National Speech and Debate Tournament
2023 — Phoenix/Mesa, AZ/US
Leonid Rubchinsky Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Frequently judge Policy DebateHow many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
11-20Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
PolicymakerRATE OF DELIVERY
1/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
1/91 = 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:
4/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
7/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
2/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
8/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
8/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
8/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
I am a lay judge, who has been judging debate for a few years. I value the ability to emphasize and develop the most important ideas and to convey them in a clear and convincing manner. I value quality and clarity over quantity, and I have a somewhat negative attitude towards spreading and very technical approaches (unless they are executed in a clear-to-understand manner and emphasize and prioritize important arguments). I believe one of the roles of a judge (besides providing constructive feedback to debaters) is to listen to debaters in order to develop a nuanced understanding of the issue at stake to decide whether aff or neg side is more convincing.
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.