JavaScript isn't enabled in your browser, so this file can't be opened. Enable and reload.
NPDL TOC Judge Survey
You will be sent a copy of your answers. You will be able to edit responses up until March 25.
* Indicates required question
Email
*
Your email
Name (as listed on tabroom)
*
Your answer
What is your experience with speech & debate?
*
Mark all that apply
High school competitor
College competitor
Coach
Frequent judge
Occasional judge
Required
For how many years have you competed in, judged or coached a format of parliamentary debate?
*
0
1-5
6-10
11-15
16+
Which competition formats would you consider yourself very familiar with?
*
"Very familiar" formats would be those you have judged more than 15 rounds of in the past 12 months, competed in for at least two years, or coached for at least two years. Mark all that apply.
High school parli (Oregon/OHSSL)
High school parli (East Coast/NYPDL)
High school parli (California/CHSSA)
World Schools
APDA Parli
British Parli
NPDA Parli
Circuit/progressive LD, Policy, or Public Forum
Lay/traditional LD, Policy, or Public Forum
Speech/Individual Events
None of these
Other:
Required
Which competition formats would you consider yourself somewhat familiar with?
*
"Somewhat familiar" formats would be those you have judged more than 15 rounds of ever, competed in for at least six months, or coached for at least six months. Mark all that apply.
High school parli (Oregon/OHSSL)
High school parli (East Coast/NYPDL)
High school parli (California/CHSSA)
World Schools
APDA Parli
British Parli
NPDA Parli
Circuit/progressive LD, Policy, or Public Forum
Lay/traditional LD, Policy, or Public Forum
Speech/Individual Events
None of these
Other:
Required
Please mark the three most important criteria you prioritize when judging most debate rounds.
*
Speaking skillls
Creative arguments
Line-by-line responses/flow coverage
Ability to collapse to key arguments
Ability to analyze and compare impacts
Ability to leverage a framework or weighing mechanism
Solvency/policy viability
Preponderance of evidence
Understanding of underlying technical/argumentation concepts
Understanding of underlying philosophical concepts
Decorum in round
Truth of the arguments presented
Other:
Required
Please mark criteria you would not generally consider when judging a round.
*
Speaking skillls
Creative arguments
Line-by-line responses/flow coverage
Ability to collapse to key arguments
Ability to analyze and compare impacts
Ability to leverage a framework or weighing mechanism
Solvency/policy viability
Preponderance of evidence
Understanding of underlying technical/argumentation concepts
Understanding of underlying philosophical concepts
Decorum in round
Truth of the arguments presented
Other:
Required
Please rate your willingness to vote on the following types of arguments
*
Don't know what this is
Will NOT vote on this
Will vote on this, unhappily
As likely to vote on this as anything else
Preference for this kind of argument
Favorite kind of argument
Advantages/disadvantages
Framework
Counterplans
Topicality
Debate theory
Solvency
Stock issues
Criticisms/kritiks
Don't know what this is
Will NOT vote on this
Will vote on this, unhappily
As likely to vote on this as anything else
Preference for this kind of argument
Favorite kind of argument
Advantages/disadvantages
Framework
Counterplans
Topicality
Debate theory
Solvency
Stock issues
Criticisms/kritiks
How do you decide the winner of the round?
*
I decide who is the better speaker regardless of whether they won specific arguments
I decide who is the winner of the most arguments in the round
I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round
I decide who is the person who persuaded me more of their postion
The use of jargon or technical language ("extend," "cross-apply," "turn," etc):
*
is preferred
is acceptable
should be minimized
is unacceptable
Rebuttal speeches MUST include
*
line-by-line analysis
voting issues
weighing of impacts
Other:
Required
With respect to criticisms/kritiks:
*
I am not familiar with them
I am not open to them at all
I am only interested in ones that are specific to the resolution
I am willing to listen to any kind
Other:
Required
With respect to debate theory:
*
I am not familiar with it
I am not open to it at all
I consider theory based primarily on in-round abuse
I consider theory whether or not it is based on in-round abuse
Other:
Required
Maximum delivery speed
*
Slow conversational speed
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fast spreading (>300 words per minute)
How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical; not necessarily including citations) is in the round?
*
Never necessary
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Always necessary
Do you have a preference for types of evidence (not necessarily including citations)?
*
Analytical
Empirical
No preference
If there is anything else debaters should know about you, please include it here.
For comments longer than 1000 characters, please refer debaters to a paradigm on tabroom.com
Your answer
A copy of your responses will be emailed to the address you provided.
Submit
Clear form
Never submit passwords through Google Forms.
reCAPTCHA
Privacy
Terms
This form was created inside of MVLA Speech & Debate Boosters.
Report Abuse
Forms
