National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US
Eric Schwerdtfeger 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
How many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
41+Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
Tabula rasaRATE OF DELIVERY
8/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
5/91 = 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:
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
This paint by numbers approach is probably unhelpful for most debaters. You would be much better served by actually reading the thoughts I took the time to write. You can find those by clicking the "Paradigms" tab on the Tabroom.com homepage and searching my last name in the search bar on the right hand side of the screen.
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.