Elizabeth Henning Paradigm

Last changed 3/15 12:02P EDT

I'm a traditional judge with 4 years of experience as a high school LD debater.

LD:

As the mechanism by which you weigh the round, your value should be the main focus of the clash and all contentions should link back to the value framework. If your contentions do not link back to your value structure or your criterion does not weigh the value, you will lose. Developing effective communication and critical thinking skills is the main goal of forensics, and I expect to see argumentation based not only on statistics but solid logic and speech that reflects careful thought of the debate at hand. If run a K, theory, or spread, I will not vote for you.

PF:

You should have some kind of framework for your case. Although not as important as in an LD round, you should still be able to tell me why your arguments are significant, and more importantly, why they outweigh your opponents' arguments. Simply listing statistics is not sufficient to win the round, I expect to see logical warrants for each number.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Pennsylvania State Tournament 3/15/2019 PAR Quarte CJ 210 CZ 219 Neg Neg on a 3-0
Pennsylvania State Tournament 3/15/2019 LD R4 AW 101 AB 119 Neg
Pennsylvania State Tournament 3/15/2019 LD R3 AR 100 DX 123 Neg
Pennsylvania State Tournament 3/15/2019 LD R1 BT 108 ER 127 Aff
Villiger 39 St Josephs University 11/17/2018 LD Quarte Ridge NK Woodrow Wilson ES Aff Neg on a 2-1
Villiger 39 St Josephs University 11/17/2018 LD R5 Ridge NK Cary VS Aff
Villiger 39 St Josephs University 11/17/2018 LD R4 Unionville LI La Salle TW Aff
Villiger 39 St Josephs University 11/17/2018 LD R3 Unionville MA Bronx HS Of Science WF Neg
Villiger 39 St Josephs University 11/17/2018 LD R2 Bronx HS Of Science AK Achievement First Brooklyn KG Aff