National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US
Lindsey Weber 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
Occasionally judge Policy Debate
How many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
41+Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
PolicymakerRATE OF DELIVERY
7/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
6/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
5/91 = communication skills most important9 = resolving substantive issues most important
TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:
5/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
4/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
2/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
I am a traditional judge for policy that holds the stock issues to be the most important. However, with theory and Kritik arguments, I think these can be used and presented well, but require more intention to carry the arguments through the whole round. Interrupting during CX is both important and rude, and must be done tastefully. I have coached in Montana, so we do more traditional out here. However, I have judged policy and PF at nationals before and have the ability to follow very fast paces argumentation if delivered well.
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.