2019 — HURON, SD/US
Manaal Ali Paradigm
Laura Bain Paradigm
Lacey Berge Paradigm
Micah Brown Paradigm
Virginia Colgan Paradigm
Hunter Dunteman Paradigm
Chelsea Hauger Paradigm
Justin Heyd Paradigm
Laura Iverson Paradigm
Jimmy Kerr Paradigm
Ultimately, I judge the round how it is debated. I'm open to most arguments and will vote on anything that is clearly extended, warranted, and impacted out. However, there are some caveats, which will be listed below.
First, I have rarely voted on kritiks. I don't necessarily hate the argument, but I just haven't found it persuasively articulated in a way that would make me reject the aff. Policy making framework and the perm are pretty persuasive arguments for me. However, do your thing, and if kritiks are your thing, go for it, just make sure to explain and impact it out very thoroughly and specifically.
Additionally, I flow on paper. This means that I probably can't keep up with you if you go insanely fast. Sorry, but it is what it is. Figured I should just tell you that so you're not disappointed. I'm not saying go slow, but just be careful.
I generally default to a policymaking paradigm, meaning offense needs to be presented to win the round. There have been exceptions, and I have voted on case defense when a 100% solvency deficit exists, but that is rare. I can be persuaded to change this outlook, but an argument for why I should vote neg on presumption when the neg wins case defense should be presented.
Disadvantages are good, expected, and encouraged. The links and internal links are generally the weakest part of a disad, so the aff should exploit this, through either evidence or analysis.
Counterplans are a very strategic option in front of me on the neg. On the aff, make sure that you impact out your perm and how it would function - "perm do both" means nothing to me if that's all you say. If the neg wins that the CP solves case, any risk of a DA means I go neg, so make sure that you have a solvency deficit to the CP and/or offense on the NB if you're aff. I'll evaluate CP theory how it's presented and don't really have strong leanings on most theoretical issues.
Case - Solvency is generally the weakest part of any affirmative - make sure you exploit this on the neg. Offense on solvency is good too. I have no problem at all with the neg reading disads on case and calling them solvency turns.
Topicality - I generally default to competing interpretations but could be convinced otherwise. I love a good T debate. Make sure to go a bit slower on T than other arguments, as it's more difficult to flow.
As a general note, I hate tagline extensions. Please do more than just "extend ______ argument," even if it was dropped. Likewise, make sure you extend everything you need to. Blowing up an advantage in the 2AR doesn't really get you anything if the 1AR didn't even talk about that advantage.
Any questions, please ask.
Gina Koehn Reif Paradigm
Michael Larson Paradigm
Policy Debate: I am more of a games player. To clarify, I see debate as an educational game that is being played. There are basic rules that are established (sides are set, time limits are set, a resolution has been established). I do reject moves that seek to create a completely unfair environment for either side (I can talk about what ever I want because resolutions don't matter attitude). I am good with almost any argument that is grounded in sound theory.
Kritiks- I like a good kritik that actually explores what the affirmative/negative is doing in a round, but the team running the kritik must understand what the kritik is actually doing. I do expect every K that is run to have a clear link to the K, implications for me to weigh and an alternative that goes beyond vote for us (in 99% of the K's). If it is an extremely complex concept, don't assume I already know what you are talking about. You will probably need to slow it down a step or two to make sure I am following the logic you are discussing.
Performance Debate: I am not a fan of these concepts. The reason is simple. You showed up for a debate round. You should debate the resolution. What performance debates do in my opinion is come to a Monopoly tournament and dance in the hallway and expect to win the Monopoly tournament. You can't not do the event and expect to win the event.
I am not a fan of the politics DA. The leap in logic of plan causes people to vote in a completely different way just has no theory behind it. I will listen to it, but the threshold for beating the argument is very low.
Concepts like topical counterplans and such are fine, if you can present a clear defense connected to theory that explains why they should be okay.
In the end, I look at the offense that is left on the flow. I prefer teams that go after more offensive style arguments then those playing defense on everything.
On speed, my expectations are that you must be clear enough for me to understand you and the evidence that you read (not just tags). If you are not, then I will not flow it and I will not yell "clear." It is your job to communicate.
Lincoln-Douglas: I am more of a traditionalist. I prefer more focus on the framework in the debate and connecting your observations back to the framework and the resolution. I am not a fan of disads/counterplans/and other traditional policy arguments being run in LD since it ignores the unique distinctions between the two events.
Speed is fine, but you must be clear. I need to understand what you are saying. I am more forgiving on the line by line in LD than I am in policy, but you do need to address the main issues and just not ignore them.
Public Forum: Good debate that uses strong evidence throughout to prove your positions. I do not weigh the cross-fires heavily, but I do listen to them and will allow for answers to be used in the debate. You don't have to win every point on the flow, but you need to provide me with clear reasoning why you should win and less about why your opponent should not win.
Nicole McAloon Paradigm
Michelle McIntyre Paradigm
Angelica Mercado Paradigm
I've debated/been involved with debate for about 10 years now. I debated for Fremont Senior High School in Fremont, NE for 4 years mostly Policy and Public Forum, but did compete in other events throughout the years. I eventually did some coaching for O Gorman High School in Sioux Falls, SD before transitioning to Washington High School also in Sioux Falls, where I am currently assistant debate coach.
For Policy, I was a Kritikal/performance debater, so I tend to favor K arguments/cases as a judge, but due to K's not being ran and accepted in the state of SD, I now tend to lean more Tabula rasa. I more often than not, prefer the side of the debate that offers the most education in round. I usually do not vote for T's unless you can do some hefty convincing, or the Affirmative fails to address/attack it and the T is reasonable.
As for some general points: I am fond of 'role of the ballots' and impact calcs, and of course k arguments, however I do not oppose your traditional/policymaker cases/arguments. Tag-team cross x is fine with me as well as speed as long as you are clear. Give me some good clash and all is good.
Do not prep/steal prep time while you are "flashing cards/cases" it is very obvious and if it is frequent, I will dock you speaker points. I am also not really fond of 'spreading' for no good reason other than to be a jerk. I prefer less arguments that are effective over general, redundant cards used as a scare tactic.
I will not take prep time for you to flash/share evidence but please do your best to do it without wasting too much time
I am a laid-back judge and am willing to listen to all arguments as long as they are respectful and well thought out. Remember to have fun!
Sue Nipe Paradigm
Thea Patrick Paradigm
Destiny Pinder-Buckley Paradigm
Kit Rodgers Paradigm
I look for solid arguments, but weigh heavily on common sense and speaking skills as well. If you leave a good contention unblocked, it will count against you. I can handle moderate speeds if you speak clearly and fluently. I try to vote on the flow, but if it's a mess or I can't understand you, I can't.
Brianna Schreurs Paradigm
Cameron Schroeder Paradigm
Leslie Stusiak-Drew Paradigm
Kayla Sylvester Paradigm
Loren Visser Paradigm
Brendan Wilson Paradigm
I have two rules for when I judge:
1) If you are going to use analytics, either use evidence to back it up, or make it seem like you know what you're talking about. Don't just use analytics to attack your opponent's case.
2) Don't piss me off. If you do, I will not be inclined to give you more than 25 speaker points in the round. You still might win, but if you piss me off, you won't do very well in the realm of speaker points.
If you have me as a policy or Lincoln-Douglas judge, I am so sorry. I did policy my freshman year of high school, so I never really had to deal with counterplans, kritiks, or anything too fancy, so as long as you stick to disadvantages, topicality, and case arguments, and keep slow on the tags of your points and subpoints, I'll be fine and I'll try to judge to the best of my ability. As for LD, I've only judged one round of LD, and that was at a novice after-school tournament, so it wasn't even that great of a round. I'll try to judge as best as I can, and the two rules above still apply, but I probably won't get majority of what you're saying.