Sam Normington ParadigmLast changed 1/11 9:22A PDT
Include me in the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I debated in the early 2000's, and have been coaching since 2003. I primarily coach novice and JV levels of policy, and all levels of LD and Public Forum. I'm some combo of a stock issues/policymaker/tab judge. I like real world impacts.
Speaking: I am okay with speed, but I don't judge a ton, so it takes me a little while in to a tournament to get back in to the swing of it. As such I prefer you to slow down on tags.
Prep: I'm fine with you asking more CX questions during your prep, but I'm also not going to force the other team to answer. I won't time flashing, but if it starts to get excessive I will begin timing it, it shouldn't take long to save a speech doc. I'll let you know if I think it's becoming excessive.
Evidence: I'm more than fine with you calling an author's credentials into question, or indicting the general level of evidence. The parts of a card read should include warrants to the argument being made, if it doesn't then you should call the other team out on it. The chances of me calling for evidence after a round are pretty slim, and will only occur if the teams are arguing about the actual content of a card. I'm not going to call for a card just because I want to make sure it says what the team claims, the opposition will have to make that claim before I'm willing to investigate.
Framework: I get not wanting to advocate USfg action, I'm willing to give a little bit on the topicality issue on that front, but I do think an affirmative needs to largely be rooted in the resolution. Truth time, I was a total T-hack when I debated. So while I appreciate topicality, actually I love it, I usually find that negative teams don't do enough work on the T flow anymore.
Counterplans: I'll vote for them. If there's going to be theory involved I want it clearly explained to me on both sides, not just giant blocks with a million different pre-written reasons why the CP is abusive. Stop, slow down, explain it to me.
On kritiks: I haven't kept the most up to date on kritiks, and have never been big into philosophy, so I prefer more work be done on kritiks, particularly a decent summation or story telling about the kritik, rather than just reading tags and cards at me. Just like theory, slow down and explain it to me, I'll probably vote for it if I understand it.
Feel free to ask any questions before the round.
Full Judging Record
|Jean Ward Invitational||1547913600 1/19/2019||OPOL||7 Quarte||Kamiak EK||Ferris OS||Neg||Neg on a 2-1|
|Jean Ward Invitational||1547913600 1/19/2019||OPOL||6 R6||Ferris OS||OES OW||Neg|
|Jean Ward Invitational||1547913600 1/19/2019||OPOL||1 R1||Gig Harbor SM||Lakeridge DO||Aff|
|Washington State Debate Tournament||1489759200 3/17/2017||Pol||9 Sems||St George's VG||Neg|
|Central Valley Bear Brawl||1478889900 11/11/2016||OPF||8 Octafi||Mt. Si NO||Rocky Mountain JT||Neg||Neg on a 2-1|