NSDA Middle School Nationals
2019 — Dallas, TX/US
*Claire *Kankirawatana Paradigm
*Allen *Li Paradigm
*Catherine *Mitchell Paradigm
Raghed Abdel-Tawab Paradigm
Camille Acosta Paradigm
Leenah Al-Turki Paradigm
Criselda Aldan Paradigm
Christopher Alexander Paradigm
Brayden Allen Paradigm
Mary Allen Paradigm
AVERI Allison Paradigm
David Amador Paradigm
Nathan Amberg Paradigm
I am the head Speech and Congress coach at Dickinson High School, ND.
I have a background in English, Speech, and Theatre Education.
Delivery and presentation are musts for me: eye contact, conversational tone, posture, and not reading off computer or notepad.
I will flow your argument, but I will not make the links for you unless they are incredibly obvious.
Be brave and have fun in the session; this is a social activity. I want to see students willing to get up for authorship. If no one is willing to speak or run for PO that's your cue to be a leader.
Even the second aff/ first neg can, and often should, have elements of refutation in there. For the first 2/3-3/4 of speeches, I expect to see clash, but also new arguments being brought in. This is an activity that requires not only research, but also depth of research. Don't get up there and say that the aff or neg has already brought up a point, but not explored it enough, unless you can back it up with new analysis or additional research. The last few speeches should wrap up the debate, especially if debate has been limited and you know that you are one of the last speeches.
Don't play games and try and make the PO look bad unless they have actually made a mistake. Decorum is at the heart of congressional debate and must be respected. Do not be rude or belittling to your competition; you may be the best speaker in the room, but you will lose favor quickly by not respecting your competition and the activity.
Speech number is irrelevant; however, you had better have a good reason for not speaking on each piece of legislation. Quality of speeches, quality of questions, and quality of overall interaction in the chamber is what will get you the ballot from me.
Manish Amin Paradigm
Sam Anctil Paradigm
Ava Anderson Paradigm
Dr. Jordan Atkinson Paradigm
Paxton Attridge Paradigm
Alaina Back Paradigm
Noora Bahrami Paradigm
Hannah Bailey Paradigm
Tiffani Banks Paradigm
Tejas Bansal Paradigm
Congress: content heavy, make the round fun
Extemp: logical analysis, interesting stuff
PF: Signpost really well and make it clear exactly what your responding to and where you are on the flow
Beau Barris Paradigm
Murali Beeram Paradigm
Layla Behbehani Paradigm
Monica Bell Paradigm
Dalton Belokopitovs Paradigm
Emily Benavides Paradigm
Juan Benitez Paradigm
Christopher Berdnik Paradigm
1. Speed is fine, but clarity is necessary. If anything, I am "flow-centric";
2. Open cross-examination is acceptable, but if it is clear than one member of the team is not able to participate at the same level, speaker points will likely suffer;
3. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I look first to any potential violation(s) of stock issues and then default to a policymaking perspective.
1. Speed is fine, but clarity is necessary. If anything, I am "flow-centric";
2. My preference is tabula rasa; in the absence of any alternative framework, I will default to a whole resolution lens looking first to the value/value criterion debate.
Michael Bernard Paradigm
Spaulding Bingaman Paradigm
Jessica Blackburn Paradigm
James Blastos Paradigm
Ryan Brady Paradigm
LD: I believe that rounds are decided by framework work debate and values. You can have as many contentions with evidence as you want, but if you fail to connect them into your framework effectively you will not win the round. spreading is antithetical to the purpose of debate, slow down and articulate your points persuasively.
Layne Brandvik Paradigm
Linnea Brashears Paradigm
For all events, utilize strong intros. For speech events, utilize the orator's triangle. For binder events, movement is tolerable. Binder work should be clean. Duo choreography should be crisp. I like to see good sportsmanship. I look forward to seeing your talents!
Sarah Braun Paradigm
Jacqueline Brown Paradigm
Mackenzi Brozovich Paradigm
Amanda Burton Paradigm
Amy Burton Paradigm
Isabelle Burton Paradigm
John Burton Paradigm
Patrick Byrnes Paradigm
Patrick Calhoun Paradigm
Rob Callahan Paradigm
Chad Campbell Paradigm
Michael Caplan Paradigm
I was a high school cross-examination (a.k.a. Policy) debater from 1987-1991 at Jesuit High School New Orleans. I am now an assistant coach for Policy Debate at Phoenix Country Day School as well as the Physics teacher. In between, I earned a B.S. in Chemical Engineering and B.A. in Plan II from the University of Texas at Austin (1996), a PhD in Chemical Engineering from MIT (2001), post-doctoral research in Cell Biology at the Duke University Medical Center (2001-2002), and then was an Associate Professor of Biomedical Engineering at Arizona State University (2003-2018).
As for debate rounds:
1) I need to understand what you say. I am fine with spreading as long as you enunciate clearly. And, if a particular argument is critical to your strategy, slow down a bit on the tagline to make sure I flow it properly.
2) In rebuttals, make sure to write my ballot for me by telling me how I should view the various positions in the round as if I accept your framework OR your opponent's framework -- do both because you don't know which framework I'm going to find more convincing.
Unless one or both teams argue to judge the round otherwise, I default to hypothesis testing of the resolution. But I'm certainly willing to be convinced to judge the round in other ways. For example, if you argue a K, just make sure to do a good job convincing me that it's really important for me to judge based on the K rather than on the typical framework (i.e., hypothesis testing).
Specifically regarding Ks, I find them most convincing when the issue being Kritik-ed is either heartfelt or at least seems heartfelt. For example, if you are arguing a Racism K, I will find it more convincing if you actually feel strongly that racism is a really important issue and you feel that the opposing team is actually exacerbating the problem of racism in our society. If it seems to me that you're just running the K to score a win in the debate round rather than actually caring about the issue being Kritik-ed, you can convince me to vote on it; but you'll find it easier to convince me if you actual care about the issue and legitimately believe the other team is exacerbating the problem.
Other argument types:
T - Of course. My default is hypothesis testing unless you tell me otherwise.
CP - A good counterplan debate is great fun. Although CPs are easiest when non-topical and competitive, I'm willing to hear theory arguments that I should allow an exception.
DAs - These are the meat of all good hypothesis testing rounds. Make sure to pay good attention to the internal links in the DA. Also, I'm happy to vote for DAs that don't cause nuclear war. When I debated, my favorite DA was "deficits" which often just led to economic collapse. I'm happy to vote for a DA that causes highly probably harms that are moderately bad rather, and I find those more convincing than DAs that cause unlikely but world-ending harm.
Case - Please argue case. If nothing more, if you're Neg, please at least make a few arguments against case's solvency and whatever their biggest harms are. If the Neg leaves case with 100% solvency and no doubt about the harms, I find it hard to vote down the Aff. Vice-versa when you're Aff.
Performance Affs/Negs - I have now participated in one of these, and I see the potential value in them. Just know that your #1 goal in the round (sine qua non) will be to convince me that I should judge the round in a non-traditional way that matches your performance goal.
Shaunte Caraballo Paradigm
Destiny Ceja Paradigm
Luz Elena Chapa Paradigm
Elizabeth Charlton Paradigm
Kimberlee Chatson Paradigm
Pamela Childress Paradigm
I am a debate coach in Georgia. I also competed in LD and Policy. Take that for whatever you think it means.
- LD - Value/Value Criterion - this is what separates us from the animals (or at least the policy debaters). It is the unique feature of LD Debate. Have a good value and criterion (or you can call it Framework) and link your arguments back to it.
- PF - I side on the traditional side of PF. Don't throw a lot of jargon at me or simply read cards... this isn't Policy Jr., compete in PF for the debate animal it is. Remember debate, especially PF, is meant to persuade - use all the tools in your rhetorical toolbox: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.
- Speed - I like speed but not spreading. Speak as fast as is necessary but keep it intelligible. There aren't a lot of jobs for speed readers after high school (auctioneers and pharmaceutical disclaimer commercials) so make sure you are using speed for a purpose.
- Know your case, like you actually did the research and wrote the case and researched the arguments from the other side. If you present it, I expect you to know it from every angle - I want you to know the research behind the statistic and the whole article, not just the blurb on the card.
- Casing - Mostly traditional but I am game for kritiks, counterplans - but perform them well, KNOW them, I won't do the links for you. I am a student of Toulmin - claim-evidence-warrant/impacts. I don't make the links and don't just throw evidence cards at me with no analysis.
- I like clash. Argue the cases presented, mix it up, have some fun, but remember that debate is civil discourse - don't take it personal, being the loudest speaker won't win the round, being rude to your opponent won't win you the round.
- Debating is a performance in the art of persuasion and your job is to convince me, your judge (not your opponent!!) - use the art of persuasion to win the round: eye contact, vocal variations, appropriate gestures, and know your case well enough that you don't have to read every single word hunched over a computer screen. Keep your logical fallacies for your next round. Rhetoric is an art.
- Technology Woes - I will not stop the clock because your laptop just died or you can't find your case - not my problem, fix it or don't but we are going to move on.
- Ethics - Debate is a great game when everyone plays by the rules. Play by the rules - don't give me a reason to doubt your veracity.
- Win is decided by the flow (remember if you don't LINK it, it isn't on the flow), who made the most successful arguments and Speaker Points are awarded to the best speaker - I end up with some low point wins. I am fairly generous on speaker points compared to some judges. I disclose winner but not speaker points.
- Enjoy yourself. Debate is the best sport in the world - win or lose - learn something from each round, don't gloat, don't disparage other teams, judges, or coaches, and don't try to convince me after the round is over. Leave it in the round and realize you may have just made a friend that you will compete against and talk to for the rest of your life. Don't be so caught up in winning that you forget to have some fun - in the round, between rounds, on the bus, and in practice.
- Immediate losers for me - be disparaging to the other team or make racist, homophobic, sexist arguments or comments. Essentially, be kind.
- Questions? - if you have a question ask me.
Von Christiansen Paradigm
I am a practicing attorney who occasionally moonlights as a debate judge. Over the past 30 years I have watched competitive debate deteriorate from a program of teaching students effective communication to a program contrived to win debate rounds by any strategy, including so-called "progressive" tactics that are designed to confuse and overwhelm opponents with tangential and obscure minutia rather than inform and persuade judges with impactful, well-reasoned argumentation.
This is ironic because in real life, in a real courtroom, I will only win a trial if I win the hearts and minds of the jury---presenting artfully crafted arguments that accentuate my personal ethos, while balancing appropriate appeals to logic and passion. If I tried to "spew" or "spread" my arguments to a jury, I would lose the case. If I tried it in front of a judge, I would get kicked out of the courtroom! If I tried to win every case by overwhelming the judge, jury and counsel with every "card" I ever stumbled upon (even remotely related to the case), I would lose all my cases and my clients with them.
The same goes for nearly every other professional communicator. No teacher would teach that way. No news broadcaster would report that way. as far as I can tell, the only job opportunity available to a "progressively" trained debater is to deliver the annoying legal disclaimers at the end of radio commercials.
I realize that my views are hopelessly outdated. No one reading this paradigm statement will ever select me as "1" on a judge preference sheet. Nevertheless, if you have the bad luck of getting me in a round anyway, here are some tips on how to get my vote:
(1) Speak at a normal, conversational rate;
(2) Look me in the eye;
(3) Begin with a clear, real-life illustration of how the Affirmative or Negative case effects real people;
(4) Make me laugh;
(5) Make me cry;
(6) Make me care;
(7) Help me understand what the resolution means;
(8) Help me understand why your ideas are right;
(9) Help me understand why your opponent is wrong; and,
(10) Organize your ideas in a way that makes sense.
I realize that this rhetorical model is profoundly outdated (it is in fact about 2,500 years old). Nevertheless, in the spirit of learning something useful (rather than simply winning another piece of shiny plastic today for speed-reading), please give these ideas a try!
Kya Christiansen Paradigm
Samantha Chu Paradigm
Matt Clark Paradigm
Lauren Cocroft Paradigm
Taegan Collins Paradigm
Jason Conley Paradigm
Ivette Connell Paradigm
Gene Cook Paradigm
Timothy Coughlin Paradigm
I'm not going to treat this as LD/CX Jr, honest. This is NOT an event that should be featuring spreading, and the speed should max out at the upper end of a standard conversation.
20% Strategy - How and when you execute parts of your argumentation are key. Pick out the keys the the case and keep on focus.
40% Style - Each speaker should communicate using an effective combination of public speaking norms. Namely conversational speech rate, appropriate pitch and tone, and confident body language. Eye contact is key, so limit what you're reading verbatim from paper. If you read from a paper in a monotone voice for 8 long minutes, you will put me to sleep as well as your opponents. Please don't do this!
40% Evidence/Case - Case construction should flow seamlessly and I recommend it be logically laid out. Evidence calls are not allowed. If you think something is wrong, well, that's what POIs are for.
Even though I think its crazy, I will not allow any use of computers in round (unless otherwise directed by tabroom). This is the decision of the NSDA and I will enforce it. Use of phones is allowed for timing purposes only and they should be placed in airplane mode for the duration. The timer should be silenced.
Use of knocking and tapping in the appropriate manner is encouraged. Humor will never be amiss in any round I judge.
Ask me questions before the round begins.
This is NOT an event that should be featuring spreading. Your need to appeal to the philosophy of your position in a orderly efficient manner in important. Collegial discussion needs to be your manner to approach this and be successful. Please note, this is one of the few events where a judge can declare a forfeit without consulting tabroom. You MUST remain topical. This is NOT an event to play games with kritiks and counterplans, etc. I have every expectation that you will take this event seriously. In doing so, you show respect for your team, your opponents, your judge, and yourself.
I have been asked many times if I have a preference for types of arguments or styles of debate and the answer is that it doesn't matter. You are are the speaker, not I. Progressive, traditional, plans, counterplans, theories, or kritiks, your job is to convince me that your side's position is the strongest.
For LD, if you are not talking, you're prepping.
For policy, if you are passing cards back and forth, give me no reason to wonder if you are appropriating prep time. If you are passing cards, do so expeditiously. (Why yes, I'd like to be on the email chain! My email is email@example.com) Be prepared with USB drives or another medium for sharing documents. Please note, this isn't supposed to be war of the USB drives. Taking more than a minute to transfer a file will add up. Out of respect for your fellow competitors and the tabroom, I will be urging you in-round to move forward. Especially at the varsity level.
There is one official time-keeper, the judge(s). You are welcome to time yourself using your phone or another device as a timer. Your timer should be silenced and not interrupting you or your opponent's speaking time. Please ask if you want notifications whether on prep or debating and I'll be happy to let you know. When your time is up, I will inform you quietly so you can finish your sentence.
Be polite. Argue your case effectively and clearly. As the debater, you (or your team) will decide that method. Speaking more quickly will not help you case if you are not clear. As a judge, I will attempt to read up on your topic of debate ahead of time, but it is best to assume that I know nothing and provide definitions accordingly. Be sure to ask both myself and your opponent if we are ready.
Silence your personal technology devices. I would suggest using airplane mode to limit any visual notifications. Anything that interrupts your speaking time will count against you. Doubly so if you interrupt your opponent. I'd appreciate it, as a courtesy, if you are using a phone for notes, etc (if allowed for your style of debate) to warn me ahead of time.
Internet access is being allowed in some tournaments. The rules governing access can generally be found on the tabroom page for the tournament. I have every expectation that you will use network access honorably and ethically.
Do your best and be respectful of others in the room. Tell me if you want time signals. Otherwise, I'll only give you a hand clenched for no time left. I expect that you will know the rules and requirements of whichever league you are competing. Unless you are double entered, you are expected to stay the whole time. If you are double entered, please tell me before we begin and do not interrupt a fellow presenter while leaving or entering. I will generally go in the order of the ballot, otherwise.
Silence your personal technology devices. I would suggest using airplane mode to limit any visual notifications. Anything that interrupts your speech will count against you. Doubly so if you interrupt one of you fellow speakers .
Katy Cronin Paradigm
Deanne Crump Paradigm
Barbara Daley Paradigm
AJ Dally-Steele Paradigm
Jeremiah Daniels Paradigm
Marisa Davis Paradigm
Bryan Davis Paradigm
Mike Davis Paradigm
I have done debate for two years now in Parliamentary and IPDA debate, and coached LD/PF debate for a year. I am very much a flow judge - don't make me do work for you. Be sure to explain what your points are, show me how you got to your point, and tell me the impacts clearly. If I do not get the relation to real-world, big picture events, I will not weigh it out for you if the other team does. I do my best to be tab, but if I don't get what I need from either team, I'll intervene to make my decision. I can follow speed, but if it's abusive to the other team and it's brought up and not addressed I will drop you - this is an educational event, treat it as such. Impact hard in final focus, and try to not bring up new arguments (this is the only place I'll protect flow).
Show me your critical thinking skills. Use the game of debate to your advantage if need be: kritiks, framework, whatever. I can follow it if you do it well. Cite warrants. Give roadmaps, structure.
Don't be offensive. If it happens once and it's called out, I'll heavily dock it in speaks. If it happens twice or more, even if it isn't called, I will weigh it heavily on team and probably have a chat with you afterwards. Don't be abusive - if a team is unable to keep up with whatever is happening and you play an advantage off of that even if asked to cool it, I'll dock speaks. Don't run debate heavy stuff if it isn't understood - know your theory, framework, arguments. If you do it wrong and are called on it that'll be an easy decision for me.
Disclaimer that these are just guidelines, not requirements - do what you want to do, it is your round. I encourage fun, learning, and active discourse. If you have questions in round or afterwards I'll always be glad to help out.
Riley Dedering Paradigm
Alexis Delgado Paradigm
Kaylee Demlow Paradigm
Madeleine Denison Paradigm
Eileen Diaz Paradigm
Margaret Dickey Paradigm
Christopher Dimitrakakis Paradigm
Heather Dinklage Paradigm
Jarad Dobson Paradigm
Luke Donovan Paradigm
Liberty Dunn Paradigm
Grace Duran Paradigm
Janizelle ESQUIVEL Paradigm
Christi Eanes Paradigm
Tristen Eaves Paradigm
Colton El-Habr Paradigm
Chase Elliott Paradigm
Ezekiel Ellis Paradigm
Jack Entzion Paradigm
Arlene Esin Paradigm
Stephanie Estrada Paradigm
Miranda Fairman Paradigm
Shadi Farokhzad Paradigm
Sophia Fernandez Paradigm
Joseph Fluehr Paradigm
Jenni Frick Paradigm
Jena Friesen Paradigm
Nicolas Fulton Paradigm
Adrian Gallardo Paradigm
Francisco Garcia Paradigm
Julie Garza Paradigm
Alexa Gilbert Paradigm
Sandhya Goli Paradigm
Bruce Goodner Paradigm
Becky Gould Paradigm
Angela Govig Paradigm
Erin Granillo-Walke Paradigm
LD/CX: Medium threshold on theory, fine with speed, flex prep/tag team cx fine, include me on the email chain/flash, fine with kritiks. I like good crystallization at the end of your rebuttles
Jillaine Grant Paradigm
Derneisa Green Paradigm
Radhika Gudavalli Paradigm
Jeremy Guevin Paradigm
Adalynn Guillory Paradigm
Quinn Gustin Paradigm
Karen Gutsmiedl Paradigm
Margaret Hall Paradigm
Josie Halley Paradigm
Kate Hamm (Summit) Paradigm
Name: Kate Hamm
School Affiliation: Ransom Everglades
Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 10+
Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: X
Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 34
Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: X
If you are a coach, what events do you coach? All events
What is your current occupation? I am a high school teacher and head coach.
Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:
Speed of Delivery: Debate may be crisply delivered, but I am not a fan of the ‘spread’ in PF. If you need to spread – switch events. Can I flow the spread? Sure, I just don’t want to in PF. If the round comes down to two well matched teams, the team that has better, more persuasive arguments will beat the spread every time.
Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Summary speech should begin the narrowing process of the debate. The debate should be narrowed into the key arguments. I don’t want to hear a line by line of 16 minutes of argumentation spewed into a 2 minute speech!!!
Role of the Final Focus: The role of the final focus it to weigh the impacts of the arguments that were narrowed in the debate and persuade me as to why one side won and the other side did not.
Extension of Arguments into later speeches: If the refutation (rebuttal speech) does not attack an argument presented in their opponent’s case, their summary may not try to do so. If the summary speaker leaves an argument out of the debate, their partner may not bring it up in the final focus. If arguments from the Constructive case are not extended by the summary, nor mentioned in the debate after the constructive case, please DO NOT try to impact them in the Final Focus.
Topicality: Really? This is an issue in PF only if a team tries an abusive definition. I do not want to hear a theory debate.
Plans : Some resolutions are policies…
Kritiks: Oh Hell No. Not in PF.
Flowing/note-taking: I flow… a lot.
Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?
I generally judge on the arguments and score points on style… therefore, I do give low point wins.
If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? The rebuttal speech in PF should refute the opponent’s arguments; they may rebut their own, if time. But that is not mandatory for me. It is mandatory, however, that the summary speaker narrow the debate to the arguments that stay in the debate. The final focus may not extend a case argument if their own summary speaker dropped it.
If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? See above.
Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Absolutely NOT!
If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.
I love debate… I reward (with speaker points) students who elevate debate into a fine art. I do not reward (with points) those who make it into a short form policy event or a two person LD circuit circus. If two teams are giving me a spew fest of spread crap, the team who wins the flow will win the debate, but neither team will win high speaker points!
First and foremost this activity is one of communication. If you aren’t communicating… find a different activity.
Emma Hansen Paradigm
Jonah Hanson Paradigm
Jennifer Harper Paradigm
Sharon Hartman Paradigm
Megan Hartnett Paradigm
Jade Hefenieder Paradigm
Michael Hegarty Paradigm
Toni Heimes Paradigm
Current Position -- I have been the head debate coach at Lincoln Southwest High School for the past 16 years. In that time I have coached and judged PF, LD and congressional debate.
Background -- I have been coaching speech and debate for the last 28 years. I have been coaching pubic forum since its inception, 16 years ago. I was a high school and college competitor in speech and competed in LD in high school.
PF Paradigm --
I believe that PF is a communication event with special emphasis on the narrative quality of the arguments. The story is important to me. Blippy argumentation or incessant reading of cards with no analysis or link back to the resolution does not hold much weight in my decision. Do the work in round -- do not make me intervene.
Weighing mechanisms should be fully explained -- if you want me to vote using your weighing mechanism, it is your duty to actually tell me why it is a good mechanism for the round and how your side/case/argument does a better job achieving the mechanism.
Presentation of arguments should be clear. I am not a fan of unbridled speed in this event. You need to speak clearly with a persuasive tone.
Reading cards > paraphrasing cards
If you must ask for cards or if you are asked for cards, you need to be prepared to ask for and present these cards in an efficient manner.
Don’t be rude.
Jessica Hernandez Paradigm
Melissa Hernandez Paradigm
Ronald Hester Paradigm
Zach Hill Paradigm
Daniel Hodges (Summit) Paradigm
Sara Holbrook Paradigm
Amy Holder Paradigm
Alex Holmes Paradigm
Janie Hsaing Paradigm
Stephen Hudson Paradigm
Chad Huffman Paradigm
Connor Huffman Paradigm
Carolyn Hughes Paradigm
Phillip Irving Paradigm
Truth over tech
the more links, the more unrealistic the impact
will listen to anything if you make it clear, so dont assume i just know authors or philosophical concepts.
have fun and dont be rude, but a little roasting is ok.
Chris Jeub Paradigm
Saige Johnson Paradigm
Novice Johnson Paradigm
Noah Johnson Paradigm
Albert Johnston-Ramirez Paradigm
Chris Kabes Paradigm
Suchinder Kalyan Paradigm
Vishnu Karnik Paradigm
Chizu Kataoka Paradigm
Brandee Kelly-Joyner Paradigm
Todd Kessler Paradigm
School Affiliation: Coach at The Episcopal School of Dallas
Coaching & Judging Experience: I have been coaching teams and judging tournaments since 2006. This includes LD, PF, Congress, CX and IEs at different schools in Virginia and Texas. I have had debaters qualify for NCFL and NSDA on multiple occasions which are both considered traditional tournaments.
Speed: Although I am personally not a fan of it, please make sure your spreading is clear and coherent. If I can't understand you, I probably will not flow it. If you see me stop flowing for an extended period of time then it would be in your best interest to slow down. I also prefer if you go slow on your taglines, analytics and any theory arguments.
Types of Arguments: Although I prefer framework heavy debates, a lot of clash in the round, and good crystallization and overviews in your final rebuttal, I will still vote on topicality, counterplans, some theory arguments at times and kritiks if they are explained well by the debater. I am not a fan of non-topical Affs as I tend to favor whole resolution ACs. Make sure when you run T, that you are linking your violation to your standards/voting issues and that when you run a CP, you explain your net benefits and how it's competitive.
Theory Argument: Please do not waste your time running any disclosure theory or new affs bad arguments. Not only will I not vote on these types of arguments, but if you waste enough time making arguments that are not related to the resolution in anyway, your speaker points will suffer. If your opponent runs new arguments in his or her rebuttals, then you can run theory.
Kritiks: Run at your own risk because I'm not really a fan of complicated philosophical arguments that have nothing to do with the actual resolution that should be debated upon. I'm not saying you can't win if you run them, but I might look at you funny and simply not flow the argument depending on the complexity of the K.
Speaks: Clarity over speed is prefered. If your spreading is incomprehensible, this will reflect on your speaker points. Any acts of rudeness or displays of an unprofessional demeanor towards your opponent will also be taken into account. If you go against an inexperienced debater or a traditional style opponent, it would be in your best interest to accommodate their format and invest some time clashing with or turning their value, criterion and contentions. Also, please do not ask me if I disclose speaker points. It's not going to happen. In addition, please do not use profanity at all during the round. It will impact your speaks and could also impact my decision so don't do it.
Tricks: Please don't.
Overview: Debate the resolution, clash with your opponent's arguments, provide framework, slow down during tags and analytics, don't run disclosure theory/new affs bad.
Email Chain: If and only if both debaters are sharing files, please include my email as well: firstname.lastname@example.org
Melissa Kim Paradigm
Melissa Kinniff Paradigm
Julie Krause Paradigm
I have been a coach and judge for 11 years. I have judged at numerous circuit tournaments. While my strengths are on the speech side, I have been judging LD and PF for those 11 years, and am familiar with both traditional and contemporary formatting of cases. Basically, I want to hear concrete, logically connected arguments, with solid warrants. I do my best to come into round tabula rasa, and do not consider either side "burdened" with a particular case that they need to make. I have no issues with speed, as long as I can flow; if I cannot flow your arguments, you cannot win, simple as that.
Aditya Kumar Paradigm
Vijay Kunada Paradigm
Nathan Kurtti Paradigm
Jamie LaPaglia Paradigm
Marlo Lacson Paradigm
Beth Lamanna Paradigm
Zoe Lamborn Paradigm
Riley Lawson Paradigm
Anne Le Paradigm
Raul Leal-Rodriguez Paradigm
Caitlin Lee Paradigm
So Hee Lee Paradigm
Bridgette Leonard Paradigm
Jonah Leota Paradigm
Elena Li Paradigm
Lily Liao Paradigm
Tiffany Liu Paradigm
Ari Lohr Paradigm
Indigo Loving Paradigm
Zhuojing Lu Paradigm
Ana Luviano Paradigm
Tim Lynch Paradigm
Cheryl Mack Paradigm
Yilin Mao Paradigm
Michael Martinez Paradigm
Mike Martis Paradigm
Hallie Mason Paradigm
Michael McCabe Paradigm
La Salle College: Head Coach of Policy Debate, 2012-2016, Head Coach of Speech and Debate, 2016-Present.
Email chain: email@example.com
General Debate Thoughts
Read no cards------------------X-----------------Read all the cards
Conditionality good----X--------------------------Conditionality bad
States CP good-----------------------X-----------States CP bad
Politics DA is a thing------------X-----------------Politics DA not a thing
Always VTL-X--------------------------------------Sometimes NVTL
UQ matters most--------------------------X------Link matters most
Fairness is a thing----X---------------------------Fairness isn’t an impact
Try or die-------------------------------X----------No risk
Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard
Clarity-X--------------------------------------------I’ll just read the docs
Presumption------X--------------------------------Never votes on presumption
Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev
"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read
LD - Emory
I have judged little to no circuit LD, but you can see from my record I have judged many policy rounds. That has certainly informed my views of debate, which you can see below.
Full disclosure: I am not nearly as involved in argument construction as I was three or four years ago.
- You should do what you do best and do it well – A good judge will not force their preconceived notions on debaters, but you should argue effectively. An effective argument has three parts: a claim, a warrant, and some sort of greater implication regardless of your style. And I think I am a good judge in that I will allow the arguments to develop themselves, and take the responsibility of the judge being a educator seriously
- My flow will determine every debate I judge. There's one exception to that, I will not vote on any morally reprehensible argument. My standard for evaluating that: if your argument makes me uncomfortable as a high school educator, I will reject it. You should ask yourself, if my teachers/administrators were observing, would I make this same argument?
- Speed is fine, but clarity is important. Most debaters could slow down, get more arguments out, and increase judges comprehension.
- Tech>truth; however, when you have tech and truth on your side, it’s hard to lose.
- Less is more. A smaller 1NC strategy with a lot of emphasis on the case is almost always better than 7 off. An affirmative with two advantages with a solid wall of internal links is my ideal 1AC.
- Be respectful of your partners, opponents, and judges.
- I will generally write out my RFD's and will provide a copy of it in the online ballot. This shouldn't be a cause of concern if you think my RFD is taking a little longer than you think it should. As a coach, I think it is beneficial to see this from a judge - otherwise we are left to our students relatively biased version of events or what they believe they heard the judge say - so I like to provide that same respect for fellow coaches.
Framework: I think that debate is a competitive game and if I were to offer my preference - the affirmative should defend a topical plan - that's my preference, not an absolute. I think if you look back at my judging history, the amount of framework debates I've judged is rather high. I think you'll also see that framework hasn't resulted in a neg ballot more than about 50%. Last year I think I voted neg on framework more-I don't think it was a change in my views, I think it was the Surveillance topic being an example of negative state action.
For teams going for framework:
1. I am most persuaded about form of education arguments and dialogue/engagement, rather than fairness standards. That doesn't mean you should avoid procedural fairness claims.
2. You need to tailor your framework impacts to the aff at hand.
3. You need to be specific. What is the topical version of their specific aff, why is the law necessary for achieving justice (and particularly a form of justice that would resolve some of the 1AC impacts). Engagement with the case is necessary.
For teams answering framework:
1. What does your model of debate look like? What does voting aff mean? Sometimes this gets lost in the line by line. You should be winning some meta-claims.
2. Be explicit about the language of your impact turns and how that plays out by voting affirmative.
Topicality: I am sympathetic to reasonability, but will default to competing interpretations. Topicality is no different from other arguments. I want a clear picture of what your internpretion means for debate (I.E. why is your version of limits good, what does the other teams interpretation justify, what's a topical case list, etc.)
Dis-ads: I think that all four parts of a dis-ad are important, which is why I believe in assigning an (dis)advantage, no risk. I think that internal link uniqueness is not attacked enough by the affirmative.
Counterplans: Love a well researched case specific counterplan with a specific solvency advocate. Who doesn't though? For theory I probably default aff on consult, word pics, and process cps. Default neg on pics and advantage cps.
Kritiks: The more specific the alternative is, the better in my mind. The more specific the links are to the action of plan, the better.
Condo: 1 is good, 2 is probably good, 3 is pushing it. It's going to take some work to win on condo.
Paperless: Prep ends when the email is sent (exception, local tournaments that still use 5 minutes - prep ends when the doc is saved). I will ask to be included on email chains because it is just easier to call for evidence (and to determine clipping); however, for time’s sake I will not ask to be included for flashing.
Cheating: Any cheating will be punished immediately with a loss and zero speaker points for the offending team. Any accusations of cheating will be taken seriously--the round will end immediately.
Frances McCann Paradigm
Zoe McCreary Paradigm
Rob McDade Paradigm
Brandy McDaniel Paradigm
James McGoon Paradigm
Simon McGuire Paradigm
sarah McLaughlin Paradigm
Tara McLellan Paradigm
I am a former LD coach and camp instructor who is now assisting with the Charlotte Latin School (NC) team. Though I will listen to kritiks, plans/counterplans, disads, etc., I prefer a good standards debate. If you choose to offer theoretical approaches, just be sure to explain and impact them clearly. NEG, avoid trying to win the round by spreading; instead, give substantive responses to the AFF case in addition to your case.
I do flow carefully and will make my decision largely based on coverage, argument quality, clash, and impacting. When you address standards, you should actually explain your argument rather than simply cross-applying arguments that don't necessarily fit your point. I can handle speed as long as you signpost and enunciate; if I cannot understand what you are saying, then your point won't be on my flow, and I won't vote on it. Please make CX count by asking substantive questions. Remain civil. You will not impress me by being arrogant, condescending or rude to your opponent. When tournaments allow, I am happy to offer a critique at the end though I generally do not disclose.
If you are a novice, please know that I am a friendly and accessible judge. I work with primarily with novice LDers and really enjoy that process. Feel free to ask me questions if you are confused during the round. I will write specific and constructive comments that you can later use in practice, and please don't hesitate to speak with me outside of the round about your performance. Above all, remember that your round should be a learning experience! It's NOT all about the "win." You should take something valuable from the round regardless of a win or loss.
Brittanie McNeil Paradigm
Background info: Former Policy Debater (Ohio), History, Government and Econ Teacher (NC), American History Professor (NC) BA in History and Poli sci, MA in American History (emphasis on Women's history).
I'm pretty easy going and do not mind spreading so long as you are clearly speaking when doing it. Don't mumble. Feel free to ask more when you come into the room.
Selena McPherson Paradigm
Leslie Melchor Palacios Paradigm
Susanne Menezes Paradigm
Maria Mettao Paradigm
Jill Meyer Paradigm
Lars Midthassel Paradigm
Joshua Miller Paradigm
For PF: The event is designed to be realistic and "public". I am not a "flow judge", I vote on holistic debating. If you want to impress me as a judge, combine logos, ethos, and pathos. If you overly emphasize any single one of those three elements, I see that as weaker debating. Since the idea of the debate is to be accessible to the average citizen, I act as if I have only little basic knowledge on the issue at hand, so arguments that depend on large amounts of knowledge you don't provide me will not work for you. Do not speak too quickly or without clarity, I will not listen, and I'll make it obvious I'm not listening. I love to be entertained, because your ability to do so makes me believe you are confident and will help your ethos. Above all, stay calm, and stay confident, because I firmly believe that you're capable of much more than you might think.
Rachel Milosevich Paradigm
Emma Mirkes Paradigm
Colleen Mooney Paradigm
Please be respectful of your opponent and your judges at all times. I will not tolerate inappropriate behavior during speech and debate rounds.
Always be sure to ask your judge and your opponent if we are ready before you begin a speech.
Remember that presenting a clear argument takes precedence over speed.
I look for a well-developed case that includes clear identification of the value, value criterion, contentions, points of clash, and voting issues.
You may use your electronic device to time yourself, but keep in mind that your judge is the official timekeeper in the round. Please be sure that your device is in silent mode.
I will be happy to provide you with time signals. Please let me know before you begin the specific time signals that you would like (i.e.., 5 down, fist at 10, etc.)
Most importantly, have fun!
World Schools Debate
As World Schools Debate is not the same as policy or Lincoln-Douglas Debate, please refrain from spreading during the round. Your speech should be delivered at a conversational pace. Be sure to make eye contact and deliver your speech instead of reading word for word from your paper. World Schools Debate focuses on both the quality of the arguments and the quality of speech delivery.
Please make sure that your POIs are limited to 15 seconds each. If you do not wish to entertain an opponent's POI at a given time, please do so respectfully. Use your discretion about when to address a POI, but please make sure that you are not rejecting EVERY POI attempt during your speech. There are no POIs during the first and last minute of each constructive speech. POIs are also not permitted during reply speeches.
You may use a cell phone (placed in airplane mode) to time yourselves during the round. The judge is the official timekeeper. NSDA does not allow the use of computers during the round, so please make sure that all computers are away.
Anna Morville Paradigm
John Mulliken Paradigm
Ashley Murphy Paradigm
Head coach at Unionville High School. I mostly judge policy but spend a significant amount of time in PF and some in LD.
· Don’t be sketchy (as debaters or as people)
The Long Version:
1. Framework/Narrative: If you want the ballot, make clear, compelling and warranted arguments for why you should win. If you don’t provide any framework, I will assume a cost/benefit analysis. If there is an alternate framework I should be using, warrant it (with cards). I appreciate debaters who are able to make clear strategic choices in the second half of the round. You’d do better to use the back half of the round to present a cohesive story with a few key answers on your opponents’ case rather than to fly through a blippy line by line.
2. Argumentation: Generally Tech>Truth but I also appreciate rounds where I don’t hate that I need to vote for you.
Most of this is standard but I'll say it anyways: Don’t extend through ink. Don’t try to oversimplify your response by telling me how your opponent literally didn’t respond to anything you said (unless that is actually true… then you should probably bring it up). I'll listen to cross but I don't flow it; if it is important enough for me to evaluate, make sure you say it in a speech. Weighing is key and the earlier you set it up, the better. Terminalize your impacts and spend your time on the analysis, not card dumping. Also, for the love of all that is holy, give a roadmap before you start/tell me where to place arguments as you are going. I will be happier; you will be happier; the world will be a better place.
For PF: I don't require 1st summary to extend defense, but link/impact extensions should be in summary for me to evaluate them in final focus.
3. Evidence (PF): Having evidence ethics is a thing. I see debate as an educational activity and using sketch evidence/miscutting cards to prove an argument that is inherently untrue isn’t great for you or for the activity at large. As a general rule, I prefer that your cards have both authors and dates. Paraphrasing makes me sad. Rounds where someone calls for a card and you spend 15 minutes trying to find it only to realize it doesn’t say what you said it said hurt my soul.
4. Why yes, I would like to be added to the email chain (CX/LD): AMurphy@ucfsd.net (Side note: As Gen Zers, I have faith in you to successfully hit "reply all" when continuing an email chain. Don't let me down.)
5. A Final Note: This is a debate round not a divorce court and your tone should match accordingly. Additionally, I appreciate wit and you will probably earn higher speaks on average if you are able to use humor effectively.
Amy Murphy Paradigm
Laura Murray Paradigm
I am a middle school forensics coach, as well as a middle school science, social studies, and literacy teacher. I have been involved with forensics as a coach and as a parent for 11 years. I am also involved with the theater/performance department, first as a volunteer with the high school, and then as the technical director of the middle school productions.
I believe that public speaking and performance is a vital skill for all students, and that clear communication is the goal.
Meagan Nagy Paradigm
Arya Nalluri Paradigm
Sandrah Nasimiyu Paradigm
Nathaniel Nelson Paradigm
Jeff Nelson Paradigm
Kylee Nichols Paradigm
Ivy Ninofranco Paradigm
Victoria Nishida Paradigm
Alice Noble Paradigm
Nautica Nolden Paradigm
Erin O'Donnell Paradigm
Sean O'Mahony Paradigm
Michelle Obispo Paradigm
Stephanie Oliver Paradigm
Gillian Palacios Paradigm
David Paltzik Paradigm
Jung Park Paradigm
Background: I teach language arts and communication at a private after school academy that I own with my husband. Also, I am a licensed attorney in California with a background in litigation. I have done extensive performing and public speaking and am a member of SAG. I have not debated in LD but enjoy it tremendously.
What I Value: I value organized, clear and coherent debate with clash. I value traditional debate and especially appreciate creative but applicable values and value criteria. A thoughtful framework and clear organization is very important, both in the framework and argument. I really enjoy hearing well-structured cases with thoughtful framework and value/Value Criterion setups. I have seen cases decided on framework and I think it is very educational for students to learn philosophy and understand more of the philosophical underpinnings of resolutions and even democratic society. Don't forget to show me how you achieved your value better than your opponent, or even how your value and VC achieve your opponent's value better. Don't forget to show your organization of claim-warrants-impact in your arguments. I don't think solvency is necessary in LD, but if you have a persuasive way to bring it in, I am okay with it.
Speed: A proper pace and rhythm of speech is important. I am fine with coherent, articulate fast talking that has a purpose, but I am against spreading. I find it and double-breathing very off-putting and contrary to the fundamentals of public speaking and good communication and the notion that debate should be accessible to all. Normal people sit bewildered watching progressive, circuit-level debaters, unable to comprehend them. Furthermore, it appears that progressive debaters typically give their cases via flash drive to judges and opponents who then read them on their computers during the round and during decision-making. This then becomes an exercise in SPEED READING and battle of the written cases. The opponent and the judges do not even have to be able to understand the spreading since they have it before them. Yet, we in the audience, suffer, feeling we are too "dumb" to get it and wondering what is going on. Spreading alienates the average audience because it cannot understand the debaters. The truth is, many of these spreaders have not even practiced being articulate at normal speeds, so speeding up muddy articulation becomes impossible to comprehend. I am glad that many states are increasingly not allowing spreading at tournaments.
Theory: I don’t know much about theory and all the tricks that have trickled down from policy into progressive LD. However, I am open-minded and if done intelligently, such as a valid and applicable spreading K, I believe it can be an interesting way to stop abusive practices in a round.
Final words: I think all of you should be very proud of yourselves for getting up there and doing this activity. Please remember that being courteous, honest and having values you follow are going to take you much further in life than unethical practices such as misrepresenting your evidence cards or being rude to your opponent. Good luck!
Vikas Patel Paradigm
Amita Patnaik Paradigm
Cheyden Paulson Paradigm
Kyra Payton Paradigm
Candy Peleaux Paradigm
Natalie Perez Paradigm
Darnise Perrin Paradigm
Karla Phillips Paradigm
Taylor Pignolet Paradigm
Christina Playton Paradigm
Jennifer Porter Paradigm
Cheryl Potts Paradigm
Drake Pough Paradigm
Caleb Prichard Paradigm
Ellena Prokopeas Paradigm
James Qian Paradigm
Big fan of arguments in interp!
Benjamin Rascon Gracia Paradigm
Amy Remley Paradigm
Robin Rice Paradigm
Erin Rielly Paradigm
Gabe Robbins Paradigm
looking for clear speaking voice and clear narrative or guide through speech
Renan Rocha Paradigm
Stephanie Rodriguez Paradigm
Ansley Rosen Paradigm
Sheryll Sabino Paradigm
Emily Santos-Bernardo Paradigm
Huzefa Saria Paradigm
Mackenzie Saunders Paradigm
Make an argument in your interp, and I’ll be happy.
Kai Scates Paradigm
Bridget Schafer Paradigm
William Schatte Paradigm
Brad Schindler Paradigm
4 Years Written Experience including states and nats. I value the quality of your presentation over everything else, often times this coincides with the best written piece but in my experience if a well written piece is performed badly it’s probably because you didn’t write it. Humorous wiritjng and delivery are absolute tie breakers and if you can present a joke well that’s big ups for you.
2 Years Interp Experience. I have spent extensive time working with states and nats competitors on their pieces and have a strong handle on fundamentals and mechanics. If you want to win you have to be clean clear and convincing in your performance. As with written, your ability to present a joke in the best way possible will help decide final ranks and especially tie breaks. Don’t let the “dramatic” piece inhibit you from making me laugh because real people aren’t sad all the time and contrasting humor with heart wrench is a strong strategy.
4 Years Spontaneous Experience including states. Don’t set off my can-radar and you should be fine. More than anything this is should be about polish and information. Those who can joke should but don’t over commit to a bit that isn’t working because in these events more than any other a failed joke can really throw you off, don’t be afraid to kill the bit.
Debaters you don’t get a full paradigm because I don’t feel like it. I’m a collegiate debater who placed 17th in Parli TOC my senior year, I subscribe to traditional debate and will drop you for frivolous tech. If you only speak in triple negative i’ll give you a 30.
Tanner Schlueter Paradigm
For all events, I prefer a controlled, strong, and detailed intro that sets the mood for the piece. For speech events, I prefer the utilization of the orator's triangle and a consistent flow of speaking patterns. For binder events, movement should be limited and binder work should be clean, but do not mind binder use as a prop. For partner events I like to see the team not only work in unison, but see each partner contributing the same amount of effort. I’m very excited to see your hard work!
Kiana Schmitt Paradigm
Dane Schnake Paradigm
Pamela Schnake Paradigm
Donna Schwartz Paradigm
Tracy Seaton Paradigm
Katherine Shadman Paradigm
Colleyville Heritage High School, TX
I like to say I've done a little bit of everything, but predominantly NSDA/TFA Public Forum.
I'll flow, just signpost and weigh to make my life easy. If you want specifics just ask, otherwise debate the way you usually do. (I plan on adding my FAQs to my paradigm as they're asked)
I don't need to be on an email chain unless you are planning on ripping through your case. With that said, I can handle clear spreading. I will prioritize fw but I default to argument extensions (claim, WARRANT, and impact) if it becomes a wash. Also, I don't know who decided it should become a thing, please stand in your speeches (unless I'm judging you at like 11 pm or there is a physical reason not to do so).
Speaks: 28-30, 30 in bubble rounds
+speaks: funny (but not rude), weighing and voters
-speaks: rude, sexist, homophobic, racist, etc.
Do what you want, just remember that style points are worth a lot more and I stick to the rubric. Give me a cohesive narrative throughout all 4 speeches. Also, this format of debate is more of a discussion. You should be interacting with arguments and giving comparative analysis ESPECIALLY IN OUTSIDE COUNTRIES.
Amy Shen Paradigm
Jake Sher Paradigm
Milady Simmons Paradigm
Matt Skiles Paradigm
Daniel Slowik Paradigm
Dani Soibelman Paradigm
Cecilia Son Paradigm
Purnniema Soni Paradigm
Natalie Steinbrink Paradigm
Alan Stirling Paradigm
Ken Stocks Paradigm
Sarah Sulewski Paradigm
JAYAUNA TYLER Paradigm
Min Tang Paradigm
Blake Tannehill Paradigm
Olivia Tavares Paradigm
Asha Taylor Paradigm
Lauren Taylor Paradigm
Fargo Tbakhi Paradigm
Diana Teodorescu Paradigm
Malley Terrones Paradigm
Kiley Thomas Paradigm
Katherine Thornton Paradigm
Jessica Timm Paradigm
Salvador Tinajero Paradigm
Manna Trevino Paradigm
Paula Triana Paradigm
Beth Tritter Paradigm
Damian Truax Paradigm
Christina Tsao Paradigm
Zackery Tucker Paradigm
***Include me in your email chain.*** firstname.lastname@example.org
LD debate should remain distinct from policy debate. While the passage of new policy may be deemed essential for AFF ground with some resolutions, value debate should remain central to the round. I don't mind speed or policy arguments in an LD round as long as you provide analysis of those arguments and link them back to the value debate.
Policy Short Story
As a judge, I am open to all arguments and styles of policy debate. Your job as a debater is to convince me that what you have to say matters and should be preferred to your opponent. The way you go about that is entirely your choice (within reason…professionalism and decorum are key). If you have questions pre-round, please ask. Having said that, here are some specific likes/dislikes as a judge which you can choose to follow or completely ignore (because I will objectively evaluate whatever lands on my flow whether I really like it or not):
Policy Long Story
Case: I do love case debate. I find it hard to vote NEG when case goes relatively untouched and hard to vote AFF when rebuttals focus on off-case arguments. Rounds where case is essentially dropped by both sides are my worst nightmare.
K: Not my favorite, but I will evaluate K. I’m not really well-versed in kritikal literature, so if you choose to run kritikal arguments (AFF or NEG), please provide thorough explanation and analysis. Don’t expect me to know the ideals that Whoever promoted because, unless you tell me, I probably don’t.
T: I tend to be pretty lenient on the affirmative as far as T goes. In order to win on T, the negative must completely prove that the affirmative has totally harmed the fairness and education of the round.
CP/DA: Sure? Run them? Why not?
Theory/Framework: Sure. Whatevs. Just tell me how/where to flow it and why it matters in this round.
The Flow: Tell me how to flow the round. Roadmap. Sign post. Please slow down for clarity on tags and citations. If you insist on spreading tags and cites, please provide me with a copy of your speech. If your arguments don’t make it on my flow, they cannot be evaluated on my ballot. I also do very little (feel free to read that as “no”) evidence analysis following the round. It is your job as a debater to clearly articulate the argument/evidence/analysis during your allotted time.
Have fun and promote better discourse.
Tiffany Tucker Paradigm
Catherine Updegraff Paradigm
Mason Vega Paradigm
Luis Velasco Paradigm
Ricardo Velasquez Paradigm
Mucio Vidales Paradigm
Miranda Villanueva Paradigm
Stephan Voelk Paradigm
Finny Vuong Paradigm
Jill Wade Paradigm
Saudamini Wadwekar Paradigm
Amy Walker Paradigm
Annabella Walker Paradigm
Karen Wang Paradigm
Chaohui Wang Paradigm
Wei Wang Paradigm
Chateau Ward Paradigm
Rachel Warnecke Paradigm
Jasmine Washington Paradigm
Willie Washington Paradigm
Denise Watkins Paradigm
Keaton Watlington Paradigm
Jasmine Watson Paradigm
Bobbie Weatherly Paradigm
Jaclyn Weber Paradigm
Leopold Westrey Paradigm
Soren Westrey Paradigm
Clay Wheeler Paradigm
Owen White Paradigm
Jamie Wills Paradigm
Gregory Wilson Paradigm
Sarah Wilson Paradigm
Max Wix Paradigm
Maya Xia Paradigm
Preferred pronouns: She/her
Debated at Katy Taylor and TAMS. TOC qualled my senior year.
Currently a freshman at Vanderbilt and assistant coach in LD at Harker. Worked at VBI last summer all sessions.
Email chain: email@example.com (Please add me to the email chain!!)
Pls stop mistaking me for your opponent :'(
Tl;dr: I like LARP style debates. I’m also a busy college student who has a lot of other things to think about, so make my decision as easy as possible. Your speech should write the ballot for me- I want to be able to pick out a sentence or two word for word that I can write on my ballot to justify why I’m voting for you.
I’m only judging at a few tournaments this year. That means please go at 75-80% speed of what you normally go at so I can follow along effectively. If I didn’t hear it because you’re too fast or unclear, then I won’t flow it.
My personal preference for arguments goes as follows:
I like good LARP debates with in-depth topic research and strong evidence comparison. Good debaters should be able to properly collapse and explain the scenario in both the big picture and the line-by-line fashion. Super specific plans probably need to be topical and have solvency advocates, so if you don’t meet both qualifications, I can be pretty persuaded by theory. Conditionality is probably bad in LD, but I can be persuaded either way.
I’m not as familiar with most K literature, so if you’re reading a kritik, please don’t just use buzzwords to explain your argument. You should be able to coherently explain the thesis of the kritik using the vocabulary of a kindergartner so that I can effectively understand and evaluate the round. Your 2NR should not be 100% prescripted because in those cases, debaters tend to lose anyways. I also need a clear articulation of the alternative does- if I don't know exactly what happens and what happens after the alt, then I can't vote on it.
I default competing interpretations, no RVIs, and drop the debater, but you need to justify them. Please don’t blaze through the shell. Slow down for the interp and pause between standards. Have interps/counter-interps pre-written and sent before the speech starts. Weighing standards is super important. I like smart theory debates where the interp solves for most abuse in the shell anyways and has clear offense. 1AR theory is smart and you should go for it if there’s clear abuse. Please do top level theory weighing (1ar theory first, topicality outweighs, fairness first, which shell comes first, etc.).
I’ve never read or debated tricks, so you’ll probably confuse me a lot if you go for tricks.
I didn’t debate much philosophy/framework, so if you’re reading a phil AC/NC, please, again, explain it to me as you would explain it to a kindergartner. I default to comparative worlds, so if you’re truth-testing, please justify it, although I’m more convinced that comparative worlds is the better model of debate.
I was essentially 100% topical my entire debate career, so I tend to lean against non-T affs and believe that T-Framework is true. If you can beat T or whatever arguments they read, I’m fine with non-T affs. If you’re reading T, don’t drop thesis level arguments in the aff that can take out T because I’m not going to grant you leeway for answering these args in the 2NR.
PLEASE EXTEND ARGUMENTS. I have a lower threshold for extensions in the 1AR, but they still need to be there. I won’t vote on any morally repugnant arguments. Flex prep is fine with me. I think disclosure is EXTREMELY important. I’m from a small school and I always disclosed, so I probably won’t be convinced if you go for disclosure bad.