Marie Clegg Jones Memorial

2019 — Utah Valley University, Orem, U, UT/US

Chad Abrams Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jaime Alonso Paradigm

Not Submitted

Amy Anderson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Hannah Archibald Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ryan Berry Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mo Bijold Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lesa Boyack Paradigm

Not Submitted

Christine Brown Paradigm

Not Submitted

Heather Carlisle Paradigm

Not Submitted

Esther Chandler Paradigm

Not Submitted

Troy Chilcott Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jeffrey Clark Paradigm

Not Submitted

Emme Clark Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nicole Claypool Paradigm

Not Submitted

Zane Cordova Paradigm

GENERAL 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.

CONGRESS:

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

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Megan Ealey Paradigm

Not Submitted

Robert Edwards Paradigm

Not Submitted

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.  

Sharon Ellsworth-Nielson

Seth (Congress) Erickson Paradigm

Not Submitted

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.

Justin Ewell Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jennifer Fannen-Knight Paradigm

Not Submitted

Diane Feinauer Paradigm

Not Submitted

Alexander Ferguson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Shane Fisher Paradigm

Not Submitted

Zach Flanary Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Kevin Fober Paradigm

Not Submitted

Carmen Gaudarrama Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kelley Gee Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jocelin Gibson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Michal Gibson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Shellie Giddings Paradigm

Not Submitted

Alec Hale Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kassidy Hancey Paradigm

Not Submitted

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.

PF - I am a traditional judge, do not favor progressive PF. See above.

Kimberly Hansen Paradigm

Not Submitted

Xander Hayden Paradigm

Not Submitted

Stephen Hender Paradigm

Not Submitted

Mike Holmes Paradigm

Not Submitted

Amaya Hunter Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Amanda Hurd Paradigm

Not Submitted

Wayne Jensen Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Marie Jensen Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Keith Johnson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kevin Jones Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

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

Not Submitted

Kelly Le Paradigm

Not Submitted

Colby Lee Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Vivian Lee Paradigm

add me on the email chain at leevivian859@yahoo.com 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

Not Submitted

Lorraine Mason Paradigm

Not Submitted

Shaunda McKay Paradigm

Not Submitted

Derek Miller Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Alex Minson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Vincent Nabozny Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Christina Nice Paradigm

Not Submitted

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

Not Submitted

Megan Palmer Paradigm

Not Submitted

William Peterson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Khristen Pippin Paradigm

Not Submitted

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

Not Submitted

Skip Rynearson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Juan Salamanca Paradigm

Not Submitted

Cesar Sanchez Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jeff Saunders Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jose Scott Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Katie Stelter Paradigm

Not Submitted

Kelly Stoetzel Paradigm

Not Submitted

Michael Stone Paradigm

General notes: My job is to pick out a winner and a loser, a first place and a not-so-first place. Not everyone gets to win. You are all beautiful, worthwhile humans. If I, who am also a human, do not pick you as the winner, don't take it personally. Take my opinions with a grain of salt, see if my feedback has anything in common with what other judges have brought up, and move on. Fussing about your results with me will only justify my decision more; you have come to debate your opponents, not the judge. I wonder if the reason why so many coaches have a hard time finding volunteer judges could be because some students don't get these basic realities? HMMM... :)

Event-specific paradigms

Policy: Know that while I have a great deal of experience in judging this event as a debate coach, and while I respect the original premise on which Policy Debate was created, I am largely disappointed with the culture of Policy Debate, and hope that you'll do the courtesy of making it a healthy event for this round. Don't expect me to allow you to flash or email-chain any files with the other team, or with me. If you cannot coherently communicate your argument in the time that is allotted without lapsing into the epileptic fits of high-pitched squeaking and gasping that are so irresponsibly passed off as authentic debate, you may expect me to weigh your wanton abuse of the debate round into my decision. Fitting an overabundance of contentions into your constructive cases simply to set your opponent up later to be unable to sufficiently answer them all is not demonstrative of you being the better debater; it simply tells me that winning means more to you than authentic debate. Additionally, simply reading cards without contributing your own critical analysis does not convince me that you are the better debater, but only demonstrates you possess the linguistic skills of a parrot.

I promise you that it is possible to have a Policy Debate round where you can be intelligible to your judge and to your opponents. Speech rates in excess of 300 words per minute, while they may be the norm in Policy Debate as it currently stands, are beyond disappointing.

Hopefully I have by this point established that I am a judge who values substance over form. I will be judging the whole of your arguments, and while I will refrain from allowing my own personal biases or my own "rebuttals" from influencing the decision for the round, I will rely on the logical arguments provided to me throughout the round to decide the case. Do not think of your debate case as a series of bullets that, if your opponent misses one bullet (contention), that your entire case falls through. Think of your cases rather as structures of logical argumentation--where you craft the logic of your argument to be able to withstand any attack, whilst exploiting the architectural flaws in your opponents' case.

A note on theory or K cases, whether they be on the AFF or NEG: These are totally valid strategies for winning the round, if used non-abusively. Too often I have seen teams walk into the round knowing they will run a racist K when they know next to nothing about the background of their opponents or their opponents' case. If you decide to run a theory or K argument, expect a great deal of scrutiny on my part to ensure you are not abusing the educational value of the round.

Finally, you would be well advised to avoid ad hominem or any other violations of the NSDA Honor code. Failing to live up to these expectations in round will help me make a very easy case as to why you should lose. Do not be abusive in the construction of your case; avoid these and other inane imbecilities of sacrificing decorum to appear more "aggressive," and please just focus on the essence of the debate itself instead of purposefully trying to emotionally manipulate your opponents into making mistakes. I am here to judge a debate round, not witness a toddler's sandbox brawl.

Public Forum: This event was originally created by the NSDA in response to the complaints made that Policy and LD had both become corrupted with a nonsensical gamification that prioritized form over substance. Public Forum was created with the intent to avoid those problems. Therefore, expect me to have a very dim view on spewing. The only other place spewing is even slightly practical outside the speech and debate world is rattling off the warnings and disclaimers at the end of radio ads about cars or pills, or if you are planning on being an auctioneer. Seeing as there's a reasonable chance that is not a common career goal for PF debaters, don't expect me to judge you favorably if you ignore the warning to avoid spewing.

In any debate round, I aim to take a wholistic approach to the overall logical strength of both sides. Don't count on being able to abuse the round by fitting in seven different contentions into your case and then expect me to reward you for not having the other team be able to sufficiently answer each of your contentions. And the logical strength of your argument is not served by simply reading cards. I expect critical analysis and discussion of your evidence. And while your case should be backed up by evidence, not every compelling argument need be made with a card. If one of your cards can be cleanly refuted with responsible logic, I will dismiss that card, regardless of the authority of the source. The logical fallacy of ad auctoritate is not a viable approach to a true victory in the debate.

Finally, you would be well advised to avoid ad hominem or any other violations of the NSDA Honor code. Failing to live up to these expectations in round will help me make a very easy case as to why you should lose. Do not be abusive in the construction of your case; avoid these and other inane imbecilities of sacrificing decorum to appear more "aggressive," and please just focus on the essence of the debate itself instead of purposefully trying to emotionally manipulate your opponents into making mistakes. I am here to judge a debate round, not witness a toddler's sandbox brawl.

Lincoln-Douglas: This event was instituted by the NSDA in response to complaints that Policy Debate had devolved from its original purpose of a healthy debate where the logical substance of both arguments would clash together in a serious discussion of significant issues. Lincoln-Douglas, unfortunately, has not been immune to the corrupting effects of the cancerous influence of the meta-game of Policy Debate, and I expect the debaters I judge to responsibly debate without manifesting the immoral foibles typical of Policy Debate. In other words, don't spew.

If you choose to present a case that varies from the traditional argumentation format of Lincoln-Douglas, you are free to do so inasmuch your "creativity" is not abusive to the educational value of the round and do not put your opponents in a position where they could not have reasonably anticipated to be able to have to counter every outlandish argument their opponents could make.

I place high value on the logical substance of both sides of the debate. While evidence-based cases are an obvious necessity, your opponents' rebuttals need not always have a "card" to counter one of your own, inasmuch as the opponent in question is able to point out any serious logical flaws that may be present in the card you present. Remember to defend the strength of your value and criterion.

Finally, you would be well advised to avoid ad hominem or any other violations of the NSDA Honor code. Failing to live up to these expectations in round will help me make a very easy case as to why you should lose. Do not be abusive in the construction of your case; avoid these and other inane imbecilities of sacrificing decorum to appear more "aggressive," and please just focus on the essence of the debate itself instead of purposefully trying to emotionally manipulate your opponents into making mistakes. I am here to judge a debate round, not witness a toddler's sandbox brawl.

Congress: Chairs, please be sure to be fair in whom you allow to speak and when, and follow priority. Speakers, I will judge you based on the logical strength of your argumentation, your ability to successfully address attacks against your argumentation, and your speaking performance (construction of the speech, audience engagement, etc).

Finally, you would be well advised to avoid ad hominem or any other violations of the NSDA Honor code. Failing to live up to these expectations in round will help me make a very easy case as to why you should lose. Do not be abusive in the construction of your speeches; avoid these and other inane imbecilities of sacrificing decorum to appear more "aggressive," and please just focus on the essence of the discussion of the house itself instead of purposefully trying to emotionally manipulate your opponents into making mistakes. I am here to judge a speech/debate round, not witness a toddler's sandbox brawl.

Impromptu, OO :I will judge you according to these three criteria:

1) Relevance. Did you address a subject in a way that I can easily see why I or the audience should care about what you are talking about?

2) Uniqueness. Was what you said in your performance something I have probably heard 20 times about already? Or was it a sob story that (while admittedly it may be sad and tragic, and you have my condolences) was calculated to exclude other students who haven't had their "sob story" happen yet?

3)Call to change. How successfully do you persuade the audience that we should live or think or feel differently about something in supporting the main thesis of your speech?

Extemp: I will judge according to these three criteria:

1) Topicality. Did you answer the prompt you chose completely and fully?

2) Evidence. Was your speech evidence-based as opposed to "Here's some generic facts I can tease out abut this issue?" Was your evidence cited?

3)Analysis. Did you make an effort to add your own unique insight and commentary on the topic, and was this commentary/analysis logical?

Interp Events: I will judge you according to these criteria:

1) Characterization. To what degree can I believe that you are your characters, and not a teenage student from a team other than my own whom I hardly know?

2) Technique. Strong acting choices, incorporation of the narrative arc, believable variety in intonation, vocalization, and emotion.

3) General effectiveness. To what degree could I see this level of performance you give me meet the standard of a professional actor?

Michael Struiksma Paradigm

Not Submitted

Cherish Thompson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Karen Trujillo Paradigm

Not Submitted

Krystal Valencia Paradigm

Not Submitted

Linda Wadley Paradigm

Not Submitted

Alex Warren Paradigm

Not Submitted

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

Not Submitted

Abigail Wolf Paradigm

Not Submitted

Daryl Workman Paradigm

Experience:

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.

LD PARADIGM:

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.

PF PARADIGM:

Not yet identified separately. See LD paradigm for best modality application in PF.

Karen Young Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lauren Young Paradigm

Not Submitted

mary hansen Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted