The Holiday Havoc Invitational
2019 — Columbia HS, Nampa, ID/US
Room 1 Tab Paradigm
Room 2 Tab Paradigm
Room 3 Tab Paradigm
Room 4 Tab Paradigm
Room 5 Tab Paradigm
Room 6 Tab Paradigm
Parker Akkerman Paradigm
As a judge in policy, I focus mainly on stock issues. To win, you should be direct and clear as to why your team upholds them or how the other fails to do so. Spreading is ultimately your choice to make, but if I cannot understand you as a judge, it will harm you in my final decision.
Tiffany Aref Paradigm
Ed Atienza Paradigm
Elizabeth Bates Paradigm
Amy Beck Paradigm
Penny Bell Paradigm
Leslie Benitez Paradigm
Wade Bergstrom Paradigm
Hilary Biggers Paradigm
Chad Bowers Paradigm
Kevin Boynton 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
Christa Braun Paradigm
Gregory Braun Paradigm
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.
Joe Burton Paradigm
Joe Burton: For all debate formats, I like to see competitors stick to the traditional debate format and center around the stock issues. Please don't introduce outlandish critiques or counterplans. I like to see all debate points backed up with evidence and communicate them in a clear fashion. I don't mind spreading as long as you're articulating clearly and I can still understand you. I can't judge your argument properly if I can't understand you.
Sarah Ridinger: For all debate formats I present with a policymaker’s paradigm. I will compare the affirmative plan with either the negative counter plan or the status quo. The better policy option, which will be determined by comparing the advantages and disadvantages supported by convincing evidence, will receive the more favorable score. Clear, conscience communication is critical. If I cannot understand you, your evidence will not strength the case.
Alma Ceja Paradigm
Sue Cook Paradigm
Rachael Cope Paradigm
Eric Copeland Paradigm
Danielle Darragh Paradigm
Andrea Dearden Paradigm
Elisha Debie Paradigm
Brian Del Toro Paradigm
Shelia Dengler-Shaw Paradigm
Joe Dummar Paradigm
Nick Fairbanks 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.
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!
Gabriel Guerrerro Paradigm
Andrea Hagge Paradigm
Victoria Handy Paradigm
Beau Hansen Paradigm
Arayah Harbauer Paradigm
Rob Hardy Paradigm
Jud Harmon Paradigm
Tamara Harmon Paradigm
Missy Hartman Paradigm
Porter Haux Paradigm
Ryan Heyborne Paradigm
Amity Heyborne Paradigm
Alex Hobson Paradigm
Shell Howard Paradigm
Alison Hurst Paradigm
Tavia Ivey Paradigm
Blake Jones Paradigm
Gus Kimball Paradigm
Michelle Lakatos Paradigm
Michael Lakatos Paradigm
Stephanie Lamkin Paradigm
Jennifer Landhuis Paradigm
Josh Larsen Paradigm
Kurtis Leatham Paradigm
Justin Lindsey Paradigm
Anna McDaniel Paradigm
Shelley McEuen Paradigm
Jaden McGinty Paradigm
Jaylee McInerney Paradigm
Kayla McNay Paradigm
Jack Mckinney Paradigm
Carolyn Metzger Paradigm
Sol Metzger Paradigm
Sandra Miles Paradigm
Marie Milovanovic Paradigm
Ricki Misner Paradigm
Dennis Moren Paradigm
George Mullin Paradigm
Mike Neale 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.
Jacklynn Oleson Paradigm
Paul Ortmann Paradigm
Sarah Pearce Paradigm
Laura Perkins Paradigm
Dylan Pope Paradigm
Lori Porreca Paradigm
Rianne Quigley Paradigm
Kyle Rennie 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.
Victoria Rogers Paradigm
Holly Romirell Paradigm
Anita Ryan Paradigm
Sergio Sarmiento Paradigm
Tristan Siow Paradigm
Jethro Smith Paradigm
Bobby Smitz Paradigm
Mike Spaulding Paradigm
Experience: Third year judging high school debate.
Paradigm: I'm going to vote on the flow, and clash. Crystallize! Quality is better than Quantity for Voters.
I'm fine with spreading, just make sure I catch your tag lines if you want it on my flow. You can run Theory and Kritic till your heart is content.
Speaks: I don't like them because low point wins are confusing for you and sometimes not allowed at all. Therefore, I feel I have to manipulate speaker ranks and points to "fit" my RFD.