National Speech and Debate Tournament

2024 — Des Moines, IA/US

Rhianne Urbanczyk Paradigm

Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy

Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)

Policy debater in high school
Occasionally judge Policy Debate

How many Policy rounds have you judged this year?

0-10

Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?

Tabula rasa
 

RATE OF DELIVERY

7/91 = slow and deliberate
9 = very rapid
 

QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS

4/91 = a few well-developed arguments
9 = the more arguments the better
 

COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES

7/91 = communication skills most important
9 = resolving substantive issues most important
 

TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:

1/91 = often
9 = rarely
 

COUNTERPLANS

1/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
 

GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

1/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
 

CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

5/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
 

DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

1/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
 

CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

5/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:

More advice then preferences! You guys make the round. Do your best and I'll try to keep up! K: Case is cool, don't understand presentation or debate as much. Debate Theory: If they're screwing up the round, this is cool, still should argue properly if you can. Conditional Negative: I will flow offensive drops to them, if they run theory. Generic Disadvantages: Be prepared for them to have their speech lined up before you finish speaking. CP: Make sure their plan prevents your advantages, or they'll just claim them.

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.