Ashland Grizzly Invitational
2019 — Ashland, OR/US
Molly Bruins Paradigm
I competed in Parli through the NPDA for three years in college. After graduation, I began student teaching at a private high school. While there, I founded the school's speech and debate team and wrote my master's thesis about the experience. I continued to coach there for two years, then moved abroad. I spent four years traveling internationally, continuing to work at international schools and coach multiple forms of high school debate, including World Style Debate. I returned to the United States eight years ago and have continued to coach and teach throughout that time. In total, I have ten years of debate coaching experience.
Parli is my favorite format of debate both to participate in and to judge. My judging paradigm is fairly straightforward - I go by what's on the flow. If it's a resolution of policy, I look at the stock issues (solvency v. disadvantages), if it's a resolution of value, I weigh the value and criterion, and if it's a resolution of fact, I look at whatever voting issues the debaters have told me to look at. I do expect debaters to do more than just list taglines and expect me to believe them, though. They need to explain their points and argue them convincingly. I also highly value clash, and I am greatly impressed by debaters who attack one another's arguments directly rather than dancing around them by introducing generic off-case arguments or simply repeating their own points from their original speeches.
Overall, I think I'm a pretty fair judge. What you see is what you get. I've often voted in favor of teams even though I vehemently disagreed with their positions simply because they won on the flow. It's your job to win the round, and if you do, I'll give you my ballot.
Morgan Connelly Paradigm
Cole Daneman Paradigm
Hi! I'm Cole, he/him/his.
The basics: Do what works for you. Play to your strengths. I vote off what's on my flow, not by being persuaded.
What's helpful for me: 1. Impact calculus. 2. Signposting.
Regardless of what you're running, weighing is key. Strong impact calculus with terminalized impacts gives me much more to vote on. I appreciate roadmaps (off-time preferred) that tell me the order and number of sheets. It's very helpful to specifically tell me where to flow arguments in later speeches.
Approach to intervention: I believe in minimizing intervention so I am usually ok with listening to anything given it is not exclusionary/bigoted/discriminatory etc.
Speaker points: I don't like speaks, they're a flawed system. If I have to give you speaks don't read too much into it. I am a fan of 30 speaks theory.
Speed: Reasonable speed is fine. I will say clear if needed. Use only when appropriate of course!
Kritiks: I like K's! Link work is most important to me. Feel free to challenge debate norms to a reasonable extent.
Other: No handshakes, please. You don't need to ask me if I'm ready, if I need extra time I will speak up. One "thank you" is plenty.
In progress... just ask if you have questions.
Michael Datz Paradigm
Mark Decker Paradigm
Debaters, convince me! I am not a debater myself and you will not win or lose on a technicality. Your ability to go to the heart of the matter and PERSUADE is paramount. So, I look for logical, compelling, well-organized arguments. I love relatable examples, engaging delivery, appropriate humor, good sportsmanship. Please pace yourself and speak clearly. Less is more.
Terri Dirk Paradigm
SaVanna Dominguez-Alvarez Paradigm
Matthew Eldridge Paradigm
When I judge CX debate, I am a STOCK ISSUES judge. I do consider Topicality but still expect the issues of the debate to be dated. I look heavy on the Aff to prove they are SOLVING for a SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM IN THE STATUS QUO. I honestly don’t like fiat and will accept a counter Politics DA to be run. I flow and vote on my paradigm.
When judging LD Value: I give a lot of weight to values presented in the round. It is really hard to win the round if you lose your value, although I do pledge to vote on the flow.
When considering events like World Schools, I expect the speaking team to accept questions unless it 1) is interrupting current flow of ideas 2)The opposition is using the act of asking questions as an abusive means of owning another team’s speaking time. Also, spread defined by more than 3 sub points will not be accepted, flowed, or considered for voting. Like all styles of debate l, please ask for my vote, give me voters, provide road-map and sign post, please.
Polly Farrimond Paradigm
Serena Fitzgerald Paradigm
Have fun and be yourself. Please have warrants and impact comparison. This isn't comprehensive - feel free to email me with specific questions at email@example.com.
Speaker points are based off of a combination of skill and being nice. Memes can also help.
I mostly judge PF these days; if you have questions about other events let me know.
Having a citation for something doesn't automatically make it true; you should explain why the author comes to that conclusion. In other words, have a warrant.
Speed is fine, but make sure your opponents are okay with it too!
Theory, kritiks, etc are fine, but if your opponent isn't familiar with progressive arguments, do your best to explain the arguments to them to not exclude them from the round
Only arguments that get made in your speeches get flowed, so if you provide evidence during cross or prep time, please make sure to read it during your speech
I'll call for evidence if it looks sketchy. I want to see what you actually read in the round, so just giving me a link isn't enough
Please no new arguments in summary or final focus except in response to arguments your opponents made
Please do impact weighing! It's also usually good to collapse to just one impact to give yourself more time to focus on it.
Mathew Frischman Paradigm
Asha Goldstein Paradigm
Melodie Gragg Paradigm
Please include me on email chains - firstname.lastname@example.org
Be efficient about email chains. Get them set-up before the start time on the pairing. Multiple problems with email chains may lead to decreased speaker points.
Currently coaching at North Valley High School in Oregon.
Very minor note: Please call me Melodie or Mrs. Gragg, nothing else.
Frame the debate for me at the top of the 2nr/2ar. Tell me what to vote on and why that's more important than whatever the other team wants me to vote on. *Tell me how to weigh impacts. If no one tells me what to prioritize and someone has an oppression/violence in debate impact, I will generally default to weighing that argument first.*
Talk in paragraphs not blips. Give me pen (okay typing) time instead of speeding your way through large blocks of analysis. Slow down on tags. Very little frustrates me more than not being able to tell when you've gone from one card to another.
Stay organized. Giving arguments names is nice. You don't have to be perfect on the line by line, but telling me when you're moving from the link to the alt debate or the ___ "disad" (or whatever) is nice.
Slow down. I'd rather hear you make applications and talk about argument interaction than rattle through another three cards that say the same thing. I get that sometimes you need extra evidence and if there are different warrrants, it makes sense, but think carefully about those decisions. To take advantage of your analysis, I need to be able to flow it so you can't rattle off at the same speed you would a card.
Teal Hamner Paradigm
Doug Hill Paradigm
Kellie Hill Paradigm
Brian Johnson Paradigm
John Kellogg Paradigm
I prefer slow, well made, arguments as opposed to speedy barrages of words without substance.
I judge all events fairly to the best of my ability, but my personal bias against speed persists.
Speaking quickly for 8 minutes at a constant blistering speed is much worse than fluctuating your pace and volume for effect.
Robert McAdam Paradigm
Earl Pettit Paradigm
Lucy Roberts Paradigm
Laurie Rooper Paradigm
Caroline Shaffer Paradigm
Joe Spurgeon Paradigm
Kristen Sullivan Paradigm
My priorities for judging any debate are
1) the use of factual evidence that shows understanding of the topic.
2) clear and organized arguments.
3) each team's ability to support their value, weighing mechanism, or other framework throughout the entire debate.
4) professionalism and appropriateness.
Anne Teichman Paradigm
Avoid jargon. Speak clearly which may require you to slow down.
Zack Trenbeath Paradigm
Gypsy Warrick Paradigm
I have a difficult time hearing, so please speak slow enough for me to understand you, when you spread and I cannot follow I will rank you down.
Please be respectful, follow your opponent's case and make sure you have good clash.
Please limit jargon, anyone off the street should be able to understand your case, big words don't win cases.
Again, I have a hard time hearing, please speak to the back of the room.
I look for you to have a connection to your piece. I want to feel that you understand the emotions that you are portraying.
For Informs/Expos/Extemp/Impromptu/Oratory - I would like you to have some energy when delivering your piece, just because it's not an interp does not mean that it has to be monotone.
Barbara Whiddon Paradigm
Paul Willis Paradigm
Andrew Wilson Paradigm
I am currently a lawyer but was a former debater and IEer from 1999 to 2007 and then I coached collegiate speech and debate from 2007 to 2009. I am passionate about this activity and enjoy judging when I can. I have done almost any IE or debate event you can think of. I did 4 years of collegiate Parli debate with an additional 2 years of coaching the activity. In high school I did LD, Congress, and Ted Turner debate and a variety of different individual events.
Policy/Debate Paradigm - While I have never done Policy as a competitor, I can flow and follow almost any argument you want to make. I warn you of three things about me:
1) I do not know what your cards say. You need to explain the argument you are making or I am willing to ignore the argument. If you explain the argument and provide me with realistic impacts I am happy to vote on pretty much any argument you want to make. If your impacts are poorly developed or are overly dramatic (global destruction, millions dead, etc) I will probably give your position very little weight. I will usually make my decision by weighing the quality and likelihood of potential impacts. I was a plan/counterplan/dis-ad/topicality debater myself, but I have voted plenty of times for well developed Critical arguments as well.
2) If you flow me out of the round that is your problem, not mine. I have a lot of flowing experience, but am by no means the fastest. I have from time to time missed arguments because speakers have gone too fast. I will do my best to keep up, but you go too fast at your own risk. I am not saying you need to go slow, just be careful.
3) I really like to see people having fun in this activity. Be creative and be nice to one another. I know it is easy to get wrapped up in argumentation and become passionate about what you are arguing. Always remember that this is a game that is meant to be enjoyed by everyone. If you cross the line between being competitive and being a jerk, you will not find me to be very happy with your performance.
Have fun and good luck!!