2018 — Omaha, NE/US
Jordan Bizal Paradigm
Michael Brooks Paradigm
The primary item I look for is quality. Quality of the overall speech, how sound the arguments, and how effectively time is used. I am not a fan of speed reading as I feel the impacts are not properly emphasized. The next component I look for is the impact itself. Sources must be credible and unbiased, but then the impacts must be properly emphasized and analyzed.
Rodney Edwards Paradigm
Hi! email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Former School: Millard North High School (Omaha, Nebraska)
Competition Record: Competeted in Congress and Extemp for 3 years. Qualified to nationals my senior year in the House.
Judging Record: Judged Congress at Nationals in Prelims and Sems. Judged local Nebraska PF and LD Circuit for 2 years.
-Direct clash is critical. You are not speaking in a vacuum.
-I don’t care about in-depth explanations about who you’re citing as long as you’re citing it truthfully and the warrant is there/true.
-Make your speeches interesting by actually telling me something new or important.
I'm pretty comfortable in just about any round. I'm open to voting for unorthdox arguments, as long as they're fleshed out and weighed well. Weighing your arguments should be your go to in front of me. Speed shouldn't be an issue. If there is an evidence issue, address it in the round.
I'm pretty familiar with the format and argumentation styles. (Theory, T, Phil, CP's...) However while I enjoy hearing interesting philosophical arguments, I wouldn't be able to flow an average national circuit round for speed reasons. I don't like tricks. I'm open to different types of arguments as long as you explain well what the role of the ballot is supposed to be. I default to a "competiting worlds" paradigm. If you want me to vote for something, tell me and argue why.
Steve Foral Paradigm
I debated in high school and college (graduated 1968) and have been coaching since. I have lived through the transition from Debate to Policy Debate and the birth and development of both Lincoln-Douglas and Public Forum
Lincoln-Douglas Debate: Lincoln-Douglas (value debate) was created because many people did not like the direction that Policy Debate had gone. As such, LD debate centers around a conflict between two values. Debaters argue that one of the values in the round is of higher importance than the other. This value priority determines the affirmation or negation of the resolution. Thus, the debater argues Justice(ex) is the higher value, and since Justice is the higher value the resolution is affirmed. A plan can be used to demonstrate how the resolution could be applied in a practical sense. Since LD is designed not to have a plan, if the opponent raises that argument, I will vote on that. Otherwise, the plan can be debated in terms of workability, practicality, etc. Regardless of the strategies used – in order to win the round, the debater must win the value conflict.
Public Forum was introduced to correct the flaws that had emerged in LD (excessive speed, strategies and tactics rather than sound argument, etc) and is designed to be judged by a non-debate person. Thus – a good Public Forum Round is clear and persuasive. Arguments and evidence relates directly back to the topic. There are no plans in PF – I will vote on that. A test that I use in judging PF is whether or not a “regular person” would understand the arguments and be able to decide the outcome of the round.
Since debate – in all of its forms – is an educational, communication event the following hold true:
Delivery is the means by which the debater presents the arguments and evidence for decision.
The presentation should be as clear and understandable as possible – rate and articulation are important elements because the judge must hear and understand the case in order to vote on it.
IT IS THE DEBATER’S OBLIGATION TO ADAPT TO THE JUDGE – NOT VICE VERSA.
Debaters should present their material and conduct themselves in a professional manner. They should avoid attitudes (reflected in both tone and facial expression) that are unprofessional. Word choice should be appropriate to an educational event (cussing, swearing, vocabulary choice etc) have NO PLACE in an educational activity.
Dacia Hartman Paradigm
Megan Hoyt Paradigm
Isaiah Petty Paradigm
Kate Richerson Paradigm
I graduated from Lincoln Southeast High School in 2015, where I primarily competed in Congressional Debate, but often competed in Public Forum. I am currently the assistant debate coach at Creighton Preparatory.
Generally, for all forms of debate, I want you to follow the format of claim, warrant, impact. If you dump a ton of evidence on your opponents, but don't explain why it actually matters to the debate, I will not weigh it as heavily as evidence that is fully warranted and impacted out.
If you provide a definition or observation/burden in your case, explain why I ought to evaluate the round within your framework compared to your opponent's framework or my own conception, especially if your definitions or observations are unconventional or obscure. This is not permission to provide an abusive or unfair observation or definitions.
Flowing - I flow everything I hear, and nothing that I don't. If you drop arguments, whether those be your own or your opponent's, I will not look favorably upon that. Ultimately, sometimes a round for me comes down to which side did a better job of extending arguments and impact across the flow.
Speed - I flow on my laptop, so I'm okay with some speed, to the point that it doesn't interfere with my ability to understand your speech or to flow the round. I prefer a relaxed and emphatic delivery over a rushed one, and if you are speaking too fast for me to follow, you run the risk of me dropping an argument on the flow.
Speaker points - I tend to be on the more generous side of doling out speaker points, because ultimately, what matters is which side better explains their arguments/wins the round. I have occasionally, but infrequently, given out low-point wins.
Prep time - A personal pet peeve of mine is when you tell me to start your prep time. I'm actively watching the round, I can tell when you are starting prep. Additionally, if you call for a card, I will not run the time until you are given the card by your opponent; time starts as soon as you start reading the card or taking notes. DO NOT waste time by not having cards available for your opponents; if your opponent asks for a card and you take 2 minutes to find it, but your partner is prepping off the clock in the time it takes you to find it, I will be extremely displeased.
Public Forum Specifics
Summaries should start to wrap up and address the main arguments that were relevant in that round. Final focus should hammer home why you won those points. If, in rebuttal, summary, or final focus, you drop something I see as a big argument, expect that to be reflected in speaker points and outcome of the round.
Lincoln Douglas Specifics
I know very little about the mechanics of an LD case beyond value premise and value criterion. I also have only a minimal background in philosophy. Therefore, I think it's best to consider me a lay judge in LD, despite my experience in other events. I prefer a traditional value-criterion centered argument, in which you directly tell me why to weigh your case/framework over your opponent's. I'm not as familiar with Theory or K Debate, but I will try to follow along.
Megan Ruby Paradigm
micheal stroud Paradigm
debates take a long time, already. 92 minutes, optimistically. please, please dont make them last any longer than they absolutely must. if you, for any reason, must take a break or stop the clock, that's totally okay. but for the sake of us all getting off campus at a reasonable hour, and for our hosts who put together a schedule for a reason, lets all try to keep our debates to, like, 105 minutes.
"i don't want magic word invocation to stand in for final rebuttal work weighing and comparing potential outcomes. 'extinction' and 'nvtl' are not arguments.