National Speech and Debate Tournament
2024 — Des Moines, IA/US
Darcy Erickson Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Occasionally judge Policy DebateHow many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
11-20Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
Stock issuesRATE OF DELIVERY
2/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
3/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
4/91 = communication skills most important9 = resolving substantive issues most important
TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:
8/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
8/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
9/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
8/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
Do not spread. It is often hard to hear/understand. For those reasons, I dislike it. As a lay judge (not a policy debater myself or a coach), I encourage providing solid, understandable, logical, and well-developed arguments. Be able to present the "story" of your case to me - avoid debate jargon. Providing "signposts"/roadmaps within the speeches and sticking to them is well-received. Convince me of the strength of your position with evidence and organized, logical argument. I do not disclose the decision - I encourage you not to ask.
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.