National Speech and Debate Tournament
2022 — Louisville, KY/US
Michelle Kelsey 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?
11-20Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
PolicymakerRATE OF DELIVERY
7/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
7/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
7/91 = 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
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
I have noted all arguments as acceptable in the scales above--what this means to me is that all types of arguments are acceptable to the extent you justify and win them. My exceptions here are content specific--I find racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. arguments unacceptable and will not reward teams or debaters who engage in them. Overall, be clear, win how you want me to use the ballot and why, and be respectful. I will default to policy making without any arguments about the role of the judge or ballot in a debate.
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.