Redmond High School 2019
2019 — Redmond, WA, WA/US
Maria Bakhmetyeva Paradigm
Dipaly Bamoroya Paradigm
Kawar Bedi Paradigm
Emily Berreth Paradigm
Jessica Bishop Paradigm
Patricia Brown Paradigm
Aanchal Chadda Paradigm
Alexander Clarke Paradigm
Lisa Diller Paradigm
Amber Duan Paradigm
Ramesh Ganesh Paradigm
Glen Garnand Paradigm
Katelyn Garnand Paradigm
Victor Gill Paradigm
Regardless of what debate event I am judging, my paradigm is the same: I'm looking for a good back and forth debate where both sides engage with their opponent's case. That's about it. I'm not a Lay judge but I am a laid back judge, as long as there's substance behind any claims you make I will accept it. If you want to be snarky in round that's fine, but keep it to the cases and evidence. If you become rude to your opponents, your ballot will reflect that.
For those who ask about Theory and Speed:
1) Argue it well. I'm more a traditional judge but I do enjoy seeing theory if it's run and explained well. If you want to unload a barrage of buzzwords at me, make sure you explicitly state why/how they relate to the round
2) I can handle speed, but I can't handle sloppy speed. If you want to go fast that's fine as long as it's intelligible. If you don't enunciate well enough or start to go too fast, I will offer one warning total. If you continue, I will be unable to flow your case and therefore unable to judge it.
For those who really want to butter me up, here are some of my (debate) pet peeves:
1) Not looking up at the judge at all while reading your case and/or burying your head in your laptop while reading your case.
2) NOTICING THE SLOW DOWN WARNING BUT NOT HEEDING IT! It's my pet peeve, but it's your ballot.
3) Spending the majority of Cross-Ex looking at your opponent. Yes, it's natural to look at the person you are talking to, but you are still trying to convince me of your case, not your opponent.
4) Asking a very specific question about paradigms after I've stated the general paradigm. I like to consider myself laid back, and I want to see your own personal style, but a barrage of questions about "do you flow x" or "do you allow y" irks me. If you argue it well and respectfully, I will accept/flow/allow whatever.
5) Not holding a semi-professional stature in round. Even if you're bored out of your mind or tired, at least pretend you want to be there. Cases read when body language and vocal tone indicate apathy drive me up the ------- wall.
Mike Grassi Paradigm
Suzanne Hall Paradigm
I do not find spreading useful in making a strong case; I prefer traditional LD debate. Framework arguments must be solidly grounded in scholarly research that ties tightly to the resolution. Courtesy to your opponent matters. Cases with plans are fine — provided the resolution is fully addressed and you can engage your opponent on the nuances of the resolution.
Derek Hanson Paradigm
I competed in Policy from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and am now running the debate program at Glacier Peak High School.
I'm a Stock Issues judge, and when Stock Issues are fulfilled, I default to Policymaker. I tend to have a low tolerance for frivolous Topicality arguments, but am willing to consider most based on the quality of the link and argumentation presented. My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy. I have absolutely no tolerance for performance affs. If you run one, and your opponent so much as utters a basic T shell and consistently extends it through the round, you stand very little chance of winning.
I have a dislike of most kritiks. In my view many Kritiks, while useful in theory, often allow debaters to become lazy and shirk their research obligations while running the same strategy year after year. In other cases they're based on hopelessly distorted pseudo-intellectual crap that regresses the educational value of the debate. They can, however, have their legitimate uses and it would be wise for the neg, if they choose to run one with me, to provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're here to debate.
I hate performance affs with a fiery passion. They're a cheap gimmick with no redeeming value beyond a few chuckles, and negate any educational value for the round. I cannot emphasize enough how much I despise these things. Even in the unlikely event that you win, you will receive 20 speaker points.
I'm able to understand speed, but prefer clear articulation.
I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention in all cases, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; demonstrate how they show that you win the round.
I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. "Progressive" styles are a bastardization of this format. You want to pull that stuff, go back to Policy. Value-criterion debate is the name of the game, along with philosophical analysis of a topic, not how a plan might be implemented.
I am not a fan of Kritiks, but can understand that in some cases they can have legitimate uses. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible.
LD doesn't have plans. Stop trying to run them. Same with CP's.
No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.
Performance affs will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case.
Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Failure to do so is your own fault.
I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. No plans, no funny business from other forms of debate. I have a violent dislike for spreading in this format.
Traditional Worlds adjudication. Do not spread.
Wen Yu Ho Paradigm
Hazel Huang Paradigm
Kevin Jackson Paradigm
Sheharbano Jafry Paradigm
Tyler Julian Paradigm
I am just doing this so that I won't get fined.
Nick Julian Paradigm
Tabula Rasa: If you don't say it, I don't flow it. Framework arguments do not automatically get flowed on my ballots as a priori unless you outline them as such and explain why they are a priori voters. Additionally, I will not do work for you on the ballot, meaning that if I find an argument you have made convincing but you do not reiterate it or bring it up as a voter I can't vote on it. Finally and most importantly: clarity is key. If I can't understand you, I can't vote for you. If I say "clear" or "slow" you MUST abide or lose the round. I ask that you show your opponents the same courtesy.
Kinda goes without saying, but overt/explicit bigotry of any kind (classism, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) will automatically forfeit my ballot.
Michael Knapick Paradigm
Meera Krishna Paradigm
Anil Kumar Paradigm
Pranish Kumar Paradigm
Bin Lang Paradigm
Chandra Le Paradigm
Vince Lee Paradigm
Speak slowly and clearly for me to follow
Zheng Lin Paradigm
I am looking for clear and well-paced speech, structural narration and well labelled supporting statements and evidence.
Eric McCormick Paradigm
Jane McCoy Paradigm
Jenn McDonough Paradigm
Laurie Milligan Paradigm
Robin Monteith Paradigm
I am a parent coach and still consider myself a lay judge. I am looking for you to convince me that the side you are arguing on is right. It will help if you give a clear and highly organized case. Make sure that you don't talk so fast that you lose your enunciation. While the point of debate is to take apart your opponents case, I do not like it when teams get too aggressive or cross the line into being rude.
Ken Nichols Paradigm
Background: I've been judging high school Lincoln Douglas for 6 years and work in the tech industry.
Speed: I'm a native English speaker, so faster than conversational delivery is fine, but debaters should attempt to be persuasive and not speak just to fill time. (I do appreciate good argumentation and have noticed that faster speakers tend to rush past important points without fully exploring their significance, so keep that in mind.)
Criteria: I value logical debate, with analysis and supporting evidence... co-opting opponents' value & criterion and showing how your case wins is completely fair and certainly a winning strategy. (I'm not generally a fan of progressive arguments, but will consider them if the position can be debated without applying abusive burdens.) I do weigh delivery and decorum to some degree, but generally it isn't a factor... in the event of a tie, Neg wins. Neg owns the status quo, so the burden is on Aff to show why changes must be made.
Lloyd Roberts Paradigm
Bonnie Rosenbloom Paradigm
Paul Rossman Paradigm
Karen Rossman Paradigm
Charles Rusk Paradigm
Ryan Smith Paradigm
Joy Snodgrass Paradigm
Rob Sorensen Paradigm
I'm a traditional LD judge - I prefer a traditional V/VC framework, and like a philosophical debate that substantively engages the resolution.
I have very limited tolerance for speed / lack of clarity.
Michael Trask Paradigm
I prefer rounds where I can clearly understand and track contentions: please do not speak too rapidly that I do not understand what you are saying. Also, although this should go without saying, please stay civil during crossfires; failure to do so is unlikely to win you the round.
Susan Truong Paradigm
Joel Underwood Paradigm
Overlake Volunteer Paradigm
Enzhou Wang Paradigm
I am a parent judge from Interlake High School. I have judged at multiple tournaments before and have been trained in flowing. I do not disclose my decision after the round. To best adapt to me, you don't need to slow down specifically, but speaking clearly will be helpful. I value making logically compelling arguments and convincingly refuting opponents' weak contentions and points. Have a great debate!
Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using his intelligence; he is just using his memory.
Linda Wang Paradigm
Brannan Widdis Paradigm
Morgan Zerby Paradigm
Net net: I'm open to any arguments as long as they're well warranted. I try to evaluate the round through the lens you provide. I'm comfortable with speed but will make faces at you during the round if you aren't clear or aren't telling me where you're at on the flow.
I won state policy in high school (it was Alaska though...so....) and did parli at Western Washington University. My final year, I went to quarter finals at NPDA. I majored in analytic philosophy with emphasis on epistemology, feminist philosophy, and political philosophy. I ran a lot of criticisms, but I also really enjoy straight up CP/disad/case debates. If you're running a criticism, please have framework arguments that clearly explain how your opponents can engage in the debate. Comfortable with theory- I won't auto drop you on any theory arguments you run. Like most people, I raise my eyebrows if your theory arguments skew the other team out of the round.
Other stuff on speaker points:
Debate is awesome and I reward people who are classy, clever and creative. Biggest pet peeve is when more experienced teams steamroll over novices-- be kind and courteous. There's a learning curve to participate in debate, so don't discourage people from giving it a try by being aggro.
Good luck! Reach out if you have questions!
Jacob Zerby Paradigm
Read whatever you’d like.