National Speech and Debate Tournament
2022 — Louisville, KY/US
Sara Dunn Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Policy debater in high schoolFrequently judge Policy Debate
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
4/91 = 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:
2/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
4/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
See full paradigm on tabroom.
I care most about clarity, clash, consistency, and argument comparison. I am primary a policy maker who cares about net benefits. But I accept that intangibles, particularly issues of ethics and morality, are frequently a critical part of the net benefits calculus.
Ok w speed and theory to the extent they invite clash and robust argumentation. I'll be more impressed with organized line by line clash that helps win thesis level claims working to prove a consistent overall position. Tricks, jargon, and speed for the sake of speed won't impress me.
Ok w well researched, well argued Ks, T, counterplans & condo. Don't love inherency or econ arguments as they tend not to be robust. Really appreciate framing arguments.
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.