Redmond High School 2019
2019 — Redmond, WA, WA/US
Sonu Aggarwall Paradigm
Anna Bennett Paradigm
Zoe Burstyn Paradigm
I spend most of my time in tab rooms these days, but when I do judge I am a traditional one who values clear and concise arguments that are backed up by solid evidence and delivered at a reasonable pace.
The fundamental goal of the debaters in round is to convince me, the judge, that their side should win, and they cannot do it if they don't speak at a conversationally persuasive pace, don't clearly articulate their positions, and don't extend their arguments and reasoning using logic and evidence.
Ramesh Ganesh Paradigm
I'm have been judging Mid and High school debate and speech since 2015 season and I think I know what I'm doing. I keep a reasonable flow. I can handle speed, but don't particularly like it.
I think a good debate round should engage in a substantive, rigorous, and critical discussion of the resolution, at the same time, be watchable to a general audience.
Don't just tell me that you win an argument, show me WHY you win it and what significance that has in the round. Please narrow the debate and WEIGH arguments in Summary and Final Focus. If you want the argument in Final Focus, be sure it was in the summary.
For Speech Events:
Relax and show your talent. Don’t rush and keep consistent pace of your speech. When entries that are really close in rank, the person who hit the purpose of the event most closely and whose performance flowed best will get better rank.
Remember to have fun, relax and enjoy the round!
Don Garnand Paradigm
I have been a coach since 1993. I have coached & judged Cross-X; L-D; and Public Forum. I have also worked with all of the individual events and Congress.
Here is the basic philosophy by which I judge the debate events:
For all debate events - you think about this information a lot, I don't. I'm an educator with over 25 years in schools. I like reasonable arguments and understanding your arguments and evidence.
C-X: I weigh the round based on the evidence given and explained. To simply read a card(s) with an author and expect that I know all about him/her, is not reasonable. You must explain why this is important and why this author has a superior analysis. Also, I won't intervene unless you give me no options. I flow - speed is not a problem. If I stop writing, you may want to slow down a little. Flashing is irritating, so keep it quick and clean. Technology problems are yours and I won't stop the round/prep/speech time if you are having tech problems.
L-D: I am old school. I look for a great value/criterion debate and a reason why your interpretation of the resolution and the evidence you provide is superior to your opponents.
P-F: I just want each team to explain why they have the superior position on the resolution. Be nice to each other, as I will deduct speaker points if you seem aggressive. I will only judge on a framework if and only if both teams agree to the framework. There is no room for rudeness.
Congress: I like to see the debate advanced. I don't want a lot of evidence, just a few pieces explained well. Civility - this is huge. I've found Congress in the 2019-20 season to be rude and unkind. This will play in my speech scores and rankings. You can be passionate, just don't be mean/rude/harsh in your tone. Be clear in your questions.
Daniel Gross 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.
Hazel Huang Paradigm
Tim Ireland Paradigm
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.