NCFL 2019 Salt Lake Diocese

2019 — Draper Utah, UT/US

Urian Ayers Paradigm

Debaters should state their arguments and framework clearly, and present their evidence and counter-evidence in a clear and logical manner.

Addison Chambers Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Shelby Cluff Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Michael Dang Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Isaac Erickson Paradigm

I am more traditional. I enjoy statistics from reputable sources. I need clear sign posting. Support your case.

Maria Hiatt Paradigm

8 rounds

I'm pretty simple and will keep this brief. I probably won't cover your specific arguments, so ask me your question in-round or beforehand by email/Facebook.

Updated for Alta 2017 (LD)

I tend to be more at home with progressive debate, but you do you. I'll follow along. Be kind to your opponents. I won't time you, mostly out of consideration for the fact that I have never once not failed at signaling time.

My paradigm when judging LD and judging policy are very similar, and I do not believe there are significant differences in how the two events should be judged.

Because it's always asked, I am comfortable with your Ks, on either side. Be familiar with your literature, though.

Unless you say otherwise, I will default to competing interpretations. I am not a fan of hypothetical harms.

Jennifer Liddell Paradigm

8 rounds

Debate’s an activity for the debaters. I will judge how you tell me to. I will weigh the round in whatever way is provided and proven to be the most relevant reason to do so.

Bottom Line - I am not a progressive debater. I don't like tag teaming - both partners should be equally competent and every time you are speaking, you should stand. I consider myself a flow judge. I am not a big fan of K's or spreading. I like analytics. I don't like generic topicality arguments because I don't feel most aff's limit topics enough to be abusive. In LD and PF you should not have plans or run K's - make impact calc. explicit. In LD, you better have a value and uphold why your value is better. I think much of debate DOES come down to defining things correctly. Engaging and comparing - not theory - is what I value most.

Engage and compare – lots of teams just do “extend extend extend” without engaging the other team’s arguments. The first step is always important, but the second step needs to be there. Tell me why your arguments are good/important, and then why the other team’s arguments are not. Tell me reasons to prefer your evidence/arguments. Tell me what comes first. Tell me how and why and why not to evaluate arguments. Telling me in your last speech that John Smith's card from your first constructive cross applies to all their evidence - without reminding what the card said and WHY it cross applies basically means I will ignore it.

Kritiks – FOR POLICY ONLY! The more specific, the better. Please tailor your links to the 1AC. Generic K debates aren’t fun, but they can be if application to the 1AC is done. They should have a clear, well-explained advocacy. Impact calculus should be done. I will default to the aff being able to weigh their 1AC unless told otherwise. Affs should question and attack the alternative.

Speed - Okay as long as you slow down on tags and author names if you use them to signpost. If I miss it in the first constructive, I usually pick it up in the second – if you flow down the case. Please slow down on stuff like theory interps and plan texts.

· Do not drop other sides' arguments even in LD.

· Be organized in the presentation i.e. do not be all over the place. Structure is very important in arguments.

Jennifer Liddell Paradigm

Debate’s an activity for the debaters. I will judge how you tell me to. I will weigh the round in whatever way is provided and proven to be the most relevant reason to do so.

Bottom Line - I am not a progressive debater. I don't like tag teaming - both partners should be equally competent and every time you are speaking, you should stand. I consider myself a flow judge. I am not a big fan of K's or spreading. I like analytics. I don't like generic topicality arguments because I don't feel most aff's limit topics enough to be abusive. In LD and PF you should not have plans or run K's - make impact calc. explicit. In LD, you better have a value and uphold why your value is better. I think much of debate DOES come down to defining things correctly. Engaging and comparing - not theory - is what I value most.

Engage and compare – lots of teams just do “extend extend extend” without engaging the other team’s arguments. The first step is always important, but the second step needs to be there. Tell me why your arguments are good/important, and then why the other team’s arguments are not. Tell me reasons to prefer your evidence/arguments. Tell me what comes first. Tell me how and why and why not to evaluate arguments. Telling me in your last speech that John Smith's card from your first constructive cross applies to all their evidence - without reminding what the card said and WHY it cross applies basically means I will ignore it.

Kritiks – FOR POLICY ONLY! The more specific, the better. Please tailor your links to the 1AC. Generic K debates aren’t fun, but they can be if application to the 1AC is done. They should have a clear, well-explained advocacy. Impact calculus should be done. I will default to the aff being able to weigh their 1AC unless told otherwise. Affs should question and attack the alternative.

Speed - Okay as long as you slow down on tags and author names if you use them to signpost. If I miss it in the first constructive, I usually pick it up in the second – if you flow down the case. Please slow down on stuff like theory interps and plan texts.

· Do not drop other sides' arguments even in LD.

· Be organized in the presentation i.e. do not be all over the place. Structure is very important in arguments.

Judie Roberts Paradigm

Not Submitted

Joseph Robinson Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Sydnie Schoepf Paradigm

8 rounds

I am indifferent to spreading in LD/PF/CX. I look for quality evidence that's well articulated and individuals/teams that have solid follow-through after constructive(s) to not only attack the contentions of their opponent(s) but to resubstantiate/resupport their own points in response to their opponent's attacks or what their opponent has dropped.

I want good offense and defense without lacking professionalism. Ad Hominem attacks will work against you.

Cheryl Sneddon Paradigm

Not Submitted

Katie Wilkinson Paradigm

8 rounds

I am a high school English teacher, and current assistant coach at Alta High School. I have taught almost everything from 6th grade through 12th grade. I try to incorporate aspects of speech and debate into my classroom, and watching debate and speech competitors is a treat for me, and shows me what my students can achieve. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to judge your event.

Debate: Debate is about clash. That being said, if you decide to run a "K" and it does not logically fit with the topic, or opponents spend the debate arguing topicality rather than the topic, this could cost points/ranking. Contentions, frameworks, plans, etc need to be clear. Roadmaps are helpful, but not always required. Be ready to show evidence and have logical connections to your contentions, reasoning.

If you are speaking too quickly for me to understand, I will give you a signal. If you continue to go too fast for me to understand, and not seem to acknowledge my signal, this will impact your scoring.

Congress: I am looking for a well presented argument on the bill presented. Memorization is good, but not key. However, you should not be reading directly from your speech, especially further into the debate season. Evidence and logic are preferred in your speech, with references to your sources. My scoring is based on how many quality speeches are given, how many quality questions you as between speeches, and how knowledgeable you are about the topic you are presenting. Being a quality chair who is able to control the house/senate is key as well.

Speech: I am looking for a good speaker, someone I would enjoy listening to, and watching all day. Speakers should have clear voice, appropriate tone, and gestures, we well as props appropriate to topic (as event permits). Speeches should also have clear organization which matches topic and tone. Appropriate presentation and dress are a must.

In all events, be respectful and polite. Attack your opponents case, not your opponent, and always leave, if not as friends, at least acquaintances.