Saint Georges Invitational
2018 — Spokane, WA/US
Happy Avery Paradigm
Traditional LD judge, want to see a good clash debate rooted philosophical evidence and logic. If you like to spread and offer counterplans, try policy.
Chase Bollig Paradigm
Hadley Morrow Paradigm
High-school LD and Policy debate in 2005-2009 at St. George's School. I have a strong preference for judging LD. I struggle with speed.
Professional background in communications, community organizing, public speaking, and program management.
I've been out of the scene for a few year and have not coached any teams, nor have I judged on this topic. Do not expect me to be well versed on current lit, conversations, and nuances.
I'm here to listen to you, and will do my best to meet you where you are at with your style so this can be fun. I don't have a lot of set preferences or expectations on how your debate should go - but I place a high value on clarity and flow. My style is not super technical, and I like to see debate as storytelling. I am not well versed on this topic, so it will benefit you to explain your arguments, and why your team should win this debate. I am more interested in the strengths of the debater and argument than the strength of the evidence. Clear, well-connected arguments with no evidence will beat arguments that lack explanation or rely solely on weak evidence. Your explanation is key to contextualizing evidence.
Honestly speed is hard for me, but I can handle it if you have practiced, speak clearly, and frame well. Taking time to give an argument depth is usually more valuable to me than rushing to cram another point in. I will tell you if you are not speaking clearly.
Most importantly, I care that this tournament is a fun and safe space for all to explore this topic. I care about how you present yourself as a debater, not just your argument. You need to engage your opponent - show me you are listening and reacting to their arguments. Show me that you want to be here. Be yourself, and be RESPECTFUL of all others' selves. How you treat your opponent matters - don't be rude, don't use violent language, and try to help your opponent have fun too.
Willow Smith Paradigm
Competing and learned all debate styles in high school.
Competed at NSDA Nationals in Congressional Speaking.
Was a high school assistant coach for 2.5 years.
Founding member of my university's IPDA Team
Currently pursuing Bachelor degrees in: Psychology, Communication, and Early Childhood Development.
I do not flow cross-examination period. Meaning only the words spoken in a speech are accounted in my decision for the winner. I do listen, if you want a question accounted in my final decision bring it back up in your speech briefly so it is noted somewhere on my flow(otherwise it 'didn't happen').
Speed is no problem. Standard SpReading rules: Slow for Tagline, Author, Date of evidence. Sign post occasionally. I will say "Clear" if I no long understand you.
You may time yourself. I keep Official Time-so if my clock says you are done it is final. If you run out of time I allow approx 2 second grace periods to finish your sentence. In questioning periods if time runs out with a question unanswered I would prefer a quick answer.
If you make personal attacks on your opponent's character, your speaker points will suffer significantly. It is rare but occassionally if you are too rude and lacking in decorum you can loose a round from that alone. (We all make mistakes, malicious intent vs a slip up is very obvious.
If you won't be standing during your debate simply say so at the beginning of the round. I won't mind so long as it is specified.
I believe it is your debate round so you, the debater, determine the direction of the debate. I will listen to any type or style of arguments you want to run, simply explain why that is the most important thing to be looked towards in the round. I say I will listen but that does not mean you win just because your argument is unique. Whoever wins is whoever best explains and supports their claims, and refutes your opponents claims.
Tabula Rasa as much as I can be- knowing i have my own biases and experience that I try to leave at the door but isn't entirely possible. Primarily with emphasis on Flow. I weigh what you present and unless you are clearly and blatantly perpetuating obvious falsehoods I simply look at the facts presented on my flow, if something isn't on my flow it didn't happen in the debate.
Every claim needs a warrant and justification of relevance.
I will leave my political opinions at the door and do not reference them. I don't care what party the current acting president or house leader is, you will refer to them by the office they hold and no other. Don't assume that because you think I believe something personally that i will need less explanation.
In Lincoln-Douglas I have a slight preferential bias towards more traditional style and format. I will absolutely still listen to progressive styles, you must simply continue to warrant and justify all claims.
I think values and morality ultimately are the core of LD and debates of value are vital to a good LD debate.
I try to use the Value and and Value-Criterion as the primary weighing mechanisms for decision-making in the round. I would really like to see a focus on the value and value-criterion debate but not just how your value clashes with your opponents, I would like to see V and VC incorporated throughout the flow and relating to your contentions as well as how your's should be given more weight than your opponent's.
If you opt to utilize a Standard instead then you must explicitly explain why you chose a Standard over a Value and Value-Criterion and the relevancy of that, all other incorporation into the debate applies the same as what I want to see for V and VC.
If you are running progressive: your evidence needs to be relevant, if I could read your case in 2 months on a different resolution and nothing would need to change then your case will have much less ground to stand on in my eyes.
In Public-Forum the round is generally yours to do with as you please.
Courtesy to your opponents is vital. Being as 4 people can get very heated on topics quite easily I will not put up with disrespectful, rude, or threatening behavior in anyway. PF Cross-fire is the most common place in the debate sphere I consider if a team should loose on decorum, remember you are still talking to other humans that have to go back to their lives after this round ends, loosing civility is not worth maybe winning a round and if I'm judging you probably wouldn't end up winning anyways.
Voters at the end are recommended as it helps show what you as debaters believe to be important.
If no RA or definitions are provided by either side I will loosely judge the round assuming the most common Webster definitions of terms and utilize a Cost-Benefit Analysis approach of who most accurately addressed and supported their claims in relevance to resolutional question and demand.
In Policy I have the least experience. I have not dealt with Policy style much in quite a few years so I am not especially up to date.
I can listen to spreading but I have been hearing LD spreading primarily so consider slowing down a titch - especially on taglines.
Please do not do Performative Affs. I think they are very cool but often, for me, lead to just having more trouble tracking the debate thus harming you in the long run.
Don't expect me to just know your cards and arguments. You have to explain and justify your arguments. If you just say a tag and move on then you aren't willing to work for my vote and likely won't receive it.
I know most concepts within policy but am very lacking on the jargon that coincide so quickly throwing out a few jargon words will lose me.