Shanley High School Dr L Speech meet
2019 — Fargo, ND/US
Thom Beneke Paradigm
Aicha Doume Paradigm
Pennie Fike Paradigm
Sam Fite Paradigm
Lis Fricker Paradigm
Ben Geffre Paradigm
Madison Hannenberg Paradigm
Shaina Hess Paradigm
Hannah Hirt Paradigm
Krista Hulderman Paradigm
Joe Hyde Paradigm
Lorraine Ista Paradigm
Denise Johnson Paradigm
Kelsey Johnson Paradigm
Maggie Kosevich Paradigm
Nathan Kurtti Paradigm
North Dakota State University (2014-16)- English Education
Relevant Career Experience:
English Teacher/Debate Coach (2017-present)- WF Sheyenne High School
Within a PF debate, I am looking at main claims, evidence, and logic being used to help a side win in PF. I am not looking for a show. I am looking for substance. Use your evidence to advance your point and clearly show how that advances your side of the resolution. I take a lot into account in rebuttals. Crossfire is important in my eyes, but I might not weigh that as much as the connection and clash you make in your rebuttals. That is the time to really show why your side wins the debate based on your use of evidence and clash.
I look for clear argumentation between the evidence being used and how effectively you are able to attack the opponent's points and strengthen your own. I am much more content with a slower speed. I am used to argumentation and the typical debate style and format of claim/warrant/impact. At the end of the day, I will be picking the side that wins based on their better use of evidence, clash, and argumentation style.
The value/criterion framework is especially important in this debate format. Evidence of course is important in this debate format but really make sure that you make succinctly clear how your value and criterion fit with your contentions (claims) and evidence. It is a moral debate, and I am looking to see how you can make a more reasonable moral argument based on your chosen value/criterion that advance your side of the resolution.
Do not spread, and do not speak quickly. Make sure you are understandable and clear in what you say. Delivery matters, and if you talk too quickly, I will not understand your logic and position.
I am not used to disclosing when the debate is finished as it is not standard practice in North Dakota. At the national tournament, if it is expected or required, I will do it. If it is not required, I will not disclose or answer questions. I will have my thoughts written in the ballot.
I do not like Cross X or Crossfire to be a show or spectacle. It is meant to be there to answer questions and ask for points of clarification. I do not want this time to be used for trying to call people out or trying to have those “gotcha” moments. Yes, I listen during Cross X and Crossfire, but I view it as a time to clarify points in the debate and for contestants to better understand the position/argument of their opponent. The rebuttals are when I really start to look at who is making the better clash and arguments.
Abby Neppl Paradigm
Christian Novak Paradigm
Pronouns: He, Him
Experience: 6-year asst. coach and 4-year competitor in both debate and speech. Significant experience in L-D and PF, but minimal experience in CX.
Style Preferences: Speed is usually fine as long as your enunciation can keep up. I will never vote on delivery, but strong delivery and clarity will only help your judge's understanding of your arguments.
Judging: Debate is about the clash of ideas. Tabula rasa is impossible, but I strive for coming into a round with absolutely zero preconceptions regarding what arguments hold water and what arguments do not. It's the role of the opponent to discredit the speaker's arguments (not my role); so, as long as the argument has a reasonable claim, data, and warrant, I'll accept the impacts of that claim until the opponent tells me not to.
The only time my preconceptions will ever come into play is with topicality/resolutional analysis in instances where neither side gives me a reason to buy their interpretation of the topic. I need to vote on the resolution by the end of the round, which means that I need to have an interpretation of what the resolution means and the burdens of each side. If neither side makes an argument for what those burdens are and what interpretations are fair/unfair, then I have to use the burdens and interpretations that make most sense to me.
Because you don't know what my perceived burdens and interpretations for any given resolution are, this means that you would be wise to spend time on topicality/burdens in your speeches if it seems like you and your opponent aren't seeing eye to eye. Also, I love burden/topicality debates; if you want to make my life more fun, argue burdens.
Cross: CX is the Maury of debate: It's inflammatory and usually not super substantive for the viewer (judge), but I would be lying if I said that it didn't greatly entertain me. For me, the CX or crossfire is for the benefit of the debaters, rather than the benefit of the judge. This means a few things: First, coming out "on top" or "looking better than the opponent" doesn't mean much to me. Second, I will add to my flow from cross if something comes up that clarifies something from the speeches, but I don't actively flow cross. Finally, any holes that you expose in cross should also be covered in your subsequent speeches if you really want it to be considered.
Things I like:
- Clear and consistent signposting
- Topicality/Rules/Burden Debate
- Clear impacts that stem from clear Claim-Data-Warrant structures.
- Kritiks - I like kritiks and off-the-wall arguments as long as their relevance to the ballot is made exceedingly clear.
Things I DO NOT like:
- "I/my partner can bring that up in their next speech" -> Never brings it up. If this happens, I don't hesitate to drop the contention that the question was related to (because part of the defense being used is to hide evidence that they have/don't have by being dishonest to the opposition/judge).
Debate is incredibly fun. I'm having the most fun when the debaters in front of me are having fun too.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask pre-round as long as we're not running behind.