Secret Permenter

  • Paradigm
  • Record
Paradigm Statement
Last changed 4 March 2022 9:53 AM CDT

Secret Permenter, B.A. in History and Political Science.

FORENSICS:

I have experience judging different events in Forensics. Do not have much experience with Lincoln-Douglas Debate, but ready to learn and grow! I have knowledge on the subject at hand and I know what is expected in an LD judge, so...

DEBATE:

3 years of debate experience. I am typically a Tabula Rasa or policymaker judge, but I am very fluid in my paradigm. If Neg is not presenting a counterplan, I will likely not judge as a policymaker. How you debate will determine how I judge. I am very open-minded in my judging.

Speaking Speed -- I do not mind fast talking/reading in a round, as long as the words are able to be understood. If you are talking so quickly that I cannot understand what you are saying/arguing, then the other team may not as well.

My biggest pet peeve is burden of proof. The AFF has burden of proof. It is up to the AFF team to Prove that their plan is worth winning and that their plan isn't as bad as the Neg team may say it is.

Another pet peeve I have is people who argue who is more credible than another. If your only argument against the other team's evidence is that you have a more credible source, it is not necessarily a strong argument.... Obviously you can argue that point, but it shouldn't be the basis of your entire argument.

Below is some information to help you understand how I feel about certain key components of debate. You are always welcome to ask questions!

Topicality/Theory - I am informed on what the current debate topic is, and I have experience in its relevance to the current world. Aff needs to have plans that are topical. Neg- if you argue topicality, don't just give me definitions because definitions can be argued to no end. Give me reasons as well. Why is your definition the best definition. How does the definition prove non-topicality.

Disads - Every plan, no matter how good, will have disadvantages. If you are upright about disadvantages, it shows me your case has actually looked at more than the positive sides. If you can't fit disads into 1Aff, then 1Aff should be prepared to offer them up in Cross if asked. If you claim to have no disadvantages, then your topic is not as researched as it should be.

Counterplans - I am not for or against counter plans. Counter plans can work well and win, but they need to be executed well. Do not enter the debate with a counterplan as your only course of action, and don't use it as a last resort. Good Neg teams will show that the Aff argument is bad and that there is a better route (i.e. counterplan).

Kritiks -- There is a time and place to do Kritiks and they can be a good argument, but explanations of Kritiks are going to be key. I may not know what K you are talking about, so it is important that you get me and the opposing team on the same page as you. If I as a judge am unable to understand the Kritik, how can I judge based on that?

Personal Stories/analytical arguments -- I do not mind the use of personal experiences in a debate, as long as you use evidence as well. Many personal stories can be supported by statistics and facts and therefore these things should be included. Personal experiences should not be the bulk of your speech or the bulk of an argument, but simply an anecdote to help your argument. Analytical Arguments are typically made when you know a specific set of facts/statistics, but might not necessarily know where you learned said information. These are okay if you have other points that back it up. I am not taking your personal word over the word of evidence found from credible sources.

Speaker points-

There are a few criteria I take into consideration when giving speaker points:

1. Whether or not you speak fluidly in a way that is both easy to hear and easy to understand. (Mumbling, speaking too quickly or too slow, and speaking too quietly can have negative impacts on speaker points)

2. How kind you are. I have been in debates where my partner and I received the highest speaker points because the other team was being rude, disrespectful, and yelling at us in Cross. I will not give high points to those who are disrespectful and rude in their cross, speeches, or otherwise. We are here to talk facts, not to belittle our opponents. I penalize rudeness toward other teams, toward eachother, etc.

3. Using your time. If you have 8 minutes to talk, I expect you use up as much of it as you can. Reiterate points I may not have caught the first time. Aff -- Sell your plan more. If you have finished counterarguing, make your plan look great. Neg -- explain your points, have more than one.

4 and final. Whether or not you have explanations. Both AFF and NEG need to read evidence AND explain how it applies to your argument/counterargument.

Full Judging Record
Tournament Lv Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
KSHSAA 3A State SpeechDrama Championship HS 2022-05-06 LD Semis 36 Joel Doolittle 35 Drake Sexton Aff
KSHSAA 3A State SpeechDrama Championship HS 2022-05-06 LD R3 9 Haley McGill 36 Samuel Marquardt Neg
KSHSAA 3A State SpeechDrama Championship HS 2022-05-06 LD R2 9 Cody Spurlock 35 Drake Sexton Aff
Wichita Diocese NCFL Congress LD PFD Qualifier HS 2022-03-05 LD R2 Campus Nkurunziza Maize Christensen Neg Neg 3-0
Wichita Diocese NCFL Congress LD PFD Qualifier HS 2022-03-05 PFD R1 Campus Fletcher & Landis Maize Linton & Browne Neg Aff 2-1
Roadrunner Last Chance Virtual Tournament HS 2021-12-14 Open R3 210 209 Neg
Roadrunner Last Chance Virtual Tournament HS 2021-12-14 Open R2 207 202 Aff
Roadrunner Last Chance Virtual Tournament HS 2021-12-14 Open R1 206 201 Neg
West Kansas District Tournament HS 2021-12-10 PF R1 133 127 Neg
Wichita Diocese NCFL Policy Qualifier HS 2021-12-04 CX R4 Derby IJ Wichita Collegiate Upper MF Aff Aff 3-0
Wichita Diocese NCFL Policy Qualifier HS 2021-12-04 CX R3 Wichita East HL Maize SW Aff Aff 3-0
Wichita Diocese NCFL Policy Qualifier HS 2021-12-04 CX R1 Campus MJ McPherson HS Neg Neg 2-1
Blue and Gold Showdown HS 2021-11-02 OPEN R4 218 206 Aff
Blue and Gold Showdown HS 2021-11-02 OPEN R2 211 215 Neg
Blue and Gold Showdown HS 2021-11-02 OPEN R1 205 200 Neg
Dana Hensley Debate Invitational HS 2021-09-18 OPEN R4 Emporia Duncan & Nichols Derby Duensing & Barker Neg
Dana Hensley Debate Invitational HS 2021-09-18 OPEN R3 McPherson Hicks & Heskett Derby Johnson & Chisham Neg
Dana Hensley Debate Invitational HS 2021-09-18 JV R2 Emporia Renteria Villatoro & Welch McPherson Bowman & Harger Neg
Dana Hensley Debate Invitational HS 2021-09-18 JV R1 Buhler Sanford & Lusk Emporia Nguyen & Lackey Aff
GCHS Buffalo DebateWKCA Tournament HS 2020-12-05 Open R4 Paola Ball & Parks Moundridge Creed & Schlosser Neg
GCHS Buffalo DebateWKCA Tournament HS 2020-12-05 Nov R3 Louisburg Longgood & Treese Paola Howard & Stuebner Neg
GCHS Buffalo DebateWKCA Tournament HS 2020-12-05 Nov R1 Blue Valley West Vogel & Xue Tonganoxie West Laikyn Bennett & Gage Slabaugh Neg