Marie Clegg Jones Memorial
2019 — Utah Valley University, Orem, U, UT/US
Chad Abrams Paradigm
Jaime Alonso Paradigm
Amy Anderson Paradigm
Hannah Archibald Paradigm
Ryan Berry Paradigm
Mo Bijold Paradigm
Lesa Boyack Paradigm
Christine Brown Paradigm
Heather Carlisle Paradigm
Esther Chandler Paradigm
Troy Chilcott Paradigm
Jeffrey Clark Paradigm
Emme Clark Paradigm
Nicole Claypool Paradigm
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!
Courtni Dickerson Paradigm
My name is Courtni Dickerson and I am a veteran debater with a Bachelor's of Science in Electrical Engineering.
I competed all three years of my high school career and I devoted my life, heart, and soul into debate. My main events were PF, DUO, and Impromptu; although I dabbled in the IEs quite a bit. I qualified for Nationals 2 of the 3 years, was one of the captains of my team for 2 of the 3 years, and ultimately graduated with Superior Distinction in the National Forensics League (now known as NSDA).
In terms of how I judge, I am very old-school and one of the few people left who truly believe speaking skills are more important than argumentation skills. Here's my advice for you if I judge you:
a. BE COURTEOUS!!! Perhaps my biggest pet peeve are those debaters who believe if they're the loudest and the most dominant, then they must win. If I am judging you, and you're doing rude things such as rolling your eyes at other competitors or being aggressive and not letting your opponent finish a thought or question, I will immediately mark you down, despite how good your argument may be.
b. The round doesn't start when you enter the room, nor when I call your name. The round truthfully begins when you enter the school. I pay attention to how you behave while other's are competing as well as outside of the room. You NEVER get a second chance to make a first impression, so make a good first impression before I see you in my round. I will respect you and I'll be excited to listen to you.
c. Speak loudly and clearly.
d. Don't sway back and forth. Plant your feet firmly, approximately shoulder-width apart. Do not shift your weight from side to side. Women, especially, have a tendency to try to stand with their feet together or in a very formal way, don't do this. *Take control of the stage* I'll say this often, but basically be loud, be assertive (not aggressive) and occupy the full space.
e. If you care about what you're saying, I will care. If you don't, I won't. Simple.
f. Make me listen to you -- not by being the loudest, but by intriguing me and maintaining my attention. The best speakers have the ability to take a loud room and silence everyone just by the words he/she says. It's a powerful tool, so use it well and you will win.
Ultimately, as a veteran, I know all of the tips and tricks to play so I know exactly what to watch out for. Don't try to pull one over on me, because I will call you on it. My biggest piece of advice, however, is YOU DO YOU! The thing I loved most about debate is everyone has their own speaking style, in much the same way as Picasso had his painting style, or Beethoven had his musical style. If you've found something that works, then do it. Have fun with Speech and Debate!
Good luck and I hope to see you out there!
Derrick Duncan Paradigm
Megan Ealey Paradigm
Robert Edwards Paradigm
Sharon Ellsworth-Nielson Paradigm
I look for a clear, understandable LD debate with strong clash of values and criterion.
Don't spew; I can't judge your arguments if I can't understand them.
How to win the round: give a clear roadmap; cite your evidence clearly so that I can note it; constantly show how your points and evidence tie back to your value and criterion, attack your opponent's case but be polite, professional, and fair to your opponent; get your opponent to admit that your value is primary; employ logos/ethos/pathos in appealing to me; point out your points that flow through and those dropped by your opponent.
How to lose the round: bring in Ks and counter plans and jargon that you simply recite and can't explain in your own simple, powerful words; be rude and/or abusive to your opponent; spew so quickly that I stop taking notes; ignore me as the judge and just look at your laptop; drop points; tell me what I should think or do instead of persuading me; admit that your opponent's value trumps yours.
Seth (Congress) Erickson Paradigm
Sara Erickson Paradigm
Justin Ewell Paradigm
Jennifer Fannen-Knight Paradigm
Diane Feinauer Paradigm
Alexander Ferguson Paradigm
Shane Fisher Paradigm
Zach Flanary Paradigm
Kevin Fober Paradigm
Carmen Gaudarrama Paradigm
Kelley Gee Paradigm
Jocelin Gibson Paradigm
Michal Gibson Paradigm
Shellie Giddings Paradigm
Alec Hale Paradigm
Kassidy Hancey Paradigm
Tracy Hancey Paradigm
LD - I am a traditional judge, I do not favor progressive LD. I look for clash and a good morality debate. I also favor good communication. If I can't understand you, I can't flow.
Kimberly Hansen Paradigm
Xander Hayden Paradigm
Stephen Hender Paradigm
Mike Holmes Paradigm
Amaya Hunter Paradigm
Amanda Hurd Paradigm
Wayne Jensen Paradigm
Marie Jensen Paradigm
Keith Johnson Paradigm
Kevin Jones Paradigm
Trina Lathrop Paradigm
Congress: Clear contentions, stated clearly, well supported by citations. (ie, Contention 1 or My first Contention). Do not make me try to figure out what you are wanting to say. If examples are used, back up the example with a legitimate source. Ask intelligent, to the point questions. Answer questions efficiently without a bunch of fluff. If you don't know the answer or don't have the support for the answer, I will know it. Don't waste my time or yours bluffing around. Civility is paramount. Do not talk over each other, that is rude.
Kevin Lathrop Paradigm
Kelly Le Paradigm
Colby Lee Paradigm
Vivian Lee Paradigm
add me on the email chain at firstname.lastname@example.org pls
the UBER basics -
use humor, be bold, and have fun!!
Just explain links well, I am fine with wonky arguments as long as they're logical, & tabula rasa my friends
if you use racist, ableist, sexist language I will be very upset
I did policy, pf, speech, oh and I do parli and speech in college at the U of U
I go by she/her/hers
pretty basic right ...
policy in depth -
the K debate, I am a huge fan of it. I enjoy a good K debate, just make sure you're prepped for fw and T. I am not a huge fan of voting for T against K, but will do it if ya know needed. I think that lots of the K's I have seen this year aren't linking to the motion very well, neg in specific hasn't been linking to the affirmative . SO like please just make it a clean debate for everyone in the room.Debate is supposed to be a safe space, mentally as well. I can follow most args, I do personally believe debate should be a space to have a voice and be advantageous of this unique space ie identity politics and what not. I do not like to see identity or traits of a case/person used or commodified to win the ballot.
oh if ur alt is rage pls give me a headsup but I am still 100% okay with running it. I just wanna know ahead of time lol
Topicality- I think t debates are good, although procedurals aren't my favorite form of debate. if youre going to read t, read it offensively not for a time suck. I won't vote on it if there aren't violations or voters/reasons to prefer. easy right. oh t is always an a priori issue
t- theory I think theory is always good, it brings a little fun to debate. once again there needs to be a reason its read, not just because you wanna
politics da, if your da is a year old its prolly too old. things are changing, so these da's need to be following what is going on or being relevant.
cp - for this topic specific I don't really like the parole cp, I think courts makes more sense, but once again you do you. I am fine with whatever. so perms in this topic are a little funky, bc its still something you should do going against one.
whatever other da. like cool, I get it, go for it. Gotta go for some basics right. OHH if you read a meme da and it makes me laugh, higher speaks to you, and if its good even more kudos. oh geez space da are weird but like, they kinda work pretty well.
pls do voters/rob I do listen to those and heavily weigh it out. I am fine with tag team cross x, I love performances, and clash. clash. clash.
if case goes uncontested, I usually pay heavy attention to that. make sure youre clashing with the case, why its bad, why it won't work, at least something pls.
if you have more questions about pls ask.
ok 👍 still kinda simple paradigm lol I know
Sammi Martinez Paradigm
Lorraine Mason Paradigm
Shaunda McKay Paradigm
Derek Miller Paradigm
Alex Minson Paradigm
Vincent Nabozny Paradigm
Christina Nice Paradigm
Robyn Nielson Paradigm
i'm am very new to the debate world, my paradigm is seeing that you know your evidence very well and being able to debate the specific warrants of each card.
Rebecca Olson Paradigm
Megan Palmer Paradigm
William Peterson Paradigm
Khristen Pippin Paradigm
James Ritchey Paradigm
This is my fourth year as a lay judge. Above all, I appreciate civility. Respect your opponents and maintain a positive attitude. I don't mind a little aggression, but if you start to get snarky or roll eyes, I will start deducting speaker points. I'm not a fan of spreading or spewing. I will flow as best as I can, but if I can't follow, don't expect to win. Please keep your case appropriate for today's practical application. Clash well, speak clearly and persuasively, and have fun and you should do well.
Claire Romney Paradigm
Skip Rynearson Paradigm
Juan Salamanca Paradigm
Cesar Sanchez Paradigm
Jeff Saunders Paradigm
Jose Scott Paradigm
Katie Stelter Paradigm
Kelly Stoetzel Paradigm
Michael Stone Paradigm
I am not a fan of spewing--I also do my best to avoid letting my own biases get in the way. I favor students who have strong research (where applicable) and who use their flows to hold their opponents responsible for logical fallacies. For IE events, I favor students who have clear motive, strong tactics and fully developed characters for their HI or DI events. Diction, professionalism, and the capacity to answer the "so why does this matter?" also matter to me.
Michael Struiksma Paradigm
Cherish Thompson Paradigm
Karen Trujillo Paradigm
Krystal Valencia Paradigm
Linda Wadley Paradigm
Alex Warren Paradigm
Allison Weber Paradigm
As a former competitor and a current education professional, I value speech and debate as an educational experience, first and foremost. I expect students respect one another by debating in good faith, engaging in sportsmanlike conduct, and behaving appropriately. I am not afraid to rank you last or disqualify you for rude sexist, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, or transphobic remarks. This is an opportunity to develop your speaking and debating skills. This is NOT a platform for bad-faith argumentation or prejudiced remarks.
London Weiler Paradigm
Abigail Wolf Paradigm
Daryl Workman Paradigm
History, Language Arts, Civics and Constitution teacher, Debate Coach, former Marine.
Judged PF, LD, Policy, Congress, BQ, and most IE events.
POLICY PARADIGM: (drop down for LD and PF)
Spreading: If you don't say something in the round, benefit or harm to your case, it isn't part of the round. Additionally, only what you SAY can I understand was said. Your shared evidence files do not count if you don't get around to saying what is written there. SOOOO... speak clearly on taglines and whatever you want to be considered clearly as your evidence.
Kritiks: great, if you identify the relevance to WHAT IS BEING DEBATED well before your rebuttal.
Example:Religious freedom is not a racism issue so don't try to identify your whole religious freedom argument as not worthy of arguing because you get to say the word racism.
Spreading: I will not listen to spewing.
I am a traditional judge but I can operate inside much of the progressive methodology (Kritiks should stay in policy, or go away there too). If I can't understand you, you aren't competing.
Topicality: The quality of your debate will be judged on presenting the topic as the topic (Topicality). Throwing in racism as an argument for something that doesn't even relate just because you like to argue about that thing, doesn't bode well for your technique. In other words, if you must spend more time dedicated to showing why your points are part of the topic instead of why they are more valid than the points of your opponent, you are not on topic.
Theory: Your voters are important to have, but just saying that you win because such-and-such doesn't mean you actually win. Prove your argument is right with valid evidence.
Kritik: Doesn't belong in Lincoln Douglas. If you intend to win based on the idea that you shouldn't be debating something, you won't.
Framework: If you are going you give me an "off-time road-map" you should use it. I will be able to flow better if you address items in the order you deem most valuable, or at least identify as most valuable. If I can't figure out your arguments and what evidence is attached to the argument, I will have a hard time figuring out if you won.
In essence, make sure you make it obvious what you are trying to get across.
Not yet identified separately. See LD paradigm for best modality application in PF.