National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US
Michaela Northrop 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
7/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
5/91 = 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:
1/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
TLDR version of my full Tabroom paradigm (which you should read please!)
full paradigm at: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=52357
put me on the chain! michaelanorthrop@gmail.com
basic paradigm: critic of argument; tabula rasa generally but most experienced in policymaking; tech > truth
yes to: case debates, disad + case, CPs w/ solvency cards / advocates, Ks, T & Theory (but warrant clearly), generic disads as indicated above...but specific link analysis or card please
less experience with: K affs (but willing to listen) & high theory Ks (need to explain as i'm not versed in the lit base...but happy to listen if you can get beyond buzz words)
highly value: analytics, cx, speaking, panel adaptation
always important: inclusivity, debate as a safe space, respect for all participants
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.