Laura Hosman Paradigm

Last changed 5/31 8:21A MDT

Feel free to email me prior to if you have any questions.

Include me on email chains - Laura.Hosman5@gmail.com

Background

I currently coach LD and CX at Denver East. I competed in LD back in the early 2000s, and have been coaching since I graduated from HS in 2004. Most of my coaching as been part time as I'm a perpetual student/grad student. I'm currently working on my PhD in IR at the University of Denver. Prior, I attended law school and completed my JD in 2013. My current research interests focus broadly on judicial defection under non-democracies, International Human Rights Law, and the impact of transitional justice on democratization (https://www.du.edu/korbel/sie/people/research_assistants.html). Feel free to talk to me about law school versus grad school - I'm friendly :)

Since I've been coaching for almost 14 years now, but part time, I'm good with national circuit trends and topic substance despite a low judging record. Where it hurts me is with spreading - I'm good with a fast rate of speed, but I'm not where I should be with proper spreading. As long as you flash me or email me your stuff, and slow down on tags and analytics, and you're clear, I'm fine. If I miss any cards I'll just ask.

On staff at SJDI this summer -- https://camp.thesjdi.org/instructors/

Logistics

Flashing/Emailing is not prep - just keep it reasonable. I prefer email chains.

Flex prep is fine - that's up to the debaters as far as I'm concerned

For CX - open cross is fine; again, that's up to the debaters as far as I'm concerned

Overall

I lean strongly towards an offense-defense paradigm - You can concede FW and I'll still vote for you so long as your impacts outweigh. Just make sure when you kick FW its strategic - otherwise why are you running that FW in the first place. Subsequently, I'm not a huge fan of terminal defensive - link turns and perms are good so long as the impacts outweigh and there are some grounds for uniqueness.

I don't vote on presumption - the negative should at least have some net positive impacts from the SQ that outweigh. If I do vote on presumption, it was a bad round.

I'm a pretty progressive judge, so I love a good K, including [performance] aff Ks. But I'll hold you to a higher standard - if you access your solvency via deconstruction of the round itself, your method of doing so better be consistent with your theoretical FW. Fiat is merely a tool through which we can debate empirical impacts as a basis for that which we ought to do, rather than debating the likelihood of occurrence. So if you're running something pre-fiat, you no longer have the luxury of severing theory from method. On neg Ks, just make sure there's a link that's clear and specific, and you have an alt. If you do that you're probably fine. I'm significantly more likely to vote for your K if you have an alt.

Dropped arguments only matter if there's an impact - so again, be strategic and focus on the warrant + impact. In general try not to drop arguments though.

I favor conditionality, just explain [in brief] why kicking the CP, K, or whatever doesn't impact your offense.

DAs - links and impacts generally matter more than uniqueness, but don't ignore uniqueness if there's a CP/Perm

Counterplans are good, just make sure it competes with the plan (think opportunity cost model here).

Debate Theory/ROB - I've never once been persuaded by debate theory. Feels like most folks run debate theory out of habit and because they have the blocks, not because they mean it or even hope to win on it. And folks tend to sound like they are whining by defaulting to theory cause they don't have cards prepped out. But if you can argue it well I might be persuaded by it - especially if something in round is egregious enough to warrant rejection on such grounds (guess I'm yet to see something so egregious). In general, though, I'd rather just see debaters debate substance. I'm more inclined to favor the educational value that comes from debating whatever is offered in round, especially in light of current disclosure norms.

Disclosure Theory - I'm yet to have this be an issue in round, so I can't say definitely how I would vote if someone ran disclosure theory against their opponent. But I've been in this community a decent amount of time, and I've seen the net positive benefits of disclosing on competitive debate. So I strongly support disclosing and am apt to vote accordingly. Granted, I'd rather just vote on the substance of whatever is offered in round if I can, so I wouldn't spend much time on this (esp if its clearly a kid from a i.e. small program without a lot of resources - the net effect at that point is to just be exclusionary and keep kids out of the community).

Theory is not an RVI.

I default to competing interps.

I like T debates, but rarely find myself voting for it - probably because folks don't argue it well and don't impact it. Explain to me why I should pref your definition and why the distinction matters - the distinction should be fundamental and substantial to the resolution/debate/evidence, so don't just run debate theory as the basis for preferring your interp (i.e. studies on democratization are largely dependent on how you define "democracy," with findings determined by quantity versus quality operationalizations of democracy -- so you could link/impact turn the entire 1AC with an alternative definition of democracy). Generally, I'm more inclined to favor the educational value of debating whatever is offered in round and not vote on T.

I'm not a fan of spikes, so I wouldn't go for that strategy. I do see debate as a game, but it should be one with integrity and I see spikes as diminishing the integrity of the game.

Lastly, be nice and respectful, esp in cross. I have a really high threshold for what I consider to be "too aggressive," so rarely do I ever think debaters have crossed the line so to speak. But, i.e. do give your opponents an opportunity to answer during cross.

Speaks - I generally range from 27 to 30. My average is probably somewhere around a 28.5 (I wouldn't be surprised if I'm more generous than others with speaks). If you get above a 29, I think you should be in elim rounds. If you get below a 28, something about your behavior in round bothered me (it probably had to do with cross, and I've only given below a 28 once). If its borderline, I'll probably just give you a flat 29.

For traditional LD, the logic of all of the above applies - I need an impact calc under your value-criterion FW. You can concede your value and still win on impact calc.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/4/2019 VLD OF Palo Alto EH Durham BD Neg Neg on a 3-0
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/4/2019 VLD 2x San Marino VL BASIS Mesa HS Neg Neg on a 3-0
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/4/2019 VLD 3x San Marino VL Park City AO Aff Aff on a 3-0
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/4/2019 VLD 3x Desert Vista AM Mesquite JY Aff Aff on a 3-0
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/4/2019 VLD R4 West Tech AW BASIS Mesa HS Neg
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/4/2019 VLD R4 Park City AO San Marino VL Neg
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/4/2019 VLD R3 Advanced Technologies Acad AA Lake Oswego Senior SZ Aff
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/4/2019 VLD R3 Desert Vista AM Palo Verde SS Aff
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/4/2019 VLD R2 Canyon Crest Independent SZ Helix Charter MC Aff
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/4/2019 VLD R1 Pinnacle KA Harker SS Aff
Arizona State HDSHC Invitational 1/4/2019 VLD R1 Venture MF Canyon Crest Independent JS Neg
SJDI Camp Tournament 7/12/2018 Quarte Off the Dome Tristan Shaughnessy 360 Mars Steven Dykstra Aff Aff on a 3-0
SJDI Camp Tournament 7/12/2018 Octas Skrrt Skrrt Arushi Bansal Off the Dome Kavin Kumaravel Neg Neg on a 3-0
SJDI Camp Tournament 7/12/2018 Octas 360 Mars Ameera Khan Off the Dome Madeleine Conrad-Mogin Neg Neg on a 3-0
SJDI Camp Tournament 7/12/2018 Runoff Skrrt Skrrt Felicity Park 360 Mars Samuel Xiong Neg Neg on a 3-0
SJDI Camp Tournament 7/12/2018 R6 DMZ Heg Jungwoo Seo DMZ Heg Edward Sun Aff
SJDI Camp Tournament 7/12/2018 R6 360 Mars Celine Wei Skrrt Skrrt Jacob Chon Aff
SJDI Camp Tournament 7/12/2018 R5 Space Force Sonal Sharma Skrrt Skrrt Samishka Narasimhan Neg
SJDI Camp Tournament 7/12/2018 R5 Skrrt Skrrt Jacob Spiegelman 360 Mars Ameera Khan Neg
SJDI Camp Tournament 7/12/2018 R4 Space Force Arjun Garg Space Force Andrew Wang Aff
SJDI Camp Tournament 7/12/2018 R4 Skrrt Skrrt Rutvik Deo 360 Mars Gideon Gomm Neg
SJDI Camp Tournament 7/12/2018 R3 Space Force Yash Mishra Space Force Advika Bhike Aff
SJDI Camp Tournament 7/12/2018 R3 Space Force Max Xiao 360 Mars Dylan Liu Neg
SJDI Camp Tournament 7/12/2018 R2 Skrrt Skrrt Felicity Park Space Force Arushi Gupta Aff
SJDI Camp Tournament 7/12/2018 R2 DMZ Heg Evelyn Lo Off the Dome Vincent Liu Neg
SJDI Camp Tournament 7/12/2018 R1 Skrrt Skrrt Andrew Do Off the Dome Gautam Iyer Neg
SJDI Camp Tournament 7/12/2018 R1 Skrrt Skrrt Sarim Mundres Space Force Shray Patel Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2018 CX R8 X106 X208 Aff Aff on a 3-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2018 CX R7 X266 X184 Aff Aff on a 3-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2018 CX R6 X274 X216 Aff Aff on a 2-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2018 CX R5 X183 X123 Neg Neg on a 2-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2018 CX R4 X250 X176 Neg Neg on a 2-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2018 CX R2 X116 X114 Aff Aff on a 2-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament 6/17/2018 CX R1 X225 X227 Aff
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/17/2018 JVLD R6 Loyola AS Northland Christian DF Neg
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/17/2018 JVLD R6 Lynbrook SG Loyola AA Neg
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/17/2018 VLD R4 Archbishop Mitty AS Colleyville Heritage CW Neg
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/17/2018 VLD R4 Marlborough CL Greenhill SK Neg
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/17/2018 VLD R3 New Trier WT Presentation NV Aff
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/17/2018 VLD R3 South Eugene WR Marlborough ZW Aff
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/17/2018 VLD R2 Loyola JN Harker KS Neg
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/17/2018 VLD R2 Palo Alto (Independent) FZ Colleyville Heritage SM Aff
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/17/2018 VLD R1 Beckman SS Notre Dame AB Neg
Cal Invitational UC Berkeley 2/17/2018 VLD R1 Henry W. Grady RB Marlborough JS Neg
Peninsula Invitational 1/19/2018 LD Octo Marlborough JS Harvard-Westlake JG Neg Neg on a 3-0
Peninsula Invitational 1/19/2018 LD Octo Loyola AO Harvard-Westlake MG Aff Neg on a 2-1
Peninsula Invitational 1/19/2018 LD R6 Yorba Linda Independent IV Harvard-Westlake KK Neg
Peninsula Invitational 1/19/2018 LD R6 Sage Hill Independent TG Los Osos Independent RN Aff
Peninsula Invitational 1/19/2018 LD R4 Northwood LE Harvard-Westlake LP Neg
Peninsula Invitational 1/19/2018 LD R4 Harker AV Flintridge Sacred Heart CB Aff
Peninsula Invitational 1/19/2018 LD R3 Marlborough ST Troy LG Neg
Peninsula Invitational 1/19/2018 LD R3 Harvard-Westlake JN Loyola AO Aff
Peninsula Invitational 1/19/2018 LD R2 Northwood AH Arroyo Grande Independent SD Neg
Peninsula Invitational 1/19/2018 LD R2 Harker AD Pacific Hills AS Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/18/2017 VLD Sextos Harvard-Westlake IP Greenhill SK Neg Neg on a 2-1
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/18/2017 VLD R7 Evanston Twp LT
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/18/2017 VLD R7 Presentation NV Oakwood School - North Hollywood SM Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/18/2017 VLD R6 Ardrey Kell JS Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/18/2017 VLD R4 Brookfield RL Cypress Bay NB Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/18/2017 VLD R3 Oakwood School - North Hollywood AW Kinkaid SS Neg
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/18/2017 VLD R3 Harvard-Westlake AM Kent Denver GR Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/18/2017 VLD R1 Harvard-Westlake JN Kinkaid JG Aff
Glenbrooks Speech and Debate Tournament 11/18/2017 VLD R1 Quarry Lane SK Harvard-Westlake SP Aff