National Speech and Debate Tournament
2024 — Des Moines, IA/US
Reece Peters 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?
Games-playingRATE OF DELIVERY
8/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
5/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
8/91 = communication skills most important9 = resolving substantive issues most important
TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:
2/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
I evaluate the round from the flow first, so new args in later speeches become difficult to evaluate if I can't trace a lineage on the warrant. Similarly, if an argument isn't clearly contextualized or explained, I have a hard time considering it "active" on the flow. I quite dislike hidden positions (hidden A-spec, hidden voters on T, One-line advantage CPs, etc.) Abusive conduct is a big ethos no-go for me. Please show respect to everyone involved in the round. Otherwise, I'm happy to hear whichever arguments in whichever style you'd like to argue! Read my paradigm (on Tabroom) for more in-depth opinions!
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.