Chiawana High School

2018 — Pasco, WA/US

Vann Berryman Paradigm

Vann Berryman

berryman.vann@wenatcheeschools.org

Assistant Coach, Wenatchee HS, Wenatchee WA

Coached PF: 2 years

Competed in PF: Lol.

Competed in Policy: 1 year

Sup sup,

Arguments have a claim, a warrant, and a link to the ballot (impact). This is interpreted by my understanding of your explanation of the argument. If I don’t understand the argument/how it functions, I won’t vote on it.

Main items:

1. Clear arguments-I should be able to understand you. I'm cool with speed, but if I can't understand you then I can't flow it.

2. What are the impacts?-Impact calc is very important. It's the main thing I'm going to vote on as well as the actual topics being clashed.

3. Give me voters in Final Focus, give me voters in the 2AR and 2NR for policy.

4. Abusive Case/Framework/Conduct: Alright so if you are running some sort of FW or case that gives your opponent a super narrow bit of ground to stand on and I feel that they have no ground to make any sort of case then I will consider it in my decisions. K Affs in Policy are fine, just help me flow it.

That being said if your framework leaves your opponents with enough ground to work with and they don’t understand it that's their loss.

Conduct in the round should be professional-We are here to debate not get into shouting matches. Or insult the opposing team's intelligence, no matter what we may think.

Framework/Res Analysis/Observation’s: Totally fine and expected. If you don't have a framework, what am I supposed to vote on? Also if you don't have a framework, you auto-defer to your opponents'.

Please don't run garbage filler off-case. If you want to run a T or two or a decent K that's fine. If you run more than four off I'm not listening. Argue the case and cut that wack garbage version of policy out.

Evidence Debates/Handover: I have a very large dislike of how some teams seem to think that PF should just be a mini-CX where if you don’t have a card even if the argument is pure logic, they say it cannot be considered. If the logic and the link works I am good with it.

I don't want to see evidence/definition wars unless you can clearly prove that your evidence supplements your opponents. Also, evidence handover counts toward your prep time-not outside of it. You wanna see someone's evidence that comes out of your prep.

Speaker Points: I was asked this several times last year so I figured I would add this piece. How to get 30 speaker points from me. First of all I would say that clarity is a big helper in this, alongside that I will also say that asking good lines of questioning in crossfire can help you get better speaker points from me. Be direct, be confident. If I have to keep yelling "Clear" you will see my annoyed face.

Things that help you win my ballot:

Unique arguments (That actually link to the resolution)

Be clever.

Be polite.

Be civil.

Make it an awesome round. Down to the wire back and forth. Keep me on the edge of my seat.

Things that hurt you:

Being abusive-either in case or in speaking. Aggressive CF and arguments are okay with me, but keep it in check.

Disregarding any or all of the above points.

Not being attired professionally. (Unless extenuating circumstances exist)

Ignoring my point about evidence debate.

Insulting an opponent-personally.

Please make flashing go by so quickly. I'm tired of CX rounds going an extra 35min because your flash drive isn't working.

Remember we're here to have fun, as am I. If your judge is telling you how many times they went to state, they're doing it wrong. If I tell you how many times I went to state (spoiler: it's 0), make fun of me.

Richard Dinkelmann Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Vicky Hyde Paradigm

Not Submitted

Robyn Johnson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Marcos Naves Paradigm

Not Submitted

Matthew Owens Paradigm

Not Submitted

Keith Swanson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Miguel Valencia Paradigm

Not Submitted