National Speech and Debate Tournament
2022 — Louisville, KY/US
Mikel Knutson 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?
Stock issuesRATE OF DELIVERY
4/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
3/91 = 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:
9/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
4/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
7/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
7/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
8/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
7/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
As a High School event, the focus should be on educating young people to become great speakers and communicators. To that end, we should be penalizing rapid deliveries and frivolous arguments that do not relate to the plan presented, and incentivizing well thought out plans and solutions.
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.