National Speech and Debate Tournament
2024 — Des Moines, IA/US
Sean Petersen Paradigm
Policy
Policy Debate Judge Philosophy
Your experience with Policy Debate (check all that apply)
Coach of a teamHow many Policy rounds have you judged this year?
0-10Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
Stock issuesRATE OF DELIVERY
1/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
4/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
3/91 = communication skills most important9 = resolving substantive issues most important
TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:
3/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
4/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
8/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
4/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
Ok full transparency, I am a old school Policy judge. I don't care for spreading or non-topical theory. Give me a solid plan that looks at the stock issues and can solve, fund it and get it as close to real as possible. I will take a little fiat but too much won't work. Rate of speed must be slow, I am a flow judge and if I can't flow it I can't vote for it. Speed and card slamming won't sell me, feasibility and need will win the ballot. Impact Calc is my focus for both sides so show me harms and ads/disads for the win.
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.