Megan Hagaman Paradigm

Last changed 11/30 3:19P CDT

Current Coach: Salina South HS

Former Coach: Abilene HS, El Dorado HS, Buhler HS

College Competitor: NPDA and NFA LD

High School Policy 4 Years (I debated in the glory days of Champ Division. I’m getting old.)

I will listen to whatever you choose to say, however you wish to say it. I will make every effort to fairly evaluate those arguments that you make in the round.  (That means speed is fine in most cases. You will know if I can't understand you or can’t keep up. I’ll put my pen down. You may want to look up and check if you’re real speedy or at least have your partner check.)

I’m a fan of following the line by line, so you should tell me where to put the argument on the flow, and more importantly tell me why it matters (Impact Calc). I believe in the Toulmin model of argumentation and think that your evidence should matter and be of good quality with data and warrants and you should be able to articulate that information. Extending Claims or Tags isn’t enough to win an argument. Blocks are cool, but you should make an effort to directly clash with your opponents blocks as well. I also think that you should have an in round vision and that you and your partner should work to ensure that vision flows through the round to the end and that I get a completed picture at the end.

I'm not predisposed to certain types of arguments in a round as liking/disliking them more than others so I will try to listen with an open mind to the arguments that you make. You should also probably not make the decision to drastically alter your style or what you do in round based on my paradigm. I want to see what you do well, how you do it, not what you think I want to see or something you aren’t comfortable with.  

Some Specific Argument Notes:

Framework: This is important. You need to give me a frame for the round and win that debate or I will more than likely default to policy maker. However, do not attempt to frame the debate in way that eliminates nearly all ground for one side of the debate. I probably believe that ground should be equitable and predictable for both aff and neg.

Theory:  I will listen to it. I will weigh it. Tell me why it matters and have clear demonstrable abuse. Be able to articulate the impact and why Theory matters. I also think that to win a theory debate you probably have to give me more than fragment or single sentence. I need an argument and time to write it down, and if you think it’s important enough to merit a ballot, then I expect you to spend some time on the argument.

Topicality: I do feel that Topicality is an underdeveloped and under used strategic tool. Too many teams use it as part of a game with little strategic value or execution. A good T debate is a thing of beauty. I can default to competing interps or reasonability and be convinced either way depending on the debate, but I likely default to competing interps unless I have clearly articulated reasons not to. Please do work on the Standards/Voter level. And for the love of debate, if you are winning this argument and the aff isn’t topical please go for T in the 2NR…

Counterplans: I think they are strategic. I'm good with Topical CP's, Advantage Cp's, Smart PIC’s, Multiple CPs, etc. Delay Cp’s aren’t my favorite, but you can win that debate. I probably believe that all arguments are at the core conditional, but I will listen to debate on Status Theory and evaluate what happens in the round. I prefer specific solvency to generic on Cp’s and I don’t think that CP solves better is a net benefit.

Kritiks: Sure. Win the argument. I prefer more tangible alternatives rather than reject the team. I also think you should not assume that I know and/or understand your literature (Unless it’s Fem/Fem IR). You need to explain the literature and clearly articulate the impact and alternative and win the debate on how this matters. Critical Aff’s are fine too.

DA’s/Adv/Turns: Please utilize turns. I grant some risk to weak link stories. Make sure you still do the work and answer all levels. Impact Calc. is crucial.

Case: It’s important and neither side should neglect case debate. I love a good case debate. And smart analysis of evidence.

What not to do: 1. Be Rude or disrespectful. Be aware of the language that you use and how it’s employed. This is a communication activity don’t be racist, sexist, ablest, etc. I reserve the right to give you a loss, or at least penalize your speaker points. 2. Don’t steal prep time or abuse flash time. 3. Don’t Clip Cards.

 

 

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
ONW Forensics Invitational NIETOC 3/6/2020 LD R3 19 Rita Joseph 23 Jeremiah Nieves Aff
Wichita East Blue Ace Invitational 9/27/2019 Var R7 AG Goode & Lee AA Chaffin & Salmen Neg Neg on a 3-0
Wichita East Blue Ace Invitational 9/27/2019 Var R4 AN Ramsey & Miller BA McManus & Hubener Aff
Maize High School 11/30/2018 VP RD 2 Eisenhower DJ Kapaun Mount Carmel BT Aff
J Matt Hill Invitational at Topeka High School 11/16/2018 KDCOP R1 Shawnee Mission South SL Hayden FQ Aff
Wichita East Blue Ace Invitational 9/28/2018 DCI Qtrs Lawren Vasquez & Redmond Eisenh Jarmer & Dover Neg Aff on a 2-1
Wichita East Blue Ace Invitational 9/28/2018 DCI R5 Andove Powner & Baxter BluVal Ahmed & Chen Aff
Wichita East Blue Ace Invitational 9/28/2018 DCI R4 OlaWes Uddin & Darby Maize Broyles & Liang-Lin Aff
Wichita East Blue Ace Invitational 9/28/2018 DCI R3 Empori Mose & Rosa Derby Sallman & Carter Aff
Wichita East Blue Ace Invitational 9/28/2018 DCI R2 BD Ruzich & Tran Topeka Blenden & Parker Neg
Washburn Rural Debate Invitational 9/14/2018 VADB8 R2 SM Northwest FM Trinity PK Neg
Maize High Debate Invitational 12/1/2017 VP Sems Wichita East TM Kapaun Mount Carmel RM Neg Neg on a 3-0
Maize High Debate Invitational 12/1/2017 VP RD 1 Wichita East RN Kapaun Mount Carmel LP Neg
Wichita East Invitational 10/6/2017 Var R5 Topeka RT LawFre SH Neg
Wichita East Invitational 10/6/2017 Var R2 KapMou BM Campus SW Aff
Wichita East Invitational 10/6/2017 Var R1 ShaHei BL KapMou RM Aff
Grand Nationals 5/27/2017 PF R4 4105 4151 Neg Neg on a 2-1
Grand Nationals 5/27/2017 PF R4 4154 4003 Neg Neg on a 2-1
Grand Nationals 5/27/2017 PF R3 4211 4084 Aff Aff on a 2-1
Grand Nationals 5/27/2017 PF R3 4110 4207 Aff Aff on a 3-0
Grand Nationals 5/27/2017 PF R2 4015 4052 Neg Neg on a 2-1
Grand Nationals 5/27/2017 PF R2 4180 4208 Neg Aff on a 2-1
Grand Nationals 5/27/2017 PF R1 4157 4085 Neg Aff on a 2-1
Grand Nationals 5/27/2017 PF R1 4092 4191 Neg Neg on a 3-0