2019 — HURON, SD/US
Manaal Ali Paradigm
Micah Brown Paradigm
Jeff Clapper Paradigm
Bevin Clapper Paradigm
Hunter Dunteman Paradigm
Chelsea Hauger Paradigm
Sofia Ledeneva Paradigm
Jeff Lenning Paradigm
Kip McKee Paradigm
I am a pretty straight forward policy maker, weigh your impacts and I will vote on the cost-benefit analysis. As for speed, I may handle moderately quick speaking, but all out speed will leave gaps in my flow, and I will have a difficult time voting for those arguments. Tell me a well-warranted story about why I should vote for you.
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!
Brian Patrick Paradigm
For policy debate, I am primarily a stock issues judge, though topicality is very difficult to win from me. I am open to counterplans, etc..., and I will basically judge whatever happens in the round. Thus, "stock issues" may be what I prefer, but I judge the round based on the arguments presented and the refutations of those arguments.
For public forum, I prefer direct clash-- actually refute the opponents case with your own case. I think favorably on cross-applying arguments from your case to the opponent's case. Importantly, follow the flow and do not cast it aside once the 2 minute speeches started-- you spent time developing those cases and arguments, so see them through in the summaries and final focus speeches.
For speech events, I follow the basic rules of each event. In drama, humorous, and related, I like to see clean transitions, clear and distinct characters, etc... In extemp, I like to know why the topic is important (why ask this question?), clear citations and warrants, and a speech that follows a logical line of analysis to its conclusion(s). In oratory and similar, clear logic (organization, thought process-- whatever is relevant to the topic and nature of the event) and a speech pattern that doesn't sound too memorized-- the speech should flow just as naturally as a conversation.
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.
Jacob Schreck Paradigm
Cameron Schroeder 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.