Mounds Homecoming Tournament
2022
—
Mounds,
OK/US
Speech Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Marisha Allison
Keys High School
None
Heather Armer
Muldrow High School
None
Jody Batie
Haskell High School
None
Catherine Blair
Mannford High School
None
Lyli Cotner
Mounds High School
None
Jessica Frizzell
Bristow High School
Last changed on
Sat January 6, 2024 at 9:31 AM CDT
I do not mind off-time road maps. A clear outline of each point and subpoint during construction is imperative. Linking each point to your value and criterion helps flow the case for judges and opponents. Definitions can make or break a case. Be confident in your definitions. Speak rapidly ONLY if you can also speak clearly. I like to see passion.
Andrew Funderburk
Victory Christian School
None
Tiffany Glass
Mannford High School
None
Stormy Howell
Okmulgee High School
None
Nathan Hughes
Keys High School
Last changed on
Fri January 26, 2024 at 11:09 AM CDT
A brief background: I was a competitor for four years at Keys High School. I participated in Policy debate between 2009-2012 and along with my partner was the State Champion in the 4A Division in 2012. I have also medaled at State in Standard Oratory and Foreign Extemp. He/Him
Extemp: The most important thing to me is that your speech is constructed well; I will vote for a well-organized speech with sub-par delivery over a well-delivered speech that seems to be written haphazardly. Having a solid preview-> view -> review structure tends to help with this. I like it when speakers clearly tie the introductions to their speeches to the main topic they will be talking about, and give a satisfying conclusion after their review. Signposting with phrases like "Now, onto my second point..." helps make it clear which of your points you are talking about. I also like it when speakers make a clear distinction between information that is cited evidence and information is their own analysis. Please tell me if you want your time signals going up (I show you how many minutes you have used) or going down (I show you how many minutes you have left).
CX: I lean towards being a Policymaker judge, meaning I look at the world both teams present to me and vote for the world I would more like to live in. That being said, I vote for what I see in the round and I like it when teams tell me the issues I should be voting on in the rebuttals. I don't handle spreading as well as some other judges and prefer it if speakers slow down at least for the slugs and citations on their cards. Brief roadmaps and good signposting (e.g. "Now, onto the topicality...") helps me flow and will make it much easier to vote for you. I appreciate it when arguments are well-organized and clear to understand. I am open to kritikal and theory-based arguments but will find it easier to vote for these things if you do a good job of convincing me why I should vote for them in your rebuttal speeches.
LD and other debate formats I am less familiar with but still appreciate when competitors clearly line out voting issues and give me solid reasons to vote for them in their rebuttal speeches.
Feel free to ask if you have any specific questions before the round. Competing is tough under normal circumstances and is made even more frustrating when having to deal with technology-based issues. Good luck!
Kendal Hurley-Smith
Bristow High School
None
Angela Johnson
Okmulgee High School
None
Noah Ligon
Keys High School
None
Victoria Moore
Haskell High School
None
Brittney Page
Muldrow High School
None
Tyler Page
Muldrow High School
None
Kelsea Poindexter
Keys High School
None
Benjamin Schaus
Keys High School
None
Olivia Smeets
Keys High School
None
David Wright
Riverfield Country Day School
Last changed on
Tue January 16, 2024 at 1:51 AM EDT
As for CX, I lean in the traditional direction of favoring well-researched and crafted AFFs that link to the topic, solve genuine harms and produce plausible advantages. NEGs need to produce offense and defense arguments, looking for clear on-case attax and Off-case flows with specific links and significant impacts and CPs that are competitive. T args are usually a waste of time with me unless NEG can prove serious abuse of the topic. I'll vote on the K if I can buy the Alt. I ask to see cards on regularly. As for speed, if it is clear, I can flow it, and if I can flow it I can weigh/judge it. I'll yell "Clear" once, and after that, if the speaker is unintelligible, I put down my G2.
In LD, I flow everything--even CX. I look for good Framework clash/comparison and weighing which V/C will carry the round. Contentions must clearly link to the FW, backed up by solid evidence. I'm looking for debaters who can cover both flows thoroughly and offer a clear, concise pathway to getting my ballot. Try to stay steady and organized. Present good voters and weigh them against your opponent. I will listen to progressive strategies if they make sense to me.
With PF, I flow it all, but I in all honesty, I am looking for the team that can articulate the best scenario, back it up with stellar evidence, speak with authority and avoid making CX a barking fest.