The Sunvitational
2020
—
Davie,
FL/US
Speech Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Edikan Abia
Everglades High School Debate
Last changed on
Fri November 3, 2023 at 3:04 PM EDT
About Me
I'm currently working toward a BFA in Game Design at New York University. I got into academic discourse through media and cultural critique and analysis. I previously judged at the Sunvitational Tournament in 2020. I generally focus on evidence-based argumentation. I do not tolerate bigotry of any kind, including but not limited to: racism, xenophobia, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, ableism.
Speech
I evaluate speeches based on internal logic and consistency. I also appreciate a strong storytelling element, but it should not detract from the subject. Speeches should be self-contained and within a set scope. For interpretation events, I tend to focus on strong narrative structure and pacing, a compelling performance, and originality.
Debate
Please lay out your arguments clearly and define any and all terminology you plan to use. Your arguments must be grounded in reality and supported with evidence, and you should aim to remain on-topic as much as possible. Do not interrupt your opponent; treat them with due dignity and respect. Finally, remember to speak clearly and precisely so listeners can understand you.
Overall, do your best and remember to have fun!
Abby Abidoye
Western High School
None
Gunjan Agrawal
Lake Highland Preparatory
8 rounds
Last changed on
Wed January 8, 2020 at 7:56 AM EDT
Hi, my name is Gunjan Agrawal and I am a parent judge for Lake Highland Preparatory School! This is my first year judging. Here are my preference for all the events.
OO - The speech should be either to inform or persuade. Showcasing the voice, passion for the topic and confidence in delivery.
OI - Different types of literature into one cohesive performance, clear motivated blocking, living in the character.
Extemporaneous - Looking for 3 good points and sources to back it up.
Declamation - Language elevated, inspirational, elegant. Speaking with confidence and authority.
Interpretation (HI, DI and Duo) - Entertaining, humorous, bringing characters to life, confidence and delivery.
LD - I do not often judge LD, but I will try my best to understand and critique your arguments.
Rashid Akbar
Ransom Everglades
None
Pierre Alberts
Cardinal Gibbons
None
Alexia Alzugaray
Northeast
None
Dr. Rajani Anne
King High School
None
Fiona Applebaum
Western High School
8 rounds
Last changed on
Mon November 2, 2020 at 4:57 AM EDT
Congress:
Clear points including cited evidence.
Want to see advancement of the bill.
Your speech should stand up to questioning.
Shawn Aycock
West Broward HS
Last changed on
Sun April 7, 2019 at 2:55 PM EDT
General Interp Paradigm
I value creativity including very unique informative topics. I enjoy blocking; however, only if it is clear. I also hate obscene movements that don't add to the overall build of the performance. I love realistic characters and absolutely don't enjoy cartoony characters(Unless it applies to the piece). I also feel that the performance should connect to the audience. Lastly, no matter your background in competitive success (Even if you are a national champion) I rank to what your current in round performance shows me.
Vanessa Ballard
Sarasota
None
Christine Barrau
Palm Beach Independent
None
Jessica Basi
St Thomas Aquinas HS
None
Chris Beck
South Plantation HS
None
Brady Beckman
Eastview HS
None
Varun Bhatia
Trinity Preparatory School
8 rounds
None
Last changed on
Fri January 19, 2024 at 5:58 AM EDT
Graduating Senior at Emory University studying Business Administration.
Debated for Dreyfoos School of the Arts and NSDA Team USA.
I help run World Schools for the Global Debate Symposium.
I’m a fan of organized clash, strong persuasive speaking techniques, energy, and weighing!
Michael Bole
Hire
8 rounds
Last changed on
Fri January 19, 2024 at 5:58 AM EDT
Graduating Senior at Emory University studying Business Administration.
Debated for Dreyfoos School of the Arts and NSDA Team USA.
I help run World Schools for the Global Debate Symposium.
I’m a fan of organized clash, strong persuasive speaking techniques, energy, and weighing!
Jonathan Boulanger
Flanagan
None
Traci Brennan
Pine View School
None
Kathryn Brudsinski
Western High School
None
Laura Brudzinski
Western High School
None
Gareth Bullock
Western High School
None
Joshua Bullock
Western High School
None
Melissa Cabral
Windermere
Last changed on
Fri January 10, 2020 at 5:03 AM EDT
I prefer-
• No spreading
• keep your own time
• Be respectful of your component
• confirm your internet is off
Good Luck
Kimberly Castillo
Ridge High School
None
Massimo Cifelli
Holy Ghost Prep
None
Courtney Coffman
Northland Christian School
Last changed on
Wed February 21, 2024 at 7:37 AM CDT
Background: I'm the Director of Debate at Northland Christian School in Houston, TX; I also coach Team Texas, the World Schools team sponsored by TFA. In high school, I debated for three years on the national and local circuits (TOC, NSDA, TFA). I was a traditional/LARP debater whenever I competed (stock and policy arguments, etc). I have taught at a variety of institutes each summer (MGW, GDS, Harvard).
Email Chain: Please add me to the email chain: court715@gmail.com.
2023-2024 Update: I have only judged at 1 or 2 circuit LD tournaments the last two years; I've been judging mainly WS at tournaments. If I'm judging you at Apple Valley, you should definitely slow down. I will not vote for something I don't understand or hear, so please slow down!
Judging Philosophy: I prefer a comparative worlds debate. When making my decisions, I rely heavily on good extensions and weighing. If you aren't telling me how arguments interact with each other, I have to decide how they do. If an argument is really important to you, make sure you're making solid extensions that link back to some standard in the round. I love counterplans, disads, plans, etc. I believe there needs to be some sort of standard in the round. Kritiks are fine, but I am not well-versed in dense K literature; please make sure you are explaining the links so it is easy for me to follow. I will not vote on a position that I don't understand, and I will not spend 30 minutes after the round re-reading your cards if you aren't explaining the information in round. I also feel there is very little argument interaction in a lot of circuit debates--please engage!
Theory/T: I think running theory is fine (and encouraged) if there is clear abuse. I will not be persuaded by silly theory arguments. If you are wanting a line by line theory debate, I'm probably not the best judge for you :)
Speaker Points: I give out speaker points based on a couple of things: clarity (both in speed and pronunciation), word economy, strategy and attitude. In saying attitude, I simply mean don't be rude. I think there's a fine line between being perceptually dominating in the round and being rude for the sake of being rude; so please, be polite to each other because that will make me happy. Being perceptually dominant is okay, but be respectful. If you give an overview in a round that is really fast with a lot of layers, I will want to give you better speaks. I will gauge my points based on what kind of tournament I'm at...getting a 30 at a Houston local is pretty easy, getting a 30 at a circuit tournament is much more difficult. If I think you should break, you'll get good speaks. Cussing in round will result in dropping your speaks.
Speed: I'd prefer a more moderate/slower debate that talks about substance than a round that is crazy fast/not about the topic. I can keep up with a moderate speed; slow down on tag lines/author names. I'll stop flowing if you're going too fast. If I can't flow it, I won't vote on it. Also, if you are going fast, an overview/big picture discussion before you go line by line in rebuttals is appreciated. Based on current speed on the circuit, you can consider me a 6 out of 10 on the speed scale. I will say "clear" "slow" "louder", etc a few times throughout the round. If you don't change anything I will stop saying it.
Miscellaneous: I don't prefer to see permissibility and skep. arguments in a round. I default to comparative worlds.
Other things...
1. I'm not likely to vote on tricks...If you decide to go for tricks, I will just be generally sad when making a decision and your speaks will be impacted. Also, don't mislabel arguments, give your opponent things out of order, or try to steal speech/prep time, etc. I am not going to vote on an extension of a one sentence argument that wasn't clear in the first speech that is extended to mean something very different.
2. Please don't run morally repugnant positions in front of me.
3. Have fun!
WS Specific Things
-I start speaks at a 70, and go up/down from there!
-Make sure you are asking and taking POIs. I think speakers should take 1 - 2 POIs per speech
-Engage with the topic.
-I love examples within casing and extensions to help further your analysis.
Antonella Colby
Western High School
Last changed on
Wed October 7, 2020 at 6:00 AM EDT
Elements for a successful speech performance would include the speaker exhibiting confidence and a clear understanding of the topic they are discussing. The speaker should be concise, prepared, and organized. While presenting, the student should use facial expressions, vocal inflection, and gestures appropriately. Overall, present a speech that you are proud of.
James Colby
Western High School
None
Daniel Contreras
Western High School
None
Carina Cruz
Miami Beach Sr HS
None
Sean Curtis
Northeast
None
Alex D'Innocenzo
Jupiter High School
None
Gigi Damle
Miami Beach Sr HS
None
MaiChi Dang
Trinity Preparatory School
None
Joele Denis
American Heritage Plantation HS
None
Desiree DeStefano
Ransom Everglades
None
Teri DiGiulian
NSU University School
Last changed on
Mon October 2, 2017 at 6:22 PM EDT
I am a lay debate judge, who is also an attorney. Persuade me. Don't speak fast. Use effective and well-timed pauses. Grab my attention and hold it. Show confidence and ease with piece.
Natasha Doski
Ridge High School
None
Arlene Esin
Cypress Bay HS
None
Kaila Fives
Trinity Preparatory School
None
Caroline Forbes
American Heritage Plantation HS
None
Warren Forstmann
Miramar High School
None
Ellis Fraser
Cypress Bay HS
None
Georgina Friend
Cypress Bay HS
None
Jacqueline Garza
Miramar High School
8 rounds
None
Sasha Gonzalez
West Broward HS
None
Vivian Gonzalez
Pembroke Pines Charter HS
8 rounds
None
Morgan Gray
St John's School
None
Brad Gregory
Western High School
None
Sudha Gullapalli
Carrollwood Day School
None
Kate Hamm
Ransom Everglades
This is my 39th year teaching and most of that I have also coached speech and debate. As far as debate goes, I coached LD starting in the mid 80's running on and off through 2017. I coached policy on and off from 1990-2000. I have coached PF on and off since its inception. I have coached congressional debate since the early 80's. I don't have a paradigm for Speech events, but I have coached and judged all speech events since the early 80's as well.
As a Congress Judge:
Delivery: I embrace the role play. You are all portraying legislators from across the country and should behave with the decorum that role suggests. That being said, we have legislators from across the country with various styles and habits -- that makes congress debate AWESOME! There is no single, perfect way to deliver!
Evidence Usage: CD is, at its core, a debate event. Arguments should have sound, sourced evidence that follows NSDA rules. Empirical claims require empirical evidence.
Analysis - If I am judging Congressional Debate, chances are the tournament is a national caliber tournament (otherwise I would be working in some capacity in tab). I expect high level analysis at a high level tournament. If you are the 4th speaker and beyond - I expect unique arguments and I expect analysis and refutation of earlier speakers. Crystallization speeches do not merely mention every speaker that spoke earlier on a piece of legislation. It literally crystallizes the two sides, weighs the impacts of the two sides, and persuades me of their chosen position.
Argument Impacts: Please identify who or what is impacted. Be specific. In CD, please explain real world impacts. The narrative of impacts is as important (if not more) as the numerics of impacts.
On the topic of cost benefit analysis and weighing... Be careful of playing the numbers game. A large number of persons harmed may not necessarily outweigh a single person harmed, if the single person's harm is total and complete and the larger number still enjoy existence.
Decorum: Behavior in and out of chambers is important. Respectful, educational, kind, and full of fun... these should be in balance! (I don't like boring debate)
I don't have a calculator on the above. Very seldom is there a debater who is awesome at them all... But all need to be part of the mix. If I am judging a top round, I suspect that all speakers will be amazing! That means the final ranking will come down to relevance in the round. If all speeches were brilliant, questioning and answering were spot on, and knowledge of topics is at the top, who stood out as the genuine, 'real deal'?
PF Paradigm - I embrace the notion that the event is intended to be judged by an informed public forum. That does not mean dumbing down arguments because you think the judge is dumber than you because they didn't go to camp (adults don't go to camp). I think most judges want to hear good arguments that pertain to the resolution and want to hear clash between positions. That being said, here is my more specific paradigm:
Speed - I love an energetic debate, but save spreading for policy (and sadly LD). You should have written a prima facie case that either affirms or negates. It should be written so that the first speaker can energetically deliver it. Most PF spread isn't really spread, it is spewing and incoherent choking due largely to the student's failure to adequately cut their case. I am fine with clean, clear, speed. Can I hear arguments delivered at 385 wpm? yes. Will I flow them? probably not.
Frameworks - Sure, if you really are running a framework. If it is legit (and stays up in the round throughout), both sides will be weighing impacts within that framework.
Observations - Sure, if they are observations. Observations are not arguments. They are observations. "It is raining - observation: things are wet." "If Trump wins the election it will trigger nuclear war" is an argument, not an observation.
Warrants and Impacts are your friends!! Numbers are just numbers - how do they happen? why do they happen? who is affected and why them? is there possible counter causality? Really good logic if well explained will beat blippy numbers. Well explained statistics that are connected and clear will beat poor logic.
Flowing - Yes, I flow. I expect you to do so as well. I don't flow card names and dates - so make sure when you refer to a piece of evidence you reference what it says, not a name.
Jargon - I am not a fan. Don't say de-link. It is often unwarranted. Explain how and why. Unique is a noun, not a verb. You cannot 'non-unique' something. I love turns, but don't just spout 'turn.' Explain why their argument works against them. Or show how their impacts actually are good, not bad. At its heart debate is a communication education activity; I take your education seriously.
Kritiks - They are arguments. I was okay with them in policy when they were a 'thing,' largely because policy is more game than debate. I was not okay with them in LD when used as a gimmick. I am the LD judge that still clings to the notion that we should have value debate. However, a well thought out K that communicates the impact of the issue must be answered in any debate! In PF, I might be okay if a team ran a kritik that they truly believed in, and they clearly had the ethos and pathos to convince me it wasn't just a gimmick, I MIGHT vote on the K if it is argued well. OR, if their opponents clearly understood the K but just didn't want to deal with it. A K is still an argument, and the premise of the K needs to be responded to as an argument. If not, chances are I am going to vote for the K.
I am not a fan of: rude behavior, gender put-downs, dog whistle language, or individuals being mean/cocky just for the heck of it. =26s-27s. I would go lower, but most tournaments won't let me.
I love intense and lively debate. I love true arguments that are well researched, argued, and impacted. I love smart. Smart gets 29.5s and 29.9s. It has been a very long time since I gave 30's but I do give them!
Erica Hansinger
Western High School
8 rounds
None
Diane Harrison
West Broward HS
8 rounds
Last changed on
Thu February 18, 2021 at 3:30 PM EDT
Quick paradigm- I feel I am strongest in judging interpretation. I enjoy Informative and Oratory speeches as this gives me an opportunity to learn what is important to the performer. My least favorite event to judge is extemporaneous as I am not well versed in politics.
Rhonda Hasan
St Thomas Aquinas HS
None
Daliss Hicks
Miramar High School
None
Daniel Hodges
Apple Valley HS
None
Lalee Ibssa
Trinity Preparatory School
None
Laramie Jackson
Moorhead HS
None
Mukesh Jain
Western High School
None
Smitha Jayakumar
King High School
None
Kristen Johnson
Pine View School
None
Nathan Johnston
Trinity Preparatory School
Last changed on
Fri February 23, 2024 at 4:24 AM EDT
Director of Speech and Debate at Lake Highland Prep - Orlando, FL
Email chain info: njohnston@lhps.org
The Paradigm:
Debate is meant to be a fun activity! I think you should do whatever you need to do to ride your own personal happiness train. So have a good time in our rounds. That said, remember that riding your happiness train shouldn't limit someone else's ability to ride their's. So be kind. Have fun, learn stuff, don't be a jerk though.
I've been around debate for over 15 years. You can read whatever arguments in front of me and I'm happy to evaluate them. I'm fine if you want to LARP, read Ks, be a phil debater, do more trad stuff, or whatever else. I'm good with theory as long as you're generating genuine, in-round abuse stories. Frivolous theory and tricks are not something I'm interested in listening to. If I'm judging you online, go like 50% of your max spreading because hearing online is difficult. I'd like to be on email chains, but we all should accept that SpeechDrop is better and use it more. Otherwise, do whatever you want.
Rankings:
K - 1
Phil - 2
Policy - 1
High theory - 2.5 (it'll be ok but I'm going to need you to help me understand if its too far off the wall)
Theory - 1 (but the good kind), 4 (for the bad, friv kind)
Tricks - you should probably strike me
The Feels:
I'm somewhat ideologically opposed to judge prefs. As someone who values the educative nature of our events, I think judge adaptation is important. To that end, I see judge paradigms as a good way for you to know how to adapt to any given judge in any given round. Thus, in theory, you would think that I am a fan of judge paradigms. My concern with them arises when we are no longer using them to allow students the opportunity to adapt to their judges, but rather they exist to exclude members from the potential audience that a competitor may have to perform in front of (granted I think there is real value in strikes and conflicts for a whole host of reasons, but prefs certainly feed into the aforementioned problem). I'm not sure this little rant has anything to do with how you should pref/strike me, view my paradigm, etc. It kind of makes me not want to post anything here, but I feel like my obligation as a potential educator for anyone that wants to voice an argument in front of me outweighs my concerns with our MPJ system. I just think it is something important and a conversation we should be having. This is my way of helping the subject not be invisible.
Janay Joseph
Everglades High School Debate
Last changed on
Sat October 14, 2023 at 5:05 AM EDT
I have judged both speech/ IEs and debate events since 2016. I am currently studying for a Master of Arts in Media Studies. I have a Bachelor of Arts in History, and have previously competed in various Speech and Debate events for all four years of high school, was previously Vice President of the Model United Nations team at Nova Southeastern University, and have chaired several Model UN Committees since 2019.
My preferences are somewhat traditional. I make sure to flow notes throughout the round, weighing and articulating both the good and the bad that happens while writing my critiques. I will not tolerate disrespectful behavior which includes but is not limited to talking while a competitor is speaking, interrupting competitors excessively while they are answering a question, as well as racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, etc.
Debate
Please assume that I know nothing about the topic when the round begins. Clearly state all definitions, clarify your framework, and elaborate on all progressive arguments with clarity as if I am not familiar with them (kritiks, theory, topicality, ect). I will only allow spreading as long as it is explicitly requested before the round begins, and the opponent(s) is/are comfortable with it as well. Here are a few more of my general preferences regarding debate events:
-
Keep crossfires and cross examination civil and remember to respect one another
-
When it comes to weighing, I like to focus on links and impacts. The strongest usually win the round.
-
Make sure links and impacts are clear. If a claim is introduced without this support, I will consider the argument dropped.
-
Disclosure depends on the tournament however I will only disclose who wins the round if both parties are comfortable with me doing so.
Lincoln Douglas and Policy Debate
I have competed in LD for two years in high school, and am familiar with most values/ criterion, theories, Ks ect that come along with it. Still, make sure to clearly state all definitions and framework as if me or your opponent is not familiar with it. A few more preferences:
-
Do not abuse your opponent
-
Can run Ks as long as they relate to the topic at hand
-
Assertiveness is fine in cross-examination, just don’t confuse it with aggression
-
If you want to win the round, make sure you’re crystallizing your arguments, weigh positions, and clearly state why your position should win
Public Forum Debate
In between my two years of debate, I competed in PF for about a year as well, and have been judging the event for over four years. You can pretty much run whatever you want as long as it makes sense. A few more general preferences:
-
Make sure all cards and information are up to date, within the past five years is my allowance unless the reference of a historical event is necessary for the framework of the case
-
Anything mentioned in Summary and Final Focus has to be mentioned earlier on in debate or else it will be scratched from the record
Speech and IEs
For all speech and IEs, I generally rank based on creativity, performance, delivery, and passion for the subject at hand.
For Extemp and Oratory, I follow general guidelines but vote on cohesiveness and clarity of the arguments. Do not go up there and spout truisms without evidence; there needs to be a purpose to them. How you present the facts also matters. Make sure to distinguish some of these guidelines for Info. You can have a creative informative speech with meaning and without explicitly mentioning your argument.
As for Interp events, I lean heavily into creativity, strong structure/ story line, and blocking that is intentional. I need to see clear character development, and if I feel your performance is lacking in this area you lose structure. Feel free to go outside of the usual conventions for these events. If your performance is unlike anything that I’ve seen before, you’ll usually get the 1.
Congress
For Congress, on the argumentative side it's very similar to the criteria I listed in the Debate section. I rank based on meaningful clash, solid argumentations, excellent weighing, and comparison of impacts. Your performance and presentation can be excellent, but if the argument falls apart during your speech I will count that against your overall rank. As for the PO, you will always be ranked within the top 6 depending on the tournament. Where you fall on the overall rank will depend on how you run the chamber based on equity, fairness, flexibility, and inclusivity.
Sherri Kappler
Southlake Carroll
None
Fahmida Khatun
Palm Beach Independent
None
Paula Laird-Williams
Cypress Bay HS
None
Mark Lawrence
Ft Lauderdale HS
Last changed on
Thu February 13, 2020 at 9:24 AM EDT
What I am looking for in a debate is a smooth and clear presentation of the facts and the case that is being presented. Please make sure that references are clearly stated and presented. Most of all I like a spirited debate where both sides are courteous but professional to each other.
Edna Lawson
Holy Trinity Episcopal Academy
None
Robyn Leach
Western High School
8 rounds
None
Susan Lendzian
American Heritage Plantation HS
None
Phinio Leon
Western High School
None
Sonnia Leon
Western High School
None
Tracy Leve
American Heritage Plantation HS
None
Bret Levesque
American Heritage Plantation HS
None
Tyler Loring
Western High School
Last changed on
Sat November 14, 2020 at 5:29 AM EDT
flow college policy debater
ex highschool extemper
Suzie Louis
Suncoast Comm HS
None
Sabrina Lyn
Hire
8 rounds
None
Noah MacDonald
West Broward HS
None
Tatiana Mais
Cardinal Gibbons
None
Jeannie Malinsky
Cardinal Gibbons
Last changed on
Sat January 11, 2020 at 3:11 AM EDT
I am a lay judge and have been judging for 2 years. I prefer traditional/topical arguments. Please don't use speed or spreading - I am likely to lose the thread of your logic and won't be able to judge you on the fullness of your case. Please don't use jargon or undefined acronyms unique to LD without defining.
Georgiana Manasturean
Sheridan Technical HS
None
Karin Mejia
Western High School
None
Haritha Mellacheruvu
West Broward HS
None
Rebecca Meyer-Larson
Moorhead HS
None
Raynalda Milord
Dr. Michael Krop Sr. High School
None
Asma Naeem
Western High School
None
Jenny Neel
Bethlehem High School
None
Truong Nguyen
Northeast
None
Darrell Nicholson
Pine View School
8 rounds
Last changed on
Tue January 30, 2024 at 9:51 AM EDT
Barkley Forum: I am only available to judge on Sunday, Jan. 26 -- or, Saturday, Jan. 25 -- but not both days.
Speech: I am a lay judge. I favor competitors who, in addition to being polished speaker/actors, creative thinkers, and deep researchers, convince me that they believe every word they say. In DP events, I look for seamless presentation, convincing characterization, and effective uses of pauses and blocking. In pieces that feature multiple characters, the characters should be easily distinct.
PF: I am a lay judge. I favor competitors who, in addition to being polished speakers, creative thinkers, and deep researchers, convince me that they believe every word they say. In PF events, I look for substantive arguments that are well organized and presented clearly.
Congress: I am a lay judge with experience at the highest levels of judging, including NSDA Nationals, and The Sunvitational (finals). In congress, each speech and participation should illustrate an exquisite understanding of the bill being debated and a brilliant sense of flow. I am delighted by POs who have a good grasp of parliamentary procedure and show absolutely no favoritism. Speakers (and questioners) need to keep their composure during cross-ex, avoid smugness.
Lisa Novorska
Hillsborough
None
Ramat Omole
Pembroke Pines Charter HS
8 rounds
None
Michele Orcinolo
Western High School
None
Venus Oro
West Broward HS
None
Luke Ostrander
Apple Valley HS
None
sejal patel
Trinity Preparatory School
None
Paisit Paueksakon
Ravenwood HS
None
Andrew Prazeres
Lake Highland Preparatory
None
Joseph Quintana
American Heritage Plantation HS
None
Chris Relyea
Nova HS
None
Misty Rier
St Thomas Aquinas HS
8 rounds
None
Michael Rossano
Nova HS
None
Joane Rudel
Pine View School
None
Shone Sadler
Stoneman Douglas HS
Last changed on
Fri October 2, 2020 at 11:22 AM EDT
Hello everyone, please have patience as I am a parent judge with limited experience in Debate. I am a Principle Scientist working on Big Data problems by trade. I hope to provide what constructive feedback I can and look forward to hearing from all you talented debaters.
Eileen Salery
Royal Palm Beach HS
None
Andy Seiden
Western High School
None
Hailey Shaughnessy
Pine View School
None
Michael Shaw
Sarasota
None
Cory Shay
Gwynedd Mercy
None
Cade Shelton
Apple Valley HS
Last changed on
Sat January 9, 2021 at 12:52 PM CDT
DEBATE PARADIGM
Hello! I want to be as transparent as possible in what I will be basing my decision on: Speaking, argument clarity, and signposting are HUGE for me.
- I will be flowing your speech- if you don't tie back to your original points or extend your reasoning, I will notice.
- Evidence and logic are important- it is easy to make a claim, the real work comes in supporting it. Link these to the impacts it has.
- Signposting- You need to do this to create synergy and flow in your speech and arguments. The organization of your thoughts is imperative.
- Speak clearly, I need to be able to hear you... which also means speaking quickly enough to make your points, but slowly enough to process what you're saying. There is a strength and polish that comes in being concise with your words.
- Tell me why your arguments and side should win by weighing the impacts in the round; especially when reiterating your points vs. your opponent. Clear voting!
- I believe speech/debate should be fun competition; if you are being disrespectful, discriminatory, or otherwise out of pocket, not only will I say something, you will also lose the round.
Have fun!!
Shirley Shirley
Ransom Everglades
Last changed on
Mon October 26, 2020 at 4:27 PM EDT
I am a parent judge - this is my third year judging. I look for a confident delivery and clear articulation of ideas. My background is in law and finance.
Leah Silver
Wellington
None
Jacqueline Singletary
Royal Palm Beach HS
None
Brendan Sossoman
Western High School
8 rounds
None
Amy Southworth
Newsome High School
None
Mrs Steiner
Lake Highland Preparatory
Last changed on
Sat November 10, 2018 at 3:18 AM EDT
Ms. Steiner's Paradigm for Public Forum -
I am a debate mom. My judging experience consists of only two tournaments from last year. Please take the following into consideration:
1) Explain arguments clearly and effectively - Do not speak too fast. The arguments being read are mostly new to my ear. Assume I know nothing, and that you must thoroughly explain everything in order for me to understand. An argument is only solid if I can understand and evaluate it in my decision.
2) Signpost - I do my best to flow, but I do find this exercise to be challenging. If I know where an argument should be placed on my chart, I can write it down and conduct a more effective evaluation.
3) Off time road map – It will help to set my expectations before speeches are given.
4) Weigh…… At the end of any debate, multiple arguments are at play. If you let me know which arguments are most important, I will evaluate those argument first.
Thanks!
Allison Stroud
Hire
8 rounds
None
George Suarez
Western High School
Last changed on
Sun October 11, 2020 at 7:15 AM EDT
mechanics of speech, the poise, quality, use of voice, effectiveness, ease of gesture, emphasis, variety, and pronunciation.
Tong Sun
Sun Independent
None
Deepa Taneja
Lake Highland Preparatory
Last changed on
Sat December 14, 2019 at 6:08 AM EDT
Hi, my name is Deepa Taneja and I am a parent judge for Lake Highland Preparatory School! Here are my preferences for all events.
I have been judging OO for the last 2+ years.
OO - Showcase the voice, passion for the topic and confidence in delivery.
It helps if the topic is informative or persuasive
OI - Different types of literature into one performance, clear motivated blocking,staying in the character.
Extemporaneous - Looking for 3 good points and sources to support these points
Interpretation (HI, DI and Duo) - Entertaining, humorous, bringing characters to life,clarity and delivery.
LD - I do not often judge LD, but I will try my best to understand and critique your arguments.
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 1:49 PM CDT
Background:
- I teach English 11, Journalism, and College Writing at Moorhead High School. This is my 10th year at MHS.
- I have coached speech for the past 10 seasons, primarily PA events (Discussion, Ex. Speaking, GS, Info, OO).
- I have been the Head Debate Coach at MHS since 2017 when we revived the program. Over the past seven years, I have coached PF and Congress. Our team also competes in LD.
- I regularly judge PF and Congress during the regular season and have judged Congress and PF at State for the past four years. I've also judged PF at national circuit tournaments and NSDA Nationals. In speech, I've judged all events at the local, regional, and national level since 2015.
A more detailed paradigm is below but, regardless of the event, please know that respect, integrity, and decorum are paramount. Offensive language, condescension, and aggression at any point in the round will ensure a loss/lowest possible rank. In short, be kind.
Public Forum:
- Speed is fine so long as it doesn't come at the cost of clarity. Quality over quantity usually prevails. Clear signposting and extending voters goes a long way toward winning the round. Take the time to ensure that 'dropped' contentions are fully explained.
- Please do not bombard us with cards. Evidence (directly and appropriately quoted) is important but I am far more interested in your analysis and deeper explanation. Demonstrate your understanding and show us how that evidence functions with regard to your opponent's claims and the case you are building.
- Stay cool and composed, especially during cross. Shouting matches serve little purpose. When you ask a question, I expect that you actually want to hear the answer.
- Timing - While I expect debaters to honor time restrictions and keep record, I will also keep track and will hold you to those parameters. Please don't abuse it.
Congress:
- Much like PF, it's quality over quantity for me. Two, or maybe three, sub points defending or negating a piece of legislation with sound, clear analysis is more important than a lengthy list of reasons with little time to explain. Long intros that meander before reaching the thesis, to me, are not the best use of time (I know, I sound like a curmudgeon. Have fun with it but not at the expense of dropping or rushing a point previewed in the intro).
- Demonstrate your understanding of the bill/resolution and its language. Reference specifics within the legislation (section and/or line numbers are helpful). I think it can be easy to find small, grammatical or typographical errors and point solely to that as a reason for negating (and in some cases, those issues should be noted), but please take the time to debate the merits of the legislation as well.
- Active listening - Above all, this one stands out to me the most and usually becomes my tiebreaker when ranks are super close. This can be as small as directly referencing -- by name -- previous speakers and their points or even making occasional eye contact while others are speaking . . . Active listening also means building upon established claims/reasons in your speeches and in questioning. If there's nothing new or insightful to add, it's best to move to previous Q to retain your spot in line. On a related note, please make an effort to correctly pronounce the names of your fellow competitors (and if yours is mispronounced, please correct them...and correct me too).
- POs - I tend to start POs in the top 5-6 of my rankings and adjust based on the overall organization, order, and smoothness of the round. I try to track P/R when scoring and definitely do as a Parli. Small errors can be forgiven (we're all human) if recognized but, especially late in the season, running for PO tells me that you are comfortable with the job. As such, I will hold POs to that standard much like the standards set for Reps/Sens in the round.
Claudia Tio
Cooper City HS
Last changed on
Wed October 21, 2020 at 10:16 PM EDT
Education:
Everglades High School (Class of 2016)
University of Florida, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, BA in Political Science and History (Class of 2020)
University of Florida, College of Education, Graduate Certificate in Secondary Education (In progress)
Relevant Experience:
Student Government Senator at the University of Florida (September 2019 - July 2020)
Individual Events Staffer -> Assistant Director at the FBK Speech & Debate Tournament (October 2017 - October 2018)
Judged way too much for free (mostly speech events. Have also done novice Congress, PF, and LD)
Broward Debate Initiative alumna (the first person in Everglades HS history to qualify to NSDA Nationals!)
Judging Philosophy and Quirks:
1) I prioritize accessibility in the speech and debate world, which is why I'm drawn to speech events and occasionally Congress.
2) I have zero tolerance for any explicit racist, sexist, homophobic, classist, or ableist behavior.
3) For Extemp and debaters: Please IMPACT your points. Spell it out for me: Why should I care?
4) I tend to write A LOT on my ballots. I don't try to be harsh/mean on purpose - just want to give you a lot of feedback!
Alyssa Vaknin
Bak Middle School of the Arts
None
Francis Viamontes
American Heritage Plantation HS
None
Nalini Vijay
Palm Beach Independent
None
Tzitel Voss
Apple Valley HS
None
Brandi Walls
Santa Fe High School
None
Melina Walzer
Western High School
None
Bradley Wascher
Lake Highland Preparatory
None
Lise-Marie Wertanzl
Cypress Bay HS
None
Rachel West
Cypress Bay HS
Last changed on
Mon October 26, 2020 at 10:32 AM EDT
This is my 3rd year directing a team. I am primarily a speech coach. I'm looking for clear, persuasive tone.
I flow the rounds and appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence and knowledge of your sources. Not all sources are created equal so be willing to evaluate them. The date of a source can be important --- eg, it has current up-to-date information or it is a classic or comprehensive source that has not been superseded.
I value comprehensive arguments and reasoning as well substantial evidence.
I don't flow cross but I'm very much listening.
I will not insert myself into the round, meaning if I don't buy something but your opponent doesn't bring it up it will not affect you. However, you will see it on my ballot.
I have no problem with framework debate.
Think big, think critically.
Thank you
Barry Wigington
Bishop Moore Catholic HS
None
Stephanie Wurtenberger
Cypress Bay HS
None
David Yastremski
Ridge High School
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 12:25 PM EDT
David Yastremski
Director - Ridge High School
30+ years experience coaching and judging
LD/PF/PARLI
I'm considered a very traditional flow judge within the various competitive debate arenas. I appreciate slightly-higher than conversational rates as a maximum. I will afford you a 'clear' if necessary.
I do expect and reward debate with a clear framework of understanding. I also like direct application of your argument to clear and defined system(s). I don’t believe we exist in a vacuum – there must be context for me to consider and weigh an argument, and I recognize the resolution is created and should be interpreted within a particular context. Therefore, hypothetical worlds must be warranted as reasonable within a pragmatic context developed within the resolution. I appreciate creative, though plausible and non-abusive, House interpretations in Parliamentary rounds.
In LD and PF, all evidence must be clearly tagged and clearly linked to the grounds within your claims. In Parliamentary, examples should be true, contextually-defined, when appropriate, and directly linked to your claims. You can create hypothetical examples or indicate your personal beliefs on an issue; however, if you are unsure what a particular constitutional amendment or Supreme Court decision states, please avoid introducing it. Also, where tag-teaming is permitted, proceed with caution. One or two interjections is fine. More than that diminishes your partner's voice/skill and will be considered in speaker points and, if excessive, the RFD.
Crystallization is key to winning the round. Be sure you allow yourself ample time to establish clear grounds and warrants on all voters. I don’t consider arguments just because they are uttered; you must explain the ‘why’ and the ‘so what’ in order for me to weigh them in my decision, in other words, directly impact them to the framework/standards. I do appreciate clear signposting throughout the round in order to make the necessary links and applications to other arguments, and I will give you more speaker points if you do this effectively. Speaker points are also rewarded for competence, clarity, and camaraderie during the round. In LD and PF, I will not give below a 26 unless you're rude and/or abusive.
Overall, please remember, I may not be as well-read on the resolution as you are. I do not teach at camps; I don’t teach debate in any structured class, nor do I judge as regularly or frequently as others. I will work hard to reach the fairest decision in my capacity. I really enjoy judging rounds where the contestants make a concerted effort to connect with me and my paradigm. I don't enjoy rounds where I or my paradigm is ignored. Thanks for reading this far!! Best of luck in your round.
CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE:
I have 25+ years experience in Congressional 'Debate' and REALLY enjoy judging/parli'ing great rounds! I evaluate 'student congress' as a debate event; hence, if you are early in the cycle, I am looking for clear affirmative and negative grounds to establish clash and foundation for the remainder of the debate. If you speak later in the cycle, I expect extensions and refutations of what has already been established as significant issues in the debate (beyond just name dropping). I see each contribution on the affirmative and negative sides as extensions of the previous speeches presented; consequently, if there is a significant argument that has not been addressed to by opponents, I expect later speakers to build and expand on it to strengthen it. Likewise, if speakers on the other side do not respond to a significant issue, I will consider it a 'dropped argument' which will only increase the ranking of the student who initially made it, and lower the rankings of students who failed to recognize, respond or refute it; however, it is the duty of questioners to challenge opposing speakers thus reminding the room (including the judges) on significant arguments or issues that have gone unrefuted. In other words, students should flow the entire round and incorporate that information into their speeches and questions. I also highly encourage using the amendment process to make legislation better. Competitors who attempt it, with germane and purposeful language, will be rewarded on my ballot.
Most importantly, enjoy the unique experience of Congressional Debate. There are so many nuances in this event that the speech and debate other events cannot provide. Own and appreciate your opportunity by demonstrating your best effort in respectful dialogue and debate and be your best 'self' in the round. If you do, the rewards will far outweigh the effort.
EVIDENCE: All claims should be sufficiently warranted via credible evidence which ideally include both theoretical and empirical sources. I reward those who consider constitutional, democratic, economic, diplomatic frameworks, including a range of conservative to liberal ideologies, to justify their position which are further substantiated with empirical examples and data. All evidence should be verbally-cited with appropriate source and date. Students should always consider biases and special interests when choosing sources to cite in their speeches. I also encourage students to challenge evidence during refutations or questioning, as time and warrant allows.
PARTICIPATION: I reward participation in all forms: presiding, amending, questioning, flipping, and other forms of engagement that serve a clear purpose to the debate and fluent engagement within the round. One-sided debate indicates we should most likely move on to the next piece of legislation since we are ready to vote; therefore, I encourage students to stand for additional speeches if your competitors are not willing to flip, yet do not wish to move to previous question (as a matter of fact I will highly reward you for 'debating' provided that you are contributing to a meaningful debate of the issues). I expect congressional debaters to remain engaged in the round, no matter what your speaking order, therefore leaving the chamber for extended periods of time is highly discouraged and will be reflected in my final ranking. Arriving late or ending early is disrespectful to the chamber and event. Competitors who appear to bulldoze or disenfranchise others regarding matters of agenda-setting, agenda-amendments, speaking position/sides can also be penalized in ranking. I am not fond of splits before the round as I've seen many students, typically younger folks, coerced into flipping; hence, students should just be ready to debate with what they've prepared. If you are concerned with being dropped, I recommend exploring arguments on both sides of the bill/resolution.
PRESIDING OFFICER: Thank you for being willing to serve the chamber. I look highly upon students who run for PO. If elected, be sure you demonstrate equity and fairness in providing the optimum opportunity for every competitor to demonstrate their skills as a debater and participant in the chamber. I value POs who assert a respectful command and control of the room. Do not allow other competitors to take over without your guidance and appropriate permissions (even during breaks while others may be out of the room). Your procedures of recognizing speakers (including questioning) should be clearly communicated at the top of the round to promote transparency and a respect for all members of the chamber. Mistakes in recency or counting votes happen -- no big deal (just don't make it repetitive). Public spreadsheets are appreciated.
DELIVERY, STYLE and RHETORIC: Good delivery takes the form of an argument and audience-focused presentation style. Authorship/ Sponsorship/ first-negative speeches can be primarily read provided the competitor communicates a well-developed, constructed, and composed foundation of argument. These speeches should be framework and data rich -- and written with a rhetorical prowess that conveys a strong concern and commitment for their advocacy.
After the first speeches, I expect students to extend or refute what has been previously stated - even if offering new arguments. These speeches should be delivered extemporaneously with a nice balance of preparation and spontaneity, demonstrating an ability to adapt your advocacy and reasoning to what has been previously presented. Trivial or generic introductions/closings typically do not get rewarded in my rankings. I would much prefer a short, direct statement of position in the opening and a short, direct final appeal in the closing. Good rhetorical technique and composition in any speech is rewarded.
DECORUM & SUSPENSION OF THE RULES: I highly respect all forms of decorum within the round. I value your demonstration of respect for your colleagues referring to competitors by their titles (senator, representative) and indicated gender identifiers. Avoid deliberate gender-specific language "you guys, ladies and gentlemen" etc. I encourage any suspension of the rules, that are permitted by the tournament, which contribute to more meaningful dialogue, debate, and participation. Motions for a suspension of the rules which reflect a lack of decorum or limit opportunity are discouraged. I also find "I'm sure you can tell me" quite evasive and flippant as an answer.