National Speech and Debate Tournament
2024 — Des Moines, IA/US
Jenny Ngo 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?
0-10Which best describes your approach to judging Policy Debate?
Speaking skillsRATE OF DELIVERY
4/91 = slow and deliberate9 = very rapid
QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS
3/91 = a few well-developed arguments9 = the more arguments the better
COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES
5/91 = communication skills most important9 = resolving substantive issues most important
TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality:
3/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
3/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
9/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
5/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
7/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
Reiteration of key points throughout the entire debate is important. Figure out which arguments are working and focus on those to build a stronger case. Address any weaknesses mentioned by the other side and make sure you are clear that you have addressed them satisfactorily. Be specific with examples that support your arguments, even creative in trying to paint a scenario that might be relatable to the judge.
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.