National Speech and Debate Tournament

2024 — Des Moines, IA/US

Jack Sewpersaud Paradigm

Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy

Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)

Coach of a team
Policy 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 rasa
 

RATE OF DELIVERY

6/91 = 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

6/91 = communication skills most important
9 = resolving substantive issues most important
 

TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:

2/91 = often
9 = rarely
 

COUNTERPLANS

3/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
 

GENERIC DISADVANTAGES

2/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
 

CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS

3/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
 

DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS

2/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
 

CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS

2/91 = acceptable
9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:

If you have futher questions, please consult my tabroom paradigm or ask before rounds.  Overall, I'm ready to hear you debate in whatever style works best for you, although I prefer in-depth argumentation over a bunch of barely developed generic off-case positions.  Most of my coaching has been focused on T and Kritiks, but have prepared CP/DA strategies in the past.  I think the most important thing to know about me as a judge is that my mentality is education first.  I think that's the most important goal in debate, and when debates get messy, that's the framing I fall back onto to resolve messy debates.

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.