Policy Debate Domain Paradigm Scorecard
Judge: Jamie Saker
Instructions: The following represents the likelihood that I would consider and determine a ballot on the following categories, where certain means the category is mandatory, likely indicates you find this area to be very important in your paradigm, indifferent means you may or may not consider it significant and are likely to leave that determination solely to the debaters to explain, unlikely indicates you are usually not inclined to consider it except in rare circumstances, and impossible means you do not find this to be grounds that you would give a ballot on.
Paradigm Comments: I expect minimal stock to be sustained by an Aff. Speed evidence is fine but if you speed tags to where I can’t understand them, they’re not likely to be flowed at your peril. Intervention occurs only when I’m forced to, often at the disadvantage of an Aff. On Kritik, I’m an LD’er and subsequently love K’s, but you’d better know how to run them, provide a relevant framework for their place in the round, make sure you don’t have conditionality problems, topicality problems, and give me a crystal clear reason why I should set aside the policy we’re considering in the round. Indeed, I look at K’s as from an attitudinal solvency perspective. If you use it to consistently guide your entire round strategy (e.g. with consistent CP, DAs, etc.), I’m very receptive. If you play conditionality, accusing the other team of violating the grounds specified by the K and do it yourself, don’t expect much offense at all from your K.
Judging Experience: I coach policy, LD and PF at Fremont-Mills. I’m a 1980s Millard North “Milo (Millikan) Graduate” who debated policy and was Milo’s first LD’er. I’ve judged varsity policy at IHSSA, Des Moines Lincoln, Nebraska Lincoln High and other tournaments and judge novice policy, varsity and novice LD and PF. I prefer varsity policy and LD but will judge whatever is needed to help the tournament go well.