
8/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
9/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
9/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
9/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
I love judging debate. However, don't take offense if I don't want a copy of the case or evidence that will be used during the round. I am an old-timer and will judge the round based on what I can hear and understand. You need to speak at a rate I can flow and process the information and arguments you are making. Also, I am not a fan of off the clock roadmaps. If you are organized when debating and tell me where you are at, you don't need the roadmap and I should have no problem following you. Additionally, I tend to judge rounds as a combo stock issues/policymaker. I hope this helps you if I am your judge.
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.