Abigail Vaughn

  • Paradigm
  • Record
  • Certifications
Paradigm Statement
Last changed 15 June 2022 4:22 AM MDT

She/Her pronouns, but I would prefer if you just referred to me as the judge.

Please time yourself and your opponent, I would prefer not to and expect you to take responsibility, and be truthful of time passed.

Info: I am the president of Idaho State University's Speech and Debate team, and the former president of College of Southern Idaho Forensic team. I am also the Assistant Speech and Debate Coach at Highland Highschool. I have been in the circuit for about 6 years. I love progressive debate, especially gender and social justice based arguments. I am getting my bachelors in K-12 Special Education. I am a big flow judge, if you want me to judge certain arguments at the end of your debates, they better have been brought up in every speech, if they are not I tend to consider them a dropped argument. I don't mind dropped arguments especially if they are done strategically. If you tell me why you dropped them, then I won't factor that into my decision for who won the round. Good speaking I believe is necessary for a clean flow and round, but I don't base my decision solely off who spoke the best. Accessibility is the most important thing to me, if your opponents ask you not to spread or ask you to slow down, and you choose not too. I will drop you. I am a pretty heavy tech over truth judge (which means if you tell me the sky is red in your speech and your opponent doesn't disagree with you I'll believe the sky's red) I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence. (IE: Racism good). Last but not least, be kind to eachother. This means to your partner and your opponents. I enjoy clash, sassiness, and assertiveness because it's all part of the game, but there is a difference between these and being mean. Remember debate is a game you play with your friends. I do not care how well you have been debating, if you are mean you will lose my ballot. Most importantly don't forget to have fun.

LD Paradigm:

I default to judging on the value premise/ value Criterion debate. So, at the end of the round, I will pick the value that I believe was proved to be the best standard to judge the round off of. Then I will use the criterion for that value as the way to look at the arguments in this round. Whoever has won the most arguments that apply to that criterion will get my ballot. I can also be persuaded to judge the round different, but that's up to you if you want to do that, you just have to tell me why I should prefer judging your way. I am cool with Kritiks and Theory, and tend to vibe pretty heavily with these kind of arguments. Make sure to walk me through the arguments though, since I am usually a policy judge I am not in the know with a lot of new and upcoming arguments in LD. Also, if you do run these kind of arguments, impact them out to me and tell me why they matter. I am cool with speed as long as everyone in the round can also do speed, if not everyone can don't do it.

PF Paradigm:

Accessibility is the most important thing for me when it comes to PF. I am a pretty progressive judge and debater and tend to love K's, Theory, and speed, but only if everyone in the round can keep up with all of these. I am a pretty big flow judge so make sure to rebuttal the most important parts of the round, and answer the attacks made on your case in your next speech after the attacks are made. I believe the second rebuttal needs to both defend an attack. In the second final focus I believe it is abusive to make new arguments, so I will not flow new arguments made in these speeches, unless your opponent made new arguments and the second final focus is the only time you can answer them (this should not happen though). In your last Final Focus, I should be able to track your offense back to the speech where the argument started, if I can't do that I won't vote on it.

CX Paradigm:

I love policy debate! I tend to default to stock issues and who makes the largest impact, but I will vote on anything except impact turns to structural violence (at any point in the debate you do this, I do not care how well you were debating, you will lose my ballot). Layer the debate for me, it makes my life and your life a lot easier. In the last two rebuttals it is very important for you to collapse into your most important arguments. Also, it is essential for you to split the Neg Block. I love Kritiks, and tend to pick up Kritiks if they are done correctly, which means they need to have a clear link, impact, alternative, and framework to judge off of. I love topicality, as long as your shell comes with standards, voters and a standard to judge off of. For disadvantages I think they can be pretty necessary for the Neg to prove why we shouldn't do the aff plan, but I won't drop you if you don't have them. Disadvantages should have clear uniqueness, link, internal link(s) and impacts. I love a good theory debate, but you got to tell me why and how this impacts how I judge the round. I am a pretty heavy flow judge, so bring up every argument you want me to judge on in every speech. Also, let me know where you are at when giving rebuttals, if you are rebutting T, tell me you are talking about t. If you are not organized I might not be able to flow your argument where you want me to flow it. If it's not on my flow it wasn't said. I love counter plans, but they need to have a text, be competitive, and have a net benefit, I really enjoy perm debates, but the aff needs to be clear on why the Neg CP is not competitive. For On case debate, make sure to do more than just the generic impact defense. I do not mind analytical arguments, just tell me why you don't need evidence for it. I am cool with spreading as long as everyone in the round can also do speed, if not everyone can don't do it. I don't mind dropped arguments especially if they are done strategically. If you tell me why you dropped them, then I won't factor that into my decision for who won the round.

Don't forget to have fun ya'll, that's why we are all here :)

Full Judging Record
Tournament Lv Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2022-06-13 BQ Quarte 120 85 Neg Neg 3-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2022-06-13 BQ Double 47 16 Neg Neg 3-0
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2022-06-13 BQ R6 50 27 Aff
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2022-06-13 BQ R5 59 15 Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2022-06-13 BQ R3 34 54 Neg
National Speech and Debate Tournament HS 2022-06-13 BQ R1 80 17 Aff
Idaho Mountain River District Tournament HS 2022-02-11 LD R5 240 220 Neg Neg 3-0
Idaho Mountain River District Tournament HS 2022-02-11 LD R4 205 159 Neg
Idaho Mountain River District Tournament HS 2022-02-11 BQ R4 334 124 Aff
Idaho Mountain River District Tournament HS 2022-02-11 LD R4 306 156 Neg
Idaho Mountain River District Tournament HS 2022-02-11 CX R3 183 120 Aff
Idaho Mountain River District Tournament HS 2022-02-11 BQ R2 285 324 Aff
Idaho Mountain River District Tournament HS 2022-02-11 BQ R1 256 336 Aff
Skyline Grizzly Growl HS 2022-02-04 VCX R4 7 CS 10 WA Aff
Skyline Grizzly Growl HS 2022-02-04 OPF R3 10 EV 7 GM Con
Skyline Grizzly Growl HS 2022-02-04 OPF R3 10 HM 2 DW Con
Skyline Grizzly Growl HS 2022-02-04 VLD R2 2 ED 8 CG Neg
Skyline Grizzly Growl HS 2022-02-04 VLD R2 10 MA 4 EC Aff
Skyline Grizzly Growl HS 2022-02-04 VCX R1 10 HT 3 BL Neg
Trojan War NIETOC HS 2022-01-28 OCX R5 1 HT 3 KG Neg Neg 2-1
Trojan War NIETOC HS 2022-01-28 NPF R2 2 PS 1 AB Pro
Trojan War NIETOC HS 2022-01-28 OCX R1 1 HA 4 AR Aff
Rocky Mountain Invitational HS 2022-01-21 LD R6 AP AH AM ES Aff Aff 3-0
Rocky Mountain Invitational HS 2022-01-21 LD R5 BD SC AP LN Neg
Rocky Mountain Invitational HS 2022-01-21 OPF R4 AG PG AM GT Pro
Rocky Mountain Invitational HS 2022-01-21 LD R3 BG WW AR SG Aff
Rocky Mountain Invitational HS 2022-01-21 OPF R2 AM FM AG IP Con
Rocky Mountain Invitational HS 2022-01-21 LD R2 AE KR AR CS Aff
2022 Blacksnake NIETOC HS 2022-01-07 OPF R6 H SH E BB Con Pro 2-1
2022 Blacksnake NIETOC HS 2022-01-07 OCX R5 H RS Y RC Neg
2022 Blacksnake NIETOC HS 2022-01-07 OCX R4 AC BL H BH Neg
2022 Blacksnake NIETOC HS 2022-01-07 NCX R3 D SS R FR Aff
2022 Blacksnake NIETOC HS 2022-01-07 NCX R1 D WW H SP Neg
Rim2Rim HS 2021-12-10 POL R3 2 CS 7 SM Neg
Rim2Rim HS 2021-12-10 POL R1 2 PT 7 SJ Neg
Caesar Cicero HS 2021-12-03 BQ R3 AS 1701 AF 1701 Neg
Caesar Cicero HS 2021-12-03 BQ R3 AW 1701 AX 1700 Aff
Caesar Cicero HS 2021-12-03 BQ R2 AE 1701 BF 1702 Neg
Caesar Cicero HS 2021-12-03 BQ R2 BL 1700 BD 1701 Neg
The Jungle at Idaho Falls High School HS 2021-10-29 OCX Sems 143 107 Aff Aff 3-0
The Jungle at Idaho Falls High School HS 2021-10-29 OCX R5 107 143 Neg
The Jungle at Idaho Falls High School HS 2021-10-29 NCX R2 189 171 Aff
The Jungle at Idaho Falls High School HS 2021-10-29 OCX R1 141 106 Aff
The Jungle at Idaho Falls High School HS 2021-10-29 NCX R1 159 182 Neg
Judge Certifications
https://speechanddebate.org/judge-training
Cultural Competency

Judge attests they have taken the NFHS Cultural Competency Judge Training course. Required of all judges at NSDA tournaments.

Last Updated Jun 12 4:53 AM

nsda-demographics

NSDA Demographics Questionnaire

NSDA Nationals Demographics Questionnaire. Optional form requested of all judges.

NSDA
Last Updated Jun 12 4:54 AM