National Speech and Debate Season Opener hosted by UK

2018 — KY/US

Margaret Broersma Paradigm

Not Submitted

Elena Cecil Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Mo (Mary) Cox Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jacob Dugger Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Luis Dulzaides Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lisa Edmonds Paradigm

Not Submitted

Wendy Faerber Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ricky Faerber Paradigm

Not Submitted

Connie Gillispie Paradigm

Not Submitted

Renee Guilford Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jeff Harkleroad Paradigm

I've been judging Congressional Debate at the TOC since 2011. I'm looking for outstanding statesmanship backed by a solid platform speech -- well-organized with good sourcing. No rehash & build upon the argumentation. I want to hear you demonstrate true comparative understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of the plan presented by the legislation. Don't simply praise or criticize the status quo as if the legislation before you doesn't exist.

Frank Harvey Paradigm

Not Submitted

Damon Helton Paradigm

Not Submitted

Emily Higdon Paradigm

Not Submitted

Teresa Holt Paradigm

Not Submitted

Maggie Jenkins Paradigm

Not Submitted

Irish Jenkins Paradigm

I am a relatively new judge to debate, and as such wouldn't count on a technical debate strategy benefitting you (jargon such as front lining, terminal impact, bright line, etc.) unless you are able to explain what it means. That being said, I will not disqualify a Tech>Truth argument so long as it is not absolutely ridiculous to the point of comical or insulting. THIS ALSO MEANS SPREADING. If I can't understand it, I can't and won't flow it. I don't mind defense in the summary, so long as you tell me what I am going to be weighing in the final focus.

As I am new, I am not hyperaware of the implicit meaning of "dropping cards" or such. YOU HAVE TO TELL ME WHY THESE THINGS MATTER IN-ROUND IN REAL-WORLD TERMS.

Please be clear, well-paced, and moderate in your speaking, logical, thorough, and respectful in your case and in argument, and I shouldn't be a hard judge to sway.

Brian Kaufman Paradigm

Not Submitted

Annalisa Keuler Paradigm

I am a lay judge and former speech team coach. My background is in theatre and speech, so presentation matters to me. I would like you to speak at a slow rate, so I can make sure to catch all of your arguments and evidence. I also need your speeches to be well organized. In the end, I will value argument over style, but again, if I can’t understand it, I can’t vote for it. I just ask that you be civil and respectful of each other.

Krista Kohl Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jenee Kowalski Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jade Kropp Paradigm

Not Submitted

Amanda Langford Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jill Lippincott Paradigm

Not Submitted

David Lu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Teresa Moore Paradigm

Not Submitted

Bill Prater Paradigm

I have been a coach for 20 years and I have judged it all so I am pretty open to any time of arguments. To me there are a few do's and don'ts when it comes to LD.

1. This is a philosophical debate. I don't want this to be a clash of evidence. There should be evidence to back up your claim but it should not be intensive.

2. Don't be condescending in your cross ex. Acting like you don't care about the answer the other person gave or interrupting them before they get the answer out is not okay. If you want them to give shorter answers then ask a more succinct question.

3. Progressive debate for me is VERY limited. There is nothing to solve here. The AFF SHOULd NOT have a plan, etc. I don't want to watch 1-person policy. Just because you have a VP and a VC doesn't mean you are doing LD debate. If you don't have a VP and a VC or on the NEG you say you accept the AFFs and move on, I won't vote for you!!!

4. This is debate so there needs to be clash and analysis the whole way out. Listen to what your opponent is arguing and debate them!

5. On the NEG I am fine with running DAs and Ks. I WILL NOT except theory debate on either side.

Also, I am creating this paradigm for you so don't ask me about other items before the round. Everything else is fair game as long as it is done well! Address the resolution and give me a philosophical reason for your claims. I don't need to be on your email chain. Also, I do not disclose.

Good luck!

Xander Quinio Paradigm

Not Submitted

PJ Samorian Paradigm

Mr. P. J. Samorian
Mr. Samorian is the Speech and Debate Department Chair at American Heritage School Boca/Delray Campus. His teams compete in Lincoln Douglas, Public Forum, Congressional Debate and Individual Speech Events, Worlds School Debate with possible Policy Debate addition. AH Achievements: LD State Champion, Sunvite PF Champion, Emory PF Champion, NSDA/NCFL Finalists in IE and Congress, Grapevine PF Champions, Bronx Congress RR Champion, Blue Key PF and LD Champions, Blue Key 3rd Place Sweepstakes. He is the former Director of Forensics at New Trier High School in Winnetka, Illinois. He was the Director of Forensics at Loyola Academy in Wilmette, Illinois for 18 years and before that was an Assistant IE Coach at Glenbrook South High School in Glenview, Illinois under the direction of William (Mark) Ferguson. He coached the NFL Poetry Reading National Champion (1993), NFL Congress(Senate) Runner-Up (2000), ICDA State Congress Champions (2000), IHSA State Congressional Debate Runner-Up (2008), and his team won one of five NCFL Eleanor E. Wright Debate Awards (2009). He has coached finalists and champions at Wake Forest, Grapevine, The Glenbrooks, Blue Key, The Barkley Forum, U.C.Berkeley, Sunvite and Harvard. Mr. Samorian is an NSDA Triple Diamond coach. He holds a B.A. from Northern Illinois University and a M.Ed. from Loyola University Chicago. He attended Glenbrook North High School in Northbrook, Illinois where he was involved with drama and music. He was involved with hosting five NCFL National Tournaments in Chicago, and was the President of the Chicago Catholic Forensic League and has served on both the Northern Illinois NFL District Committee as well as the IHSA State Debate Committee. He was the director of public forum for Millennial Speech and Debate (Georgetown and Boston College) and was the Co-Director for Public Forum Debate at the Harvard Summer Workshop. He has hosted NSDA webinars on different aspects of congressional debate. He is currently the director of public forum at Georgetown and was an instructor this past summer with Capitol Debate at Notre Dame Baltimore and American University Washington DC. This summer he will be teaching at Yale University and then directing programs at Dartmouth and Babson Colleges.

FOR ALL DEBATE EVENTS, the flow is so important. You have to listen and make note of what your opponents are saying. I am flowing, so you should be as well. Then it is important that you DO something with that information.

I am open to any argument you may make and then ask that you support that idea.

If you are going to spread, please sign post and accent key terms you want me to get down on my flow.

I work hard to not let any of my personal opinions have any place in the round.

I prefer that debaters be strong in their conviction but not be abusive in their treatment of others.
I also require you to be truthful. Present accurate evidence. I have been witness to false information and it really bothers me that you would just present it as though it is true and keep going until someone questions it.

Persuade me that you are right and your opponents are not.

I DO NOT SHAKE HANDS AT THE END OF A ROUND

LINCOLN DOUGLAS
I prefer that contestants stick to the philosophical arguments in the round. It bothers me when LD turns to a plan of action. (With exception of a topic that requires a plan...) While topics are sometimes hard, I am looking for the theory that is supporting what you are saying. To this end, you may consider me "old school" when it comes to LD. Yes, I do think that Locke, Hobbes, Rousseau and others should provide foundation for the direction you are going. That doesn't mean I am not open to other theories and philosophies, however if you do run theory or other arguments, know why you are running them. Please don't run them because you do that at every tournament so you don't have to prep each topic!!! An entire round of arguments not related to the topic will not win my ballot. Ignoring a judge who says "clear" when you are spreading, will not win my ballot. Clear, persuasive arguments will win my ballot. Arguments that are constructed and carried through the debate will win my ballot. Weighing at the end or your final rebuttal could win my ballot. I do not shake hands at the end of a round.

PUBLIC FORUM
I like the original intention of this event that it should be a debate that would take place in a public setting and would have ideas and delivery that any person off the street could understand. To this end, I don't want you to be a policy debater. While I do want structure to what you are saying and evidence to support your ideas, it is the PUBLIC approach that I prefer. Are you clear? Do your points make logical sense? Are you able to persuade me that your side is the side that is best for our current population? I have been extremely bothered in the past few years with students who are falsifying evidence. I judged a semi-final where one team built an entire case around one key piece of evidence. Their opponents called for the evidence during the round, but it was never produced. The judge next to me called for the evidence after the round and sure enough, they were blatantly misquoting the evidence. I have also researched evidence that simply does not exist. Have some integrity. Do the work needed to prepare yourself for the topic. I do not shake hands at the end of a round.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATE
Yes, I was around when the event was called Student Congress and it has been an honor to have been a part of the evolution of the activity. I think there are many roles that congressional debaters play. To that end, there are many styles of speeches that I enjoy when judging a congress round. The authorship should explain the legislation and set the tone and standard for the round. The first con should be equally as strong. Both should have strong supportive evidence and equally strong explanations. Every speech after that should further debate with new evidence and should also extend or refute previous speakers. For me, politics are a waste of time. That being said, I also don't like it to be a speech competition. It should be a series of debate speeches on both sides so that at the end of debate on each piece of legislation, I have a better idea of the issues and in a sense; I have been persuaded to one side or the other. If you are speaking near the end of the debate, then a top-notch crystallization is in order and very much enjoyed when done well. If you are a presiding officer, I want it to run so smoothly and fairly that I never have to step in. A good PO brings energy to the room and fosters an atmosphere of healthy debate. I enjoy students who have their own unique style and don't just copy what everyone else is doing and saying. Play to your strengths. Recent developments in more complicated scenarios have been interesting as has the development of 30 second questioning periods (direct questioning). Congressional Debate is still evolving and I think we should enjoy the growth. Some styles work better than others, but I am not convinced there is just one way to speak or preside. I enjoy some of the regional and league differences. I serve on the TOC Congressional Debate Advisory Committee. I do not shake hands at the end of a round.

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS
I don't think anyone checks the wiki for IE philosophy. LOL I mean, its not like you could change your cutting of speech because I am in the back of the room. IE was my first love and passion. Do well in performance. Be honest and true and you will win me every round. I often write an IE ballot as though I am coaching you. So, if I give you ideas and then see you a month later and have to just write the same exact ballot again, what did you learn and do my notes even matter at that point. IE students often try to read the judge. You can't really read me. I may be writing feverishly to give you as many suggestions for improvement as possible, I may be writing how much I am enjoying every moment, or a may stop writing because I don't have much to say because you are so amazing.

Anne Sheedlo Paradigm

Not Submitted

Alison Starcher Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jeremey Starcher Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ronnie Talbott Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rachel West Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rebecca Weston Paradigm

Not Submitted

Helen Williams Paradigm

I am the speech and debate coach at Hazard High School. Congressional Debate is my favorite event and I have coached many state finalist and champions and as well have had students do well at national tournaments. I enjoy all aspects of congressional debate but really like best the role of Parli. I am here to facilitate a smooth chamber. My preference is to remain unobtrusive yet be of value and assistance to the PO, judges and the participants.

I also coach interp, limited prep events, and public speaking. I love to see the character come through the performance, the passion evident in the speech and the clear and concise analysis in delivery of your view on a topic.

Rachel Williams Paradigm

Dr. Rachel Williams

I teach Public Forum debate and public speaking at Global Academic Commons.

In a Public Forum debate, I look for strong arguments supported with strong evidence presented in a clear manner.

I would define a strong argument as one that relates to the resolution at hand, is well-organized, and clearly states your position, using solid logic and reasoning. Quality, well-explained arguments will trump a mere quantity. Debaters should use quoted evidence to support your claims, and well-chosen, relevant evidence will strengthen, though not replace, arguments.

Effective persuasion requires credible, unbiased, strong supporting evidence. In your speeches, this includes proper citation of any evidence used, and this must include source name and date. You should use direct quotations of your evidence and must have it available when asked.

Clear communication is a consideration. I will weigh arguments only to the extent that they are clearly explained, and will discount arguments that are too fast, too garbled, or too jargon-laden to be understood.