The Holiday Havoc Invitational
2019 — Columbia HS, Nampa, ID/US
Kayce Anderson Paradigm
Tristan Andrea Paradigm
Eddie At Columbia Paradigm
Nicole Balderson Paradigm
No spreading, be respectful, please give sign posts :)
Elizabeth Bates Paradigm
Amy Beck Paradigm
Sharolyn Belzer Paradigm
Leslie Benitez Paradigm
Brooke Bennett Paradigm
Clarity and Warrant
April Bishop Paradigm
Sara Borjian Paradigm
Keith Borup Paradigm
Robert Bradley Paradigm
Paradigm * November 2019
I like judging. That is why I am here. Have fun during this tournament and during your debate adventures. You can make some great friends through high school debate. Let me know if I can help, or if you have any questions. I appreciate humor, and I prefer courteous debate. I won’t judge you on what you wear, or other irrelevant factors. During a debate round I do not judge you on any “speech” criteria. Most tournaments do not allow me to give any type of results, comments, or advice after the end of the round. If you see me later during the tournament I probably can give you feedback.
I am looking for significant “voter” issues. I do not choose them myself unless forced to choose because the debaters did not help me to make a choice. I want the debaters in the round to tell me how to vote. I will sometimes have to decide on my own which arguments are most significant but I always prefer the debaters to tell me. Your debate will have a much bigger impact on the type of judge I am than anything I could say here. Remember to have fun! Don't be rude. Sassy and humorous are fine. Be confident without being a jerk. If the teams are mismatched don't be condescending; don't roll your eyes. Don’t lie. Debate like you want to be here debating. If this is your first time debating… keep this to yourself. Please do not tell me “I’ve never done this before!”
Speed: I have an issue with speed. If you talk too fast I will tune out. *
Help me flow your debate. I like signposts. I like crystallization. I like it when you point out your voting issues at the end of the round. I like stock issues: solvency, harms, inherency, and significance. Off-time roadmaps are fine. Finish your question if the time runs out. The opposing side does not have to answer, but they can answer if they want to answer.
I will evaluate the kritik first in the debate round before any other question is resolved, and if the kritik must be compared to the plan, then the kritik will outweigh the plan or value position. The kritik is an argument that must be adjudicated first before we can evaluate other issues in the round. This pre-fiat discussion takes place before we even get to talking about what happens after we pass the plan (post-fiat). Topicality is the same: we have to decide if the plan is even allowed to be discussed within the resolution before we can evaluate it. Kritiks are ‘pre-fiat’ because it is the only ‘real’ thing that happens in a debate round. Kritiks often target things which are explicitly real world that had an impact in real life. We should talk about what really happened in the debate round before we talk about what might happen in an imaginary world where some made up plan might get implemented.
I am well informed about local, state, national, and international issues, including politics and the environment. I am passionate about personal freedom and individual liberty.
Judging/ Coaching Highlights:
8 years as a coach and judge at Highland High School, Pocatello, Idaho
Idaho State Speech & Debate Championships 2014 to 2018
Beehive Bonanza at the University of Utah
Alta High School (TOC Debate) in Sandy, Utah
Jack Howe Memorial Debate Tournament at Cal State Long Beach
National Speech & Debate Association Nationals: 2014, 2015 & 2016
Coach for: + Individual Speech Events + Debate + Congress
Kitrina Burgess Paradigm
Paradigm for Congressional Debate:
Clear, logical organization
Fresh and unique arguments and refutations that advance the debate
Poised and confident delivery including appropriate voice volume and speed, eye contact with the judge and audience, and demeanor
Observation of parliamentary rule to keep the debate moving in a positive direction
Please be polite and use good manners while in chamber. Correct pronunciation of unfamiliar words is advantageous.
Keep debate moving by recognizing speakers fairly and consistently. Appropriate use of parliamentary procedure issues.
Chris Carlise Paradigm
Michele Carney Paradigm
Sandra Cawley Paradigm
Christine Clevenger Paradigm
Rachael Cope Paradigm
Alyson Corgatelli Paradigm
Tim Cornell Paradigm
Marcy Curr Paradigm
I have been involved in speech and debate for 25 years. I did policy in High School and debated Parli in College. I have head or assistant coached for the past 19 years.
I consider myself a Communication/Stock Issues judge with strong policy maker tendencies. I like to see REALISTIC impact calc and am likely to vote for the Aff if there is no risk of a disadvantage. Theory/K: I have only voted for 1 K. I think they are a great tool in college debate and usually high school students run them as a generic, underdeveloped off case. If you didn't personally cut the cards and write the K and if you can't explain the premise to your mom in 30 seconds...you probably won't win my ballot with it. CP: need to be able to prove mutual exclusivity and net benefit. MUST be NON-TOPICAL. Delivery: I can flow quickly and follow fast argumentation. HOWEVER--communication is important. Abnormal breathing will lose you points as will shotgun-style spreading. Develop deep arguments with claim, data, warrant. Tag Teaming: Don't make your partner look dumb. Time: Aside from the 10 second roadmap, the clock is running. Jump during prep or CX.
Curtesy and Ethics are a BIG DEAL!
I am a traditional LD judge. I do NOT think Plans, CP, or K belong in LD. Keep to the V/C debate. Weigh your arguments. Should be more rhetorical (more your words, fewer cards) than policy. Judged heavily on presentation, argumentation and persuasion.
Please wait to be seated until after coin toss. I need pro on my left and con on my right to help ensure the ballot is filled out in favor of the intended team. I have judged maybe 2 rounds of PF ever. I don't have PF debaters on my team. Not my cup of tea.
Yes...I have a congress paradigm...I like to see structured speeches that present NEW arguments or REFUTE arguments on the floor. Source Citation is important. Treat it like a good extemp. Presentation is important as is overall participation in the chamber. I have judged/parli at nationals for several years. I expect professionalism and good argumentation.
Joe DaRosa Paradigm
Danielle Darragh Paradigm
Kerry Davis Paradigm
Clifton Davis Paradigm
Brian Del Toro Paradigm
Kristen Drew Paradigm
I really think that paradigms are not particularly useful for several reasons. The first being that a vast majority of the time, students will ask me then blatantly ignore what I said. Though I am a veteran coach, you should still debate for me as if I am a lay judge. Don't assume anything. Crystallize, signpost and use impacts. Why should I care about your claims and evidence? Make me care.
Evidence-if you spend a significant amount of time asking for and looking through opponents, I will most likely vote you down. I want to see a debate, not the searching for and reading of evidence. I can Google that myself.
If I can understand what you are saying and you convince me to care about it-you win my ballot.
Glenda Duggan Paradigm
Joe Dummar Paradigm
Rebecca Ellsworth Paradigm
Chandler Fehr Paradigm
Olivia Fenchild Paradigm
Kristy Forster Paradigm
Teri Friend Paradigm
Overall I am a communications style judge.
For Public Forum/Lincoln Douglas:
I'm often a beginner on the topic so clarify any acronyms/abbreviations, uncommon terms, and/or advanced concepts when used.
Your off-time road map, as well as clear signposting during your speech, are important and appreciated for my notetaking. Slow down and really emphasize each of your contentions and evidence tag lines so that I can make myself notes.
As for speed: I'm OK with a fast pace presentation as long as you are completely understandable using good diction and clarity and that the arguments are clear. If you lose me, you've lost the argument.
I like line-by-line refutation of arguments presented by the opposing team.
Respectful clash in cross makes debate interesting and helps me be attentive.
I will compare and weigh the arguments presented, including likely and convincing impacts.
End with voters and impacts...go ahead and write my ballot for me in your final speech :)
In Lincoln Douglas debate, I think definitions, resolution analysis, and framework are an important and interesting part of this style of debate but don't make them the only focus of your argumentation. I love to hear clear and specific arguments about the topic. I will base my vote on any and all arguments presented.
I haven't judged a single round of policy debate this year, so goodness help us all if you are find yourself sitting with me as your judge in policy debate now. Haha! I'll do my best for you, but you'll need to explain it all to me slowly and clearly. Present your best arguments and be sure to directly refute arguments presented by the opposing team. Good luck!
I love well organized and passionately presented arguments designed to convince your fellow Representatives to vote with you. Well researched and prepared speeches are appreciated, but how they are presented definitely impacts the score I give. Eye contact and presentation with purposeful variation in volume, tone, pace, and inflection for impact and persuasion will set you apart for me.
The bills and resolutions being argued are interesting, but I like the discussion to move forward. So, if you have a prepared speech that just restates points already presented, I would prefer you didn't give it. I like it when speeches given later in the discussion refer to points previously made by other representatives and either support or refute them. I also think that extemporaneously style speeches with fresh points given later in the discussion can be impactful, so feel free to listen to the discussion, use your brain, common sense, and add something meaningful to the discussion even if you did not originally have something prepared for this bill.
Miguel Gaddi Paradigm
Carrie Garner Paradigm
I value a professional debate. This means that communication is strong and clear. Clash should be present but polite. I prefer hearing debate on the resolution over strictly theoretical debate. I do flow, so don't drop major points. And tell me in the end why you thing your side has won the debate. Have fun!
Kala Golden Paradigm
Adolfo Gonzalez Paradigm
Ariel Gracia Paradigm
John Grannis Paradigm
Madison Gross Paradigm
Gabriel Guerrerro Paradigm
Sandra Hall Paradigm
Victoria Handy Paradigm
Tamara Harmon Paradigm
Mark Henningfeld Paradigm
Wyatt Hicks Paradigm
Alex Hobson Paradigm
Marcus Hochstrasser Paradigm
Trent Hone Paradigm
Alison Hurst Paradigm
Tavia Ivey Paradigm
Mark Jepson Paradigm
Darce Johnson Paradigm
Amber Joslyn Paradigm
Gus Kimball Paradigm
Joan King Paradigm
Haley Lamey Paradigm
Josh Larsen Paradigm
Becca Levi Paradigm
Justin Lindsey Paradigm
Bryan Martindale Paradigm
Brooke Mason Paradigm
Kyra Mauney Paradigm
Jaden McGinty Paradigm
Kayla McNay Paradigm
Amy Mgonja Paradigm
Sandra Miles Paradigm
Ricki Misner Paradigm
Lance Morris Paradigm
George Mullin Paradigm
Sunny Nelson Paradigm
Hi, I'm Sunny Nelson, and I am the assistant coach for Blackfoot High School. I mainly coach Policy but I do have experience with Public Forum, with only a beginner's understanding of Lincoln-Douglas. As an umbrella for all events, any competitor that is rude to their opponent(s), their partner, or myself will immediately result in a significant reduction in points and quite possibly a loss in that round. Competitors in my rounds are encouraged to time themselves and speak as quickly as they'd like while maintaining appropriate diction. My main focus for the 2019-2020 season has been emphasizing and strengthening communications in my students, and I take this philosophy into judging as well. However, I judge each form of debate with a slightly different lens. Let's start with...
Even though I will be flowing this event, I am a firm believer in the common saying that "public forum is the layman's debate." This event should be centered around communications and persuasion. Evidence and analytics are still necessary, but they should be used in such a way that is clear and concise for the uninformed citizen. If a member of the public cannot walk into the room with no previous experience on this topic and understand the entire debate, then you've failed your job as a public forum debater.
I don't necessarily fall into any specific "policy paradigm" but I suppose if you wanted to pigeon hole me, I'd be considered a stock issues judge. I like line-by-line rebuttal and refutations. Tag-teaming is discouraged but not prohibited. As a rule, I will not vote on kritiks or theory, with an exception on topicality given it's presented effectively. I will vote on counterplans reluctantly but I will vote on them. Even though I consider policy to be evidence-based with an emphasis on critical analysis, communications and presentation are exceedingly vital in this event.
Again, this event is probably the one I have the least amount of experience in. I use the value-criterion debate not as a voting issue but as a lens for the round. Definitions for obscure or otherwise publicly unknown values and criterions should immediately be provided. Competitors should use evidence to morally justify their position, but the focus should be on critical analysis of both side of the debate. Other than that, there are no prohibitions or things I prefer in Lincoln-Douglas.
Hopefully I provided enough information for how I judge a round. If not, you're more than welcome to ask brief questions before the round begins.
Julie O'Meara Paradigm
Paul Ortmann Paradigm
Sarah Pearce Paradigm
Laura Perkins Paradigm
Justin Petersen Paradigm
I am a scientific individual, I am listening for credible facts, quotes, sources and empirical evidence.
Be knowledgeable on the topic, if a question is asked I expect some type of answer, not "I don't know".
Presentation of your argument(s) is a factor as well, your job is to persuade me to vote with you. Congress specifically, don't just read your speech, make eye contact and let us hear your passion and research that you've completed.
Elaborate on the impacts using the 5 Ws (who, what, when, where and why).
John Petti Paradigm
I am a comms Judge. I want to hear your arguments clearly and concisely. Dont give me a lot of speed or jargon. I am lazy..so please give me voters in your final speeches
Dylan Pope Paradigm
Kelsey Purin Paradigm
Rianne Quigley Paradigm
Cory Reid Paradigm
Jordan Reynolds Paradigm
Kevin Richmond Paradigm
First and foremost, quality > quantity. I will flow the debate, but if you feel the need to spread remember if I can't follow your case I can't vote for you! Clearly state your case, support it and defend it.
Cross should focus on the case and not the person delivering it. Clash is good, but anything I perceive as rude or a personal attack will greatly impact my ability to support your case.
I will compare your voters to my flow, as it is your chance to tell me why you should prevail. They also show that you have been paying attention and are engaged in the debate.
Debate can be intense, but it is a game that should be played with respect for the process and the participants.
Dominic Rios Paradigm
Alicia Rodman Paradigm
Phil Rodman Paradigm
Elliot Roldan Paradigm
Holly Romirell Paradigm
Sergio Sarmiento Paradigm
Melinda Schulz Paradigm
Lydia Shearman Paradigm
Wendy Shelman Paradigm
Hello there, and thank you for taking the time to read through my paradigm!
A bit about my background: In high school I was a regular competitor in policy debate, though there were times where I found the opportunity to branch out into public forum and congress. For speech, I was most competitive in humorous and duo interpretations, and I also enjoyed retold story. After high school, I debated for The College of Idaho and Rocky Mountain College in parliamentary debate, though after my sophomore year I found passions in art and student government that took me away from debate.
I began teaching middle school science in 2014, which is also when I began assistant coaching high school speech and debate. My main coaching proficiencies lie in policy and interp events, though years of coaching, judging, and competition have shown me the breadth of events currently offered in high school competition. This is my second year coaching the Idaho Mountain River District Worlds Schools team, and I now teach high school ceramics and biology. I have to say that my preference towards WSD has certainly shaped my outlook for other speech and debate events.
Please spare me the phony pre-round banter, i.e. "Is my opponent ready? ... My partner? ... Most importantly, my judge? ... I shall begin." Just get started. I'm often looking for some stylistic twist that any debater might use to distinguish themselves from others in the round, including their teammates. Humor is awesome, and I appreciate debaters who can tactfully introduce a heavy or solemn point without appearing preachy or disingenuous. Please avoid trigger language, such as rape, holocaust, and genocide, unless it is rather explicitly stated in motion.
I am looking for structure across the board. Case should centralize around a core theme or idea. Definitions, models, and other foundational components need to be articulated or accepted/refuted very explicitly. Substantive arguments should be easily recognizable and include adequate historic or present-day examples. Empiricism is preferred to rationalism. Anecdotal evidence is welcome to a degree. I give quite a bit of credibility to high schoolers as a teacher, coach, and former competitor, though most kids have a lack of experience while still believing they know a lot about most things. I would suggest sticking to your strengths and competencies rather than pretending to know what you do not. In the words of Socrates, "All I know is that I know nothing."
At the end of the debate, my decision comes down to which side impressed me the most in providing relevant and structured arguments, refuting opposing arguments, and showing a degree of positive authenticity. I am a really good cheerleader, but please do your best to avoid reasons for me to think negatively of you at the end of the debate. Tone, non-verbals, and word choice can be great blessings, though these may also be a debater's greatest detriment.
I'm really excited to be a part of your HCWSI experience! I wish you the best of luck and look forward to meeting you.
Newell Siler Paradigm
Tristan Siow Paradigm
Jethro Smith Paradigm
Andrea Solecki Paradigm
Sandra Speck Paradigm
Nichoel Spencer Paradigm
Izzy Stoddard Paradigm
Stacie Swenwold Paradigm
Renee Tatterson Paradigm
Edson Valdismo Paradigm
Katie Vandenberg Paradigm
Titan Walker Paradigm
Laura Ward Paradigm
Alex Watt Paradigm
Richard Wolff Paradigm
Susan Worst Paradigm
I am a head coach with 11 years of experience in judging debate.
I will judge on the flow, and I am open to most any kind of argument. I am fine with speed, though I find that sometimes people are not as clear as they think they are. I will say CLEAR if you're not clear.
Lots of clash, please. Make sure you are addressing your opponent's arguments in a meaningful way. Impact your drops... Tell why winning the dropped argument gives you the advantage.
In LD, understand, explain, and link to your standards.
Give me thoughtful and well articulated voters.