National Speech and Debate Tournament
2024 — Des Moines, IA/US
Laura Livingston 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?
0-10Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
PolicymakerRATE OF DELIVERY
5/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
6/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
6/91 = 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
8/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
7/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
6/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
Please see my paradigm. I will listen to almost any argument and vote on the winning arguments. I am more interested in arguments about the topic than I am in arguments about the theory of debate. Stock issues are very important to me. If you speed past me and depend on me to flow from the case or args you've emailed me, I will be less effective as a judge. Debate is about persuasion - persuade me! Also, no args like, "they didn't disclose their case!" Debate is supposed to encourage your ability to think on your feet and if you can't handle this, then stop debating.
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.