National Speech and Debate Tournament
2024 — Des Moines, IA/US
Patrick Brooks 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?
11-20Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
Stock issuesRATE OF DELIVERY
5/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
5/91 = 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:
7/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
1/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
4/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
Consider me a mix between a "lay" judge and a "flow" judge. I understand policy debate, I coach policy debate, but I do not like spreading, and I am mildly allergic to heavy jargon. I would rather hear a few good arguments than 20 bad ones. I will make my decision based on who genuinely convinced me (within the confines of the round, of course) that the plan was a good/bad idea.
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.