National Speech and Debate Tournament
2024 — Des Moines, IA/US
Eric Morris Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Coach of a teamNDT/CEDA debater in college
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?
Games-playingRATE OF DELIVERY
8/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
9/91 = 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:
1/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
2/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
I judge mostly fast NDT/CEDA policy debates, and have been told I am near the 50-50 line on the K-policy spectrum. I respect research and clever strategic moves, and I usually flow CX.
I am a consequentialist policymaker unless you win that I should be something else. The ability to kritik assumptions of the other team's positions cuts both ways - there are many new win conditions introduced when the policymaking framework is displaced.
I hold you responsible for answering warranted argunments from the other team, even if they operate from outside your preferred frame of reference. When debaters offer competing models of debate, clarity about roles and norms under each model should be as detailed as possible.
Uplift your opponent rhetorically while defeating their arguments substantively.
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.