Young Lawyers

2019 — Salt Lake City, UT/US

Vivek Anandh Paradigm

Not Submitted

Shannon Blackham Paradigm

I am primarily a policymaker judge, with a stock issues influence. If you have no idea what this means, you need to ask your coach. Whether you know what it means or not, everyone needs to learn how to adapt to judges.

While I am an experienced policy debater, after my debate career, I experienced a traumatic brain injury. This makes some things harder, but in all reality, I think you should debate this way anyway. EXPLAIN your knowledge of every piece of evidence or analytic that you bring to the table. ARTICULATE/EMPHASIZE the taglines and analytics, because if I can't flow it, you don't get credit for it. What's more, part of my brain trauma was to the right hemisphere which impacts my understanding of most Kritiks, so it's safer not to run Ks in front of me, sorry! I thoroughly understand util.

I'm mean with speaker points. I feel that 30 speaks should be triumphant, not expected. HUGE bonus points if you can make me laugh, if you make fun of someone, if you reference Psych, quote Brian Regan, and if you keep speech times short. You absolutely should not feel like you need to ever fill up all of the speech time, say what you need to say; if it takes all 8/5 minutes, great, if not, perfect, sit down. Ask questions. If you don't know if something is allowed, try it anyway.

P.S. Speechdrop.net is my favorite way of sharing evidence.

Molly Brunyer Paradigm

5 rounds

I am a debater for Weber State University and I have done debate for three years and counting.

I have Debate a lot of different perspectives and have voted on everything, including presumption on AFF. (That was a weird round)

Historically I have voted tech over truth, and good T and Politics DA's are my guilty pleasure.

I'm OK with tag team cross-ex and I don't care about heated debates.

I don't consider sending files as part of prep, just don't be egregious.

I evaluate on speaker presentation, argumentation, and not everything has a third point.

Peter Chase Paradigm

5 rounds

Not Submitted

SV Clark Paradigm

Not Submitted

Max Dayton Paradigm

Hello! My name is Maximus, call me Max for short please.

I graduated from Sky View High School this year where I competed in Debate for 1.5 years doing PF. I now work as a Freelance Web Developer in Logan and will be going to University Of Utah next year majoring in Computer Science.

This is my first tournament judging Policy but I'm fine with spreading, just slow down for taglines and other important information.

I will give most of my ballots to those who have the most evidence supporting their side. Appeal to emotion doesn't tend to affect my choice, but it can if it is very convincing or used to bring up evidence.

I really like impact calc.

P.S. My left eye has a weird twitch that makes it looks like I'm winking at you, I'm not winking at you.

Thank You.

Steven Doctorman Paradigm

Not Submitted

Isaac Erickson Paradigm

I am more traditional. I enjoy statistics from reputable sources. I need clear sign posting.

Rebekah Jeffreys Paradigm

It's your round.

Nicholas Lassen Paradigm

5 rounds

Updated 12/2/2019

nicholasjlassen@gmail.com please include me on the email chain- you're also welcome to email me for any other questions as well

I am a debated in high school and college and I am the current head coach at Bingham HS in South Jordan, UT. I like most styles of debate i.e. I enjoy a good critical debate as much as I like a good policy debate. I engaged in more traditional styles of debating while competing, but as a coach/mentor I have gravitated towards non-traditional styles of debate. I dislike when people take over their partners cross ex and when people try and take the floor during a cross ex where they are supposed to be answering questions. I believe cross ex is a great place to set up for the arguments you are going to make in your speeches, if you want me to evaluate it, it needs to be in a speech.

Theory - I really enjoy a good topicality debate. However, my expectation for the negative to win is that they can clearly define the impacts of the argument i.e. how has the aff been unfair to you directly, what grounds have been lost, why is your model for education better? I dislike time suck theory that you are never going to go for-i.e. things like incredibly thin pics such as capitalize the L in the word lands and disclosure theory. The important thing to keep in mind is that if you want me to vote on theory, you have to be good at articulating the impacts.

CP's - I enjoy a well articulated counter plan. I believe that counter plans really need to be mutually exclusive either through actor or avoidance of a DA or something or else, otherwise it's really easy to buy the affirmatives claims of the perm. The permutation should be a test of competition towards the counterplan. In the plan v counterplan debate it is important to prove why your side is net beneficial either through some DA story or winning some solvency mitigation towards the aff or the CP.

DA's - it seems like good DA debate is few and far between this year. My expectation on the DA debate is really articulate the link story. I think a lot of generic da's are easy to non/unique out of. As far as the link story goes, I need a good internal link chain. Please make sure that I can see how we get from the aff to point b and then point c.

Politics - I have a strong tendency to default to more recent evidence on politics disads. This can definitely create a research burden but if you want to run politics then you should know that this means that a lot of the time, it boils down to a recency/card quality debate.

K's

Aff - I want to know that your K aff means something. I am much more likely to buy into your criticism if there is some sort of personal connection. If you want to read narratives or engage in performance, that is fine but please justify why that is valid. Make sure you are ready for the framework debate. I need to know why your framework is better for education than the negative or why I should choose to recognize your role of the ballot versus theirs.

Neg - I am open to most K's on the neg. I know it practically impossible to have hyper specific link cards for every aff. But with that in mind, please articulate how the aff links through a thorough analysis. Please make sure that you articulate the alternative well-I want to know what the world of the alternative looks like and what happens when I sign my ballot neg. If I am left confused about what the world of the alt looks like, it will be hard for you to win the debate.

K AFF vs K

The one point I want to make here is that I have a higher threshold for voting on the permutation then i do in a plan v cp debate. I hold the aff to a similar burden as the negative, i would not let them just stand up and coopt your advocacy so i most likely wont let you stand up and just say perm do both and gain 100% access to their advocacy. I want the competing ideologies weighed against each other and to know why your world is "better" then the opposing teams.

Please don't be rude, disrespectful, racist, sexist, transphobic, etc. I will doc your speaks and most likely drop you. It's not welcome in debate or in society overall.

Khristian Owens Paradigm

Not Submitted

sarah ponzurick Paradigm

5 rounds

Not Submitted