2019 — UT/US
Julie Argyle Paradigm
Tammy Baron Paradigm
I have experience in a wide range of debate and speech events. Here are my paradigms for some.
I did LD for 3 years, a few years ago. I love a good logic based debate. One that digs deep into the issues. I have studied ethic and philosophy in college and am familiar with the terms and major philosophies, from Plato to Kant, and beyond. I prefer to judge based on the arguments not on topicality or other more team paradigms, but will if that is what the debate calls for. Please offer relevant values and criteria.
I love impromptu. Please try new things. I will judge based on devilry and content. I love if you can include some humor, because we all need a good laugh!
Policy or Team-
I did my first year of debate. I can flow fairly fast but if I put my pen down you have lost me and it might be worth your time to go back a bit and catch me up. I don't mind well done spew but if I can't understand you it won't matter how fast you deliver your content. For policy I don't mind topicality or similar arguments.
I follow both domestic and foreign events so present information that is current and correct. I will judge on content and delivery.
Stephanie Bothell Paradigm
Jason Bowers Paradigm
Nikki Bowers Paradigm
Robert Bradley Paradigm
Paradigm * November 2019
I like judging. That is why I am here. Have fun during this tournament and during your debate adventures. You can make some great friends through high school debate. Let me know if I can help, or if you have any questions. I appreciate humor, and I prefer courteous debate. I won’t judge you on what you wear, or other irrelevant factors. During a debate round I do not judge you on any “speech” criteria. Most tournaments do not allow me to give any type of results, comments, or advice after the end of the round. If you see me later during the tournament I probably can give you feedback.
I am looking for significant “voter” issues. I do not choose them myself unless forced to choose because the debaters did not help me to make a choice. I want the debaters in the round to tell me how to vote. I will sometimes have to decide on my own which arguments are most significant but I always prefer the debaters to tell me. Your debate will have a much bigger impact on the type of judge I am than anything I could say here. Remember to have fun! Don't be rude. Sassy and humorous are fine. Be confident without being a jerk. If the teams are mismatched don't be condescending; don't roll your eyes. Don’t lie. Debate like you want to be here debating. If this is your first time debating… keep this to yourself. Please do not tell me “I’ve never done this before!”
Speed: I have an issue with speed. If you talk too fast I will tune out. *
Help me flow your debate. I like signposts. I like crystallization. I like it when you point out your voting issues at the end of the round. I like stock issues: solvency, harms, inherency, and significance. Off-time roadmaps are fine. Finish your question if the time runs out. The opposing side does not have to answer, but they can answer if they want to answer.
I will evaluate the kritik first in the debate round before any other question is resolved, and if the kritik must be compared to the plan, then the kritik will outweigh the plan or value position. The kritik is an argument that must be adjudicated first before we can evaluate other issues in the round. This pre-fiat discussion takes place before we even get to talking about what happens after we pass the plan (post-fiat). Topicality is the same: we have to decide if the plan is even allowed to be discussed within the resolution before we can evaluate it. Kritiks are ‘pre-fiat’ because it is the only ‘real’ thing that happens in a debate round. Kritiks often target things which are explicitly real world that had an impact in real life. We should talk about what really happened in the debate round before we talk about what might happen in an imaginary world where some made up plan might get implemented.
I am well informed about local, state, national, and international issues, including politics and the environment. I am passionate about personal freedom and individual liberty.
Judging/ Coaching Highlights:
8 years as a coach and judge at Highland High School, Pocatello, Idaho
Idaho State Speech & Debate Championships 2014 to 2018
Beehive Bonanza at the University of Utah
Alta High School (TOC Debate) in Sandy, Utah
Jack Howe Memorial Debate Tournament at Cal State Long Beach
National Speech & Debate Association Nationals: 2014, 2015 & 2016
Coach for: + Individual Speech Events + Debate + Congress
Christine Brown Paradigm
Kathy Chau Paradigm
Ceci Coller Paradigm
New debate mom. Eye contact, do not have what you are reading in front of your face. Use good dictation. How well do you attack your opponents framework.
Zane Cordova Paradigm
I am a large fan of you always giving a genuine performance. My two biggest things are that you give me a genuinely engaging presentation no matter what event you are doing, debates and speeches alike. Second, is that you always utilize sources and real world examples in all that you do. I am a really lenient chap so I will always be judging you according to the medium within the round. I see no point in having strict paradigms like some other judges cause I recognize that everyone has varying skill levels and dedication. That doesn't mean you can get away with being a butthead though.
Since I usually do Congress I will say a few extra things I like to look for right here. I love participation and just like your chair should always do, I will be keeping record of a questioning priority so I know when the house is both being ran fairly and efficiently. Even though congress has less of an opportunity for clash that is no excuse to not have it! Clash if you can, call out other representatives, get aggressive! I will generally judge your chairmanship very strictly but that is no reason to be scared, I like efficiency and I will put a lot on your ballots about it so that I can help y'all improve. Its not just to be mean. Haha. Overall, I'm still a very laid back judge and you will be judged based off of the medium set forth in the house. So no, my paradigm is still not very strict. I want to help everyone be the best that they can be. I'm at most of the tournaments in Northern Utah so don't be afraid to track me down with any questions!
THE CLICHE BRAG PORTION:
Since everyone else likes to brag about themselves in their paradigms I guess that means that I have to as well. I started off with speech events during my sophomore year and placed in impromptu fairly frequently as a novice, so I can smell bs from a mile away, its in my blood. I Bs'd the following two years of congress and qualified to compete at nationals during my senior year but never went cause I was broke. When I graduated in 2017 I ranked second in the State of Utah for Congressional Debate. I did a couple FBLA tournaments during my days and at the one tournament where I competed in Parliamentary Procedures I took first place. (If you don't believe me I'll send pics.) So I do know procedures very well. I primarily will be judging Congress but I know my way around all the other events as well so I'm not your typical mom judge. (I'm also a dude, so...) I also tell jokes quite a bit so I hope to be the funniest dude you'll ever meet. Cheers!
Elle Diether Paradigm
I'm a value based judge. I expect to see you discuss the value and to tie back your contentions to your value. Although you do not have to win the value to win the debate you can adopt the other debater’s value and argue your side achieves their value better. I will be flowing the entire round. I will expect you to tell me why to vote you and when to vote in your favor. I expect you to argue for your contentions as well as rebutting the other debater’s argument. I did foreign extemp and LD in high school so I understand the rules and you can feel free to use all the debate jargon you want. I expect you to use evidence cards as well as logical arguments. I try to be as objective as possible and base it on what you guys say not my own opinions. I can keep up with fast speech fairly well as long as we don’t get so fast we start speaking like policy debaters. Overall be thoughtful, clear, and well spoken and give good arguments grounded in your value.
For Foreign and National Extemp:
I’m a foreign extemper in my heart still. I expect for extempers to use evidence by quoting sources by stating the the newspaper tile as well as the date. I expect the sources to be in a least a year preferably 6 months of the day your speaking. I will be counting them and they will affect overall ranking. I will look for clear organization and for you to fill between 6 and 7 mins but you do have a grace period. I expect an AGD or hook and a conclusion as well as your points. I will look for a thoughtful clear organization of your speech. I want you to speak with confidence and with emotion. Be funny or be powerful, let yourself and your opinions come through your speech.
For all the other IE’s:
I’m looking for a logical and thoughtful organization. I’m looking for a speaker with good eye contact and a voice with emotion and enunciation. A speaker whose emotional when they need to be, and logical and argumentative when they need to be. I’m very familiar with theater and speech so I look for the arguments as well as the performance for the overall rankings.
Samuel Eash Paradigm
Isaac Erickson Paradigm
I am more traditional. I enjoy statistics from reputable sources. I need clear sign posting. Support your case.
Sara Erickson Paradigm
I am like a debate dinosaur. Maybe not a dinosaur, but a majestic unicorn that wants to be understood. I have been doing this activity since 1991 and I have literally done/coached every event. I believe that this is a community and we should all treat each other with respect.
I can flow. My skills are not what they used to be, but I can flow. Please be super clear in your organization and if I can't understand you, I will let you know. I am good with theory and enjoy it when done well. I don't have argument preference...do what makes you happy and pick a strategy that you thing you can win with.
Jeffrey Evans Paradigm
Honestly, if you're the type of debater who looks up their judges paradigm, you'll probably be fine.
Experience: I debated in Lincoln Douglas all through High School. I have experience in and am comfortable with both traditional and progressive debates. Stuff I read: Plans, CP's, one K, and Advantages/DA's (when not going the traditional route). My vote goes off of the flow and I try to be as tabula rasa as possible.
Speed: I'm cool with top speed if I can at least catch your tags and authors. If I can't then I'll clear you, but I won't dock any speaker points.
Theory/T(procedurals): I prefer Drop The Arg over Drop The Debater, No RVI's, and Reasonability over Counter Interpretations. I don't have a ton of experience with this type of debate, so be clear on the interpretation if you go this route.
Flashing/emailing isn't prep unless you take waaaay too long. Flex prep is fine for clarification if both debaters are comfortable with it.
If each debater/team asks me then I will disclose.
Please be respectful and make debate a safe place.
Contact: email@example.com or just come find me after round if you have questions.
Marc Fairbanks Paradigm
Camryn Fife Paradigm
I did public forum all through high school, I'll be a flow judge, so you'll need to tell me exactly why I should be voting for you and where I prefer your argument over your opponents. Framework needs to be held up throughout the whole round or it means nothing to me. More specifically, I want to see the weighing of impacts throughout the entire round and I want to see clear and concise links in your arguments. Back up your claims, and don't shy away from logical explanations. If you're attempting to make a point and don't have clear linking and/or adequate evidence to show me your points validity, I just wont flow it. Make my job easy for me. - and I can handle speed as long as you can form coherent words. I will judge whatever it is you're running, whether its progressive, traditional or even something I've never heard of before, ill weigh it all objectively but it is your job to tell me why to vote in your favor. Effective analysis is the holy grail of debating. I won't flow cross, if you think something was important in cross- bring it up in speech. I don't care for off-time roadmaps, but if thats your thing then thats fine by me. I'm big on organization so keep up with signposting.
Lincoln Douglas: I have a lot of debate experience and an extensive judging record in both PF and LD, you can run whatever you want as long as you are showing me clear links, evidence, impacts and are adequately linking back into your VC. Even with LD being more of a morally weighted discussion, I still expect you to connect evidence to the logic you're providing in your case/speech. If you're not using clear cited evidence, at the very least I expect very very clear link and impact development about your points. Simply stating an impact is nothing without clear links. Clear analysis of your cards and of the presented arguments will make your job and my job way easier. I can flow any speed or style of speaking (as long as you can form coherent words) and it's up to you where to sit, to stand or sit for cross-fire, or any other variables in-round. I'm going to weigh everything you say objectively and it is up to you to tell me how to vote and why.
Adam Ghabayen Paradigm
Tami Havey Paradigm
Tanner Latham Paradigm
I'm a traditional judge. Overall, I look for professionalism and that as you debate you defend your case while working to defeat your opponents' case. If an opponent offers arguments/counter-arguments/evidence, you need to recognize and address it. Don't just ignore it or act as if it doesn't affect your case, otherwise it might end up doing just that.
LD: I want to see how your arguments tie into your Value and Value Criterion. Also make sure you're explaining why your Value should be the held above others in the round.
If you choose to use plans/counterplans, both parties need to accept them in the round, otherwise you'll have to argue as to whether it fits under the resolution.
Make sure your points are logical, tie into your evidence or value, and can show a clear path to the argument you're making.
PF: Make sure your arguments are logical. If you have a Framework, make sure your points tie to the Framework and that the philosophy strengthens your side of the resolution. If there is a contest of evidence, I may ask to view it.
Wirtjo Leonard Paradigm
Last Updated for Copper Classic 2018.
Affiliation: Woods Cross High School, Weber State University, Beehive Forensics Institute (University of Utah), Wasatch Debate Institute
With the exception of things that are listed in the "misc. important things section" everything else is merely a guideline and my personal preferences, i would much rather see a debater(s) go for an argument that they're more comfortable going for and have fun with it than feel pressured to align themselves with things that i prefer to see in debate. Thats not to say don't continue to read the rest of my paradigm, especially if you're a rather versatile debater, but moreso that i'm pretty open.
I believe I have an unique experience as an autistic disabled member of the debate community and I believe that any opening of inclusion in debate is best for activity as a whole. I will do anything and everything in my power to make sure that the round you are involved in with me is a safe and inclusive space. The round MUST be accessible to all, and I think pre-round disclosure is crucial in assuring that happens, particularly when in the context of debates where there is a significant difference in terms of the style of arguments and debate presented. If there is anything I can do during the round to make it more accessible to YOU please let me know.
Background: I grew up debating in a traditional LD circuit, but gradually became more fond of critical debate, this in no way means that my judging paradigm is more skewed to the progressive debater compared to the traditional one.
Things I like: Voters, clash, impact weighing, topical links, critical arguments, real world application, link turns, really good case debate, being polite. Impacts that don't include nuclear war.
Things I dislike: Really anything that could make the debate space hostile, that would be ablest, racist, sexist, homophobic rhetoric. (Don't further exasperate the social problems that debate attempts to solve.) Failure to signpost, stealing prep time, not articulating the link = impact level. Feel free to ask further questions.
How I view a Debate: I typically default to some form of comparative worlds/cost benefit analysis type of FW unless told otherwise.
--------------------MISC. Important Things---------------------
- If you think something runs even the slightest risk of warranting a trigger warning, then for the sake of your partner, opponents, or maybe even me please use a trigger warning.
- If you use the word "retarded" as equivalence to "stupid" or "bad" expect 20 speaks. - Exception would be as a method to reaffirm one's identity as a crip debater within the debate space.
- Need to win the link to win the impact
- Seriously, slow the hell down on the T shell, and slow the hell down on the tags and authors, if i have to say "slow" more than 4 time's i'll probably stop flowing.
- Really solid analysis over reading 6 different cards all saying the same thing any day of the week.
- Someone told me I didn't give a single 30 all last year, that's probably true.
- I flow straight down on an excel sheet. - I very much vote off the flow
- Dropped arguments are important
- I try not to be extremely expressive, but I am. Use that to your advantage.
- Don't make args outside of your social location - I don't want to hear white people read Wilderson.
- I call for cards probably more often than i should.
- Both you and I would prefer me paying attention to the arguments you are making, and not having to stop and focus on giving you the right time signals. Please time yourself.
- As much as I would like to give a 30 minute critique at the end of each round, (there are several obvious reasons as to why i can't do that), therefore i'll spend a good portion of CX writing comments on the ballot or finishing up the flow. I DO NOT FLOW CX, So if there's something super important that came up in CX bring it up in the next speech.
- CX is binding.
---------------------- Policy ---------------------------
- Really I’m down for whatever, plan text, performance, but don't assume I am going to weigh the impacts of your affirmative out for you.
- Tell me how you solve and emphasize it, weigh the advantages. I feel that a lot of teams get caught up in answering the neg and not utilizing the affirmative as a mechanism to outweigh.
- I am very fond of these arguments
- I need warrants as to how/what the performance does. Specifically in the debate space/other spaces and what my job as an educator includes if I endorse you/your method with the ballot.
- Refusing to affirm the resolution in front of me is fine, as long as you warrant out sufficiently why the resolution is problematic. Some form of topical link/semi-topical link is preferred and makes that a lot easier.
- Exclusionary ROB's may be hard to win in front of me.
- Things such as fairness and education are rarely genuine and I hate the time suck that T is becoming.
- Theory/Topicality is almost always a question of access to the debate. I’m very skeptical of your ground, limits, education arguments when you’re reading the same shell you’ve read all year in addition to 3 other off-case positions.
- I find myself often defaulting to T as a question of reasonability when not specifically framed as competing interpretations. If you point out that your Aff is on open-evidence and its the same aff literally everyone is reading (I.E the drones aff from a few years ago) +1 speaks.
- This doesn’t mean never read T in front of me. I think theory arguments are incredibly important when there is evidence of actual abuse or a discrepancy between access to the debate. Accessibility is almost always automatically a voting issue.
- My favorite type of debate - I am familiar with substantial portions of lots of different types of the literature.
- if you decide to make critical arguments, make sure that you not only slow down, but you explain them clearly and concisely, that will make the round more accessible for everyone involved.
- Have a good link, don't run the same generic cap link for every aff. Also win the link, i'm not giving you access to other parts of the argument if the link articulation is extremely clear.
- Links based off of action and behavior in round is something that I am extremely sympathetic to.
- Historically I have trouble voting for criticisms that lack an above average articulation on the alternative. Tell me EXACTLY what the world of the alt looks like, (no zizek says its a good idea, so what?)
- Super familiar with: Ableism, Biopolitics, Ecofem
- Explain it to me like i am 5: Lacan, D&G, Virillo, Heidigger.
- Unique, reasonable scenarios > rehashed shells with somewhat recent uniqueness updates.
- PIC's are cool and easy to win in front of me if you can do a good job on its distinction from the aff.
- Process/time CP's are pretty abusive in my opinion, but that's your arg to make not mine.
- All I ask is that your politics scenarios are realistic and the Squo/Link level is well articulated.
Write the ballot for me. Tell me what I should evaluate.
I typically default to some form of comparative worlds/cost benefit analysis type of FW unless told otherwise.
Dropped arguments are the easiest place for me to vote in LD
Theory: I feel that T is becoming an ever increasing important part of debate to maintain opportunity for equal engagement in LD debate particulary in regards to bigger debate schools v smaller debate schools. Theory should also be run as a way to counter proven abuse not probable abuse. In LD i'm totally open and have voted on things such as Condo, 1 AR time skew, those sorts of things. But in general my threshold for theory is not incredibly high, and is viewed moreso as a legitimate way for debaters to gain access to the round.
That doesn’t mean that im going to vote on it by any means, but a round where theory is warranted and not understood how to be executed a conversation will definitely be had as to how to level the playing field in future rounds for debaters who may be disadvantaged.
Condo: I'm pretty sympathetic to the aff when it comes to multiple off-cases. Especially regarding LD. But no matter what event it's probably bogus to have to answer an absurd amount of off cases. I don't care if Congress has multiple options on an issue, aff debaters arrive at a extreme disadvantage even if it is as simple as perm do both to seven different things. This isnt to say don't run any off cases, its simply to say its probably really bad for educational engagement and I’ll be rather annoyed if you read more than 2 + case in an LD round.
"Become the link-turn to the disads in your own community."
I would like to be on your email chain.
Keith Manning Paradigm
Jason McConnell Paradigm
Josh Memmott Paradigm
I did debate for three years in high school, two years of policy and one year of congress. I read primarily cap Ks and I'm fine with speed. Don't read pomo unless you can really explain it well.
Elaine Murray Paradigm
Amy O'Reilly Paradigm
Ethan Oscarson Paradigm
Scott Pettit Paradigm
Collin Preece Paradigm
I have been doing debate for a long time. I can handle most things that are thrown out in a round. I don't like incredible speed, but I can handle it. I like it when the argument is clear, concise and performed well. I do not like personal attacks in a round. Keep things civil! If things get too out of hand I will be very motivated to give the round to the most civilized team. Aside from these few things, I am not extremely worried about the content of the round. Whoever's argument is better will win!
BreAnn Ream Paradigm
Brittney Rich Paradigm
Victoria Riggan Paradigm
All of my high school debate competition experience stems from Lincoln-Douglas at Taylorsville High circa 2011-2013. Since this was right as things were evolving from more traditional to more progressive, I have experience with all kinds of debates and thus I consider myself a "hybrid" kind of a judge.
For starters and generally speaking,
Value/Criterion: We have them in LD for a reason. Try not to forget them. I will revert back to them as a weighing mechanism for solvency if things get messy. If they are the same, then great lets move on and not worry about them too much unless we have specific/new arguments related to them. Otherwise we can all carry on through the round with the assumption that I the judge will weigh the round at least 50% based on who wins here.
Clash: I like clash all throughout the round. From the value/criterion debate to the key arguments from the contentions to impacts. The more back and forth on arguments vs we just have better impacts in our world than theirs, the better. That being said, try to keep it to the key arguments that actually matter in the round. i.e. don't beat small dead horses. Let's focus on the bigger stuff and what that means and how it ties back to the v/c.
Speed: I can handle a decent amount of speed. Speed is two fold for me, I can listen to fairly quick speech and keep up, in my head. My fingers can only move so fast though. So that being said, please take into account how fast I literally can go to flow when listening to you. Contention Taglines/Key Card names should be slowed down on at least a tad so I can catch them for the flow. I can summarize my own key points of it as you go and I listen but at least help me not get lost on what info goes where ya know?
Counter-Plans/K's : I don't like to judge K's because they aren't done very well usually. If you want to run one, please let me know and only do so if you really feel strong in doing so. This includes strength in explaining your K and its fairness and legality in LD to your opponent in case you happen to be the first person they come across this with. Counterplans, not to be confused with simple alternatives suggested within your case, basically are of the same. I only make the distinction so that you know I'm not against any and all mentions of alternatives.
Voters: I LOVE having voters at the end of final speeches for two reasons. One, it clearly shows me that you are aware and able to identify for me the key arguments that the round should be weighted by and based on how well you do this, I will give you that 29 or 30 on speaker points. I believe this is a speaker skill. Second, if the round is messy its like my last saving grace to get some clarity! Ahahahaha
CX: Sit or stand. I don't care. I'm SUPER CHILL. It's not a big deal to me honestly.
Speaking of being super chill, have fun. I'd love it if you can time yourselves! Overall, I'm here for a good debate and a good time. Let's keep it friendly and have a good time and learn a lot!
PLEASE BY ALL MEANS ASK ME ANYTHING IF YOU DON'T FEEL LIKE YOU GOT A CONFIDENT/GOOD ENOUGH ANSWER HERE! I'M SUPER NICE! :) I'D RATHER YOU ASK ME IF YOU DON'T KNOW AND I CAN CLARIFY FOR YOU!
NOW LET'S GO!!!
Tracy Sedgwick Paradigm
Clint Shepherd Paradigm
Jimmy Sieng Paradigm
Cheryl Sneddon Paradigm
Brian Stephens Paradigm
Teia Swan Paradigm
Quick about me:
I'm an International Relations major - there is a chance I will have some applicable knowledge on whatever you are talking about.
I debated LD at Park City High School for four years, and know a vague amount about every other event.
I hate the kind of debate where people vomit evidence without any analytics, please do not do this.
I never really ran Ks, and am not super knowledgeable on K literature, but you can run whatever you want as long as you run it well.
If you run anything sexist, racist, homophobic, etc., I will vote you down for making the debate space/general universe suck for minorities.
If you have any specific questions, ask before round.
Austyn Thomas Paradigm
I am a former traditional LD debater. I like to see a case that has a nice emotional appeal backed with logic and facts. The most important voting factor for me is IMPACT. Tell me why I should vote for AFF/NEG and what sort of impact your case has versus what’s currently happening in the status quo.
Danielle Vaughn Paradigm
Eric Whittaker Paradigm
Becky Zani Paradigm
I'm looking for the strength of your argument. How well do you defend your framework? How well do you attack the argument of your oppponent?