National Speech and Debate Tournament
2024 — Des Moines, IA/US
Sarah Sterling 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?
Speaking skillsRATE OF DELIVERY
6/91 = 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:
2/91 = often9 = rarely
COUNTERPLANS
2/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
GENERIC DISADVANTAGES
2/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS
2/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS
2/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS
2/91 = acceptable9 = unacceptable
Additional remarks:
As a judge with over a year of experience in various debate styles, I prioritize clear, logical argumentation and evidence-based reasoning. While I'm open to all styles, clarity in speech and structure is crucial for me to effectively evaluate the debate. I appreciate debaters who engage directly with their opponents' arguments and demonstrate adaptability throughout the round. Tricks or overly strategic plays that detract from substantive discussion are less likely to earn my vote. My goal is to ensure a fair and educational debate experience for all participants.
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.