Sequoyah Spotlight
2024
—
Tahlequah,
OK/US
Speech Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Aviana Adcock
Verdigris High School
None
Marisha Allison
Keys High School
None
Haylee Baker
Wilburton
None
Jody Batie
Haskell High School
None
Becca Brant
Sequoyah-Tahlequah
None
Derrick Cerveny
Keys High School
Last changed on
Wed February 28, 2024 at 9:00 AM CDT
Policy Debate: I'm a policy preference judge but will vote how the round takes me. Argument clarity is more important than speed but I am ok with spreading provided the team is clear and enunciates enough to hear the evidence. Logic and analysis are also heavily considered but evidence is the foundation of argumentation.
Lincoln Douglas: I'm looking for clash. If there are conflicting definitions, give me reasons to prefer. I view Criterion as a way to uphold/measure the value.
Ally Chambers
Sequoyah-Tahlequah
None
Bindie Copeland
Keys High School
None
Jacob Hardbarger
Haskell High School
None
Zack Haskins
Riverfield Country Day School
Last changed on
Wed January 10, 2024 at 6:26 AM CDT
Pretty much tab, I'll vote for practically anything if you explain it well and it's not racist/sexist/bigoted etc. Because of this, framework occupies an essential role in the round as it defines the debate space. Also, the cleaner you allow my flow to be, generally the easier time I'll have voting for you. Feel free to ask any specific paradigm questions.
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!
Kylie Hushbeck
Okmulgee High School
None
Mechelle Jordan
Quinton Public Schools
None
Jessica Matthews
Keys High School
Last changed on
Wed April 17, 2024 at 7:16 AM CDT
I am a policy coach at heart with a stock issues/policy maker blend paradigm. I love on case (stock issues) clash in the 2NC. I don't like Ks, but if they link and the alt can't be permed, let's go. T arguments acceptable. Please do not cry abuse and then run 3 DAs. Either it is abusive and you couldn't prepare or the T needs a new voter. For other styles of debate, down the flow attacks and answers are always fun. Be calm, cool, and competitive.
Victoria Moore
Haskell High School
None
Benjamin Schaus
Keys High School
None
Davida Shannon
Mounds High School
None
Sydney Smith
Keys High School
None
Marie Underwood
Wilburton
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.