Trojan Online Classic
2022
—
Casper/Wyoming,
WY/US
Debates Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Jason Bandalos
Hire
8 rounds
None
Tresa Bandalos
Kelly Walsh High School
None
Jennifer Beagles
Natrona County High School
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:51 AM MDT
My top voting issues-
#1- Do not speak too fast and speak clearly! If I can’t understand you, how am I supposed to vote for you?
#2- Show respect to your competitors! If you ask a question, let them answer it. Your non-verbal language also shows respect, so be cautious of how you react.
#3- Give me voters- a summary of what took place shows me you know what you are talking about.
My Background-
My daughter did Policy (CX) debate and that is when I learned I do NOT like speed-reading cases. I have been coaching since 2017 and still feel like a new speech & debate coach.
If you want anything more specific, ask before the round starts.
Rebecca Carpenter
Hire
8 rounds
None
Andy Dennis
Cheyenne Central High School
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 11:18 PM PDT
One may call me a traditionalist, but I am not a fan, at all, of speed or anything policy related drifting into LD or PF debate.
The reason PF was created was to eliminate all of the lexicon/jargon and to make it easier for a judge off of the street to follow. The reason LD was created was to examine the values within our society that can be held dear to how we function as human beings. When debaters ignore those foundational components, they may as well go into policy debate. If you feel the need to run theory, topicality, kritiks, and do everything else but debate the actual topics, policy is always looking for more teams. I would encourage you to join it to try and save it.
I don't think that judges that put paradigms as "...I will give you one half of a point if you make a Pokémon reference..." are doing any good to PF or LD. Keep that stuff/junk in policy. There's a reason policy is dying around the country, and that is a part of it. It's juvenile, it's nonsensical, and it is non-educational. Judges should be here to help you learn how to improve your communication skills, critical analysis, writing, and research skills...not point bait you.
Ronald (Ron) Dowler
Hire
8 rounds
None
Walter Farwell
Buffalo HS
Last changed on
Wed February 28, 2024 at 8:21 AM MDT
I am a traditional LD judge with 35 years of experience in the event. V and VC are important to me as well as use of evidence, logic, flow of the debate, as well as speaker quality. No games please, no new fangled theory attacks and/or maneuvering. Just debate straight up and let the best person win. In summery if I were to hire a lawyer, I would pick the debater who I would feel most comfortable representing me in court. I would not pick the debater who wasn't respectful or who might sway the jury against me due to their speed or overly aggressive style.
Allen Pino
Cheyenne East High School
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 10:21 AM MDT
I believe debate is a communication event so I oppose speed and jargon. Debaters should explain their arguments and have sound logic and evidence to support it. Being able to explain the argument, the implications of the argument, and why does it matter is key to winning my ballot.
Kirsten Rue
Hire
8 rounds
None
Rebekah Schoen
Hire
8 rounds
None
Scott Schwartz
Hire
8 rounds
None
Marcus Viney
Cheyenne East High School
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 2:13 PM EDT
I flow carefully, and I look for who has command of the round in terms of content, organization, and delivery. I love when you give me a clear reason for decision in your closing speech, and I tend to be swayed by weighing arguments. Debate is a public speaking activity, so I will pay attention to presentation.
Marvin Vinluan
Cheyenne East High School
Last changed on
Thu February 22, 2024 at 8:10 AM MDT
I like to see the flow of the arguments, particularly your Value and Value Criterion throughout the debate.
Tyler Will
Cheyenne South High School
Last changed on
Tue January 2, 2024 at 8:33 AM MDT
LD: I tend to favor more "traditional" flavors of LD, but I will vote on critical affirmatives and other departures from the norm if they are appropriately impacted and extended throughout the round. While I appreciate framework clash, I do not consider framework to be an independent reason to vote AFF or NEG. You should win the framework debate and then apply the framework to the contention-level debate and motivate voters there.
PF: I will flow carefully and appreciate extensions of specific cites and warrants rather than pure volume. Summary and Final Focus speeches which fail to collapse the debate to a manageable list of voters should be avoided. I don't like to intervene in any round, so provide clear reasons to vote in Final Focus. Propose and apply some weighing mechanism....
Policy: I favor policy making and stocks debates, but I will vote on anything if properly developed and weighed in the round. I tend to look less favorably on procedurals and theory shells which multiply lots of standards and substructure in the round but don't amount to much after the block.