National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US
Robert Rumans Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Coach of a teamHow many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
0-10Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
Speaking skillsRATE OF DELIVERY
5/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
6/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
6/91 = communication skills most important9 = resolving substantive issues most important
TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:
5/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
I am a novice policy judge. I would want students to shy away from spreading and they must uphold the highest levels of sportsmanship. We can have spirited debate while still being respectful of one another. As I am a novice judge, you should avoid jargon or abbreviations unique to Policy. I am experienced with and coach LD and PF, so I will have no trouble flowing your arguments, just do not make it difficult for me to do so with your pace and language. My inexperience will not get in the way of your scoring, but a paradigm is here for a reason. A good debater adjusts to the judge before them, not vice versa. As paradigms are made available, I have assumed you have read it when you are in a round with me. Please be considerate of it.
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.