The Holiday Havoc Invitational

2019 — Columbia HS, Nampa, ID/US

Room 1 Tab Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Room 2 Tab Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Room 3 Tab Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Room 4 Tab Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Room 5 Tab Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Room 6 Tab Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Parker Akkerman Paradigm

8 rounds

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

Not Submitted

Ed Atienza Paradigm

Not Submitted

Elizabeth Bates Paradigm

Not Submitted

Amy Beck Paradigm

Not Submitted

Penny Bell Paradigm

Not Submitted

Leslie Benitez Paradigm

Not Submitted

Wade Bergstrom Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Hilary Biggers Paradigm

Not Submitted

Chad Bowers Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kevin Boynton Paradigm

Not Submitted

Robert Bradley Paradigm

Robert Bradley

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

Not Submitted

Gregory Braun Paradigm

Not Submitted

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.

Presiding Officer:

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

Not Submitted

Sue Cook Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rachael Cope Paradigm

Not Submitted

Eric Copeland Paradigm

Not Submitted

Danielle Darragh Paradigm

Not Submitted

Andrea Dearden Paradigm

Not Submitted

Elisha Debie Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Brian Del Toro Paradigm

Not Submitted

Shelia Dengler-Shaw Paradigm

Not Submitted

Joe Dummar Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nick Fairbanks Paradigm

Not Submitted

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.

Policy Debate:

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!

Congress:

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

Not Submitted

Andrea Hagge Paradigm

Not Submitted

Victoria Handy Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Beau Hansen Paradigm

Not Submitted

Arayah Harbauer Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rob Hardy Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jud Harmon Paradigm

Not Submitted

Tamara Harmon Paradigm

Not Submitted

Missy Hartman Paradigm

Not Submitted

Porter Haux Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ryan Heyborne Paradigm

Not Submitted

Amity Heyborne Paradigm

Not Submitted

Alex Hobson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Shell Howard Paradigm

Not Submitted

Alison Hurst Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Tavia Ivey Paradigm

Not Submitted

Blake Jones Paradigm

Not Submitted

Gus Kimball Paradigm

Not Submitted

Michelle Lakatos Paradigm

Not Submitted

Michael Lakatos Paradigm

Not Submitted

Stephanie Lamkin Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jennifer Landhuis Paradigm

Not Submitted

Josh Larsen Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kurtis Leatham Paradigm

Not Submitted

Justin Lindsey Paradigm

Not Submitted

Anna McDaniel Paradigm

Not Submitted

Shelley McEuen Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jaden McGinty Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jaylee McInerney Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kayla McNay Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jack Mckinney Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Carolyn Metzger Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sol Metzger Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sandra Miles Paradigm

Not Submitted

Marie Milovanovic Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ricki Misner Paradigm

Not Submitted

Dennis Moren Paradigm

Not Submitted

George Mullin Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mike Neale Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sunny Nelson Paradigm

PREFACE

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...

PUBLIC FORUM

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.

POLICY

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.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

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.

CONCLUSION

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

Not Submitted

Paul Ortmann Paradigm

Not Submitted

Sarah Pearce Paradigm

Not Submitted

Laura Perkins Paradigm

Not Submitted

Dylan Pope Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lori Porreca Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rianne Quigley Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kyle Rennie Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jordan Reynolds Paradigm

Not Submitted

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.

Good luck!

Victoria Rogers Paradigm

Not Submitted

Holly Romirell Paradigm

Not Submitted

Anita Ryan Paradigm

Tabula rasa

Speaking skills/Communications

Sergio Sarmiento Paradigm

Not Submitted

Tristan Siow Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jethro Smith Paradigm

Not Submitted

Bobby Smitz Paradigm

Not Submitted

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.

Dawson Stephens Paradigm

Not Submitted

Renee Tatterson Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Maria Tellez Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kevin Trombly Paradigm

Not Submitted

Edson Valdismo Paradigm

Not Submitted

Titan Walker Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nick Weinrich Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Richard Wolff Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Logan Worthy Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kenneth Wu Paradigm

Not Submitted