13th Schaumburg Saxon Invitational
2018 — Schaumburg, IL, IL/US
Travis Baird Paradigm
Charles Bell Paradigm
Laura Brask Paradigm
Kevin Cassato Paradigm
Kira Cloonan Paradigm
Damian Cruz Paradigm
Viraj Desetty Paradigm
Cathy Dremel Paradigm
Joan Entwhistle Paradigm
Clark Foster Paradigm
Asim Gaffar Paradigm
Speech and Debate Team Head Coach at College Prep School of America.
I am a former college LD'er, but spent more time in speech doing Extemp in high school and college.
I am a traditional LD judge who believes in topicality and strong argumentation with contention clash and strong crystallization. Translation: This isn't Congress or Policy.
Do not spread. I need to hear and flow your arguments in order to score. If I can't understand you, then I can't score you. Do not heavily rely on esoteric counterplans or kritques. Please do not do theory unless its absolutely required.
Beyond this, I am pretty simple. Argue well, follow basic decorum of the debate and make sure I can follow you. SIgn posting is your friend and mine.
Susana Galindo Paradigm
Sarah Greenswag Paradigm
Kyle Grzelinski Paradigm
DO NOT SPREAD!!! Include refutation within your rebuttal speeches and all following speeches. I LOVE to see clash within a debate round and I believe it adds more to the debate then what is just written down in notes. Introduce Voter Issues in your Summary speech, but if the debate is going well you can introduce your Voter Issues in your Final Focus. Have fun!!
Albert Guan Paradigm
Marilyn He Paradigm
Lewis Herman Paradigm
Erik Hesla Paradigm
Matthew Huang Paradigm
Sresht Iyer Paradigm
1. I judge by the flow.
2. I look heavily at impact weighing in the round.
3. Rudeness in the round will not result in a loss of the round but a heavy loss of speaker points.
4. If evidence is heavily contested without clarity I will take a look at it myself to resolve inconsistencies, if it is critical to the round.
5. I do not flow crossfire points unless brought up in the following speech.
Brian Jerger Paradigm
Eric Kenes Paradigm
Eugene Kim Paradigm
I am a relatively standard Varsity flow judge, but I'm also an activist judge. I'll be doing my own weighing/analysis during the round (without prior bias and in consideration of the information presented to me in the round, of course), especially if the round has poor weighing.
I won't dock speaking points based on minutiae (such as speaking speed or where you look in the round), but just make sure to keep your presentation reasonable based on standard PF guidelines.
I will, however, dock points if you're overly aggressive/arrogant/rude.
For Summary and FF I want to see a clear extension of any important cards/arguments/attacks/whatever and clear impactful taglines for voting issues, as those are the main speeches I'm voting off of. I also like it when debaters number their attacks clearly in the rebuttal.
Kyle LIbberton Paradigm
Angela Lee Paradigm
Regina Lindemann Paradigm
Scott McGraw Paradigm
Josie Mendez Paradigm
I am in varsity public forum debate and have been debating for four years now, when judging debates speaking wise I would vote favorably upon a clear loud voice and good eye contact (don't look constantly down at your papers/laptop) as well as an organized speech. I don't flow through crossfire so if you have any points you would like to address from crossfire bring them up in rebuttal or summary speeches. I would like to see effective crossfires and a lot of clash, overall a polite debate as well, as soon as I see lots of aggression I will not hesitate to take speaker points off.
Mia Mendez Paradigm
Sam Nakano Paradigm
Zia Nathan Paradigm
Karla Nunez Paradigm
Baku Patel Paradigm
I was a policy debater in high school and also debated at the college level. I am currently a trial attorney and managing partner of my own firm, but also the head coach of Urbana High School.
I vote strictly by the flow and heavily weigh any arguments that are dropped as long as it's extended by the SS and FF. I do not consider "generic" framework arguments such as cost/benefit, who will save more lives, etc. so do not waste precious rebuttal time making those as main voting issues. Also, simply restating your constructive contentions is not an effective "main voter" issue, rather focus on where the main clashes are in the round and why it should be favorably weighed. I also weigh actual turns of contentions and arguments if they are done effectively.
Speed is totally fine. I can flow spread if done clearly but needs to be well organized. In other words, let me know where to specifically link your arguments to on the flow. Therefore, use speed to your advantage.
I do not need a road map unless you are going outside of the norm. Please do not call for every piece of evidence unless you are really questioning the source or context of the card. Also, I do not note the source, but only the content during the round, so please DO NOT just refer to a card in rebuttal, SS or FF by simply stating the source. You will need to state the content the card in your argument.
Please avoid debate jargon and stick with weighing/impacting to carry a round.
The 2nd speaking team should cover both sides of the flow in rebuttal. Otherwise I will consider the arguments dropped. Its up to the first speaking team to point this out and extend in the summary.
Mary Phillips Paradigm
Rena Prizant Paradigm
• Please speak slowly and clearly enough so I may understand you.
• If you're using your own timer, please turn off the alarm sounds, so as not to distract your opponent.
Alicia Ross Paradigm
I have been a PF/LD Coach/Judge for a year now with New Trier Township High School in Winnetka, IL. I have worked at the local tournaments in Illinois as well as the Illinois State Tournament and Berkeley University Tournament.
It has been my pleasure to serve our students and the National Debate organization as a judge.
My paradigms include clarity in presentation, steady flow as the students present their case, teamwork, respect for other debaters as they present while waiting to present their case. I appreciate when the debaters are prepared before entering the room with their debate questions, discussions, and 'unexpected' remarks from the opposing team. I also appreciate the debaters respectfully acknowledging judges in the room and monitoring their turn to speak/present.
It is my pleasure to serve and I enjoy an enthusiastic comprehensive debate.
- Alicia L. Ross, MA
Lynn Saubert Paradigm
Elizabeth Schlender Paradigm
Experience: I have 2 years of debate experience as a coach/judge at Conant High School (1 year as an assistant and 1 year as a head coach). I have experience coaching/judging Congressional, Public Forum, and Lincoln Douglas Debate.
Organization: I expect clear organization throughout the debate. You should include a framework in the first constructive speech that is referred to throughout the debate. You must also present a clear argument using contentions, subpoints, and off-time road maps. Voters issues should be included in the Final Focus. Please be as clear and concise as possible so that I do not have to guess what your points/arguments are.
Evidence: I value the use of evidence within your arguments. You should include clear and thorough citations, which include an author, source, and year. Current sources (within the last 1-2 years) provide stronger citations, unless you are making a historical argument that would benefit from primary documents. Make sure to explain your evidence thoroughly through your impacts.
Crossfire: Do not talk over your opponents during Crossfire. Be courteous to your opponent. Being rude to another team will result in a deduction of points. Crossfire is a time to ask clarifying questions. Make sure to ask questions to your opponents, and do not just make statements back-and-forth. Argumentation and rebuttal should be saved for the debate rounds, NOT during the Crossfire round.
Speaker Points: Speaker points will be based on your overall delivery. This includes the pace of your speech, volume, eye contact, and tone. Make sure to use all of the time given to you for the round. You should also be courteous to your fellow debaters, and not demonstrate any demeaning behavior (i.e. rolling your eyes, talking to your partner during rounds, laughing, being disruptive when someone is speaking, having a rude tone). Generally, just be as polished and professional as possible.
Brian Sedlak Paradigm
Eric Simon Paradigm
Giselle Soares Paradigm
Dennis Sorensen Paradigm
I have been a debate judge for approximately 7-8 years, but only in Illinois.
Speed is okay as long as the debater has a clear intelligible voice. I have difficulty following what I call whispery voices especially at speed because I tend to not hear everything being said properly. I have been recently been diagnosed with hearing "not at normal levels".
Also, I am all for robust intelligent debates, but keep it above boards. Please no sniping or snickering at your opponents expense. This behavior is a big no-no for me.
John Steel Paradigm
Kaitlin Walsh Paradigm
I have been debating for the past 4 years (3 years as a varsity member) in PF. In your rounds, I expect that both sides are well-versed in the topic and adhere to the resolution. I will only vote under your framework if you carry it throughout the round, and successfully defend it if attacked. Remember that cross-fire is not flowed, so if there are any important points that you need me to flow, then mention it in your speeches. I am a flow judge, so I will be looking at if you carry your arguments throughout the round. I really really appreciate organization in all of your speeches. Impact analysis is the most important aspect of the round for me! Tell me why I should vote for you! Finally, I expect both sides to be respectful to each other. I will take away speaker points if you are rude to your opponents! Good luck! :)