National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US
Steven Wolf Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
NDT/CEDA debater in collegeOccasionally judge Policy Debate
How many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
0-10Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
Tabula rasaRATE 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
7/91 = communication skills most important9 = resolving substantive issues most important
TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:
3/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
8/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
I prefer teams to have strong clash and win on the substance of the argument instead of just trying to overload the other team with weak arguments. I prefer that the neg strategy be cohesive and don't like it when the neg runs contradictory 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.