Mustang Mashup 2020
2020 — Eagle, ID/US
Kurtis Araki Paradigm
I'm a parent of two children in speech and debate. I'm awestruck by the many things about the community:
- The real partnership between the parent/teachers and the students. The parents *really* care about the success of the community, and the students create such beautiful pieces of "verbal art". This interplay is magical to me.
- The vector of growth of nearly every student over the course of the season. It's flattering to watch a specific orator/debater incorporate feedback you've given them earlier in the season, and then watch them hone and improve their art over time.
Debate is to me an exercise of research, oration, logic, education, and decorum. All five of these aspects are vitally important when one ventures into their eventual career path. The general speech and debate student gives better presentations than 80% of the people in my field of work -- this is not an exaggeration. That being said, those five factors inform my judging paradigm and philosophy.
My letter of the law paradigm is hypothesis testing, mostly because I am not skilled enough to judge otherwise. Think of this paradigm as the use of rhetorical devices in a scientific manner to disprove your opponent(s)' null hypothesis.
For practical purposes it should be considered a clean slate (tabula rasa) approach. I've seen published versions online on tabula rasa, and those don't really match up 100% to my philosophy. I just kind of take the actual translation of the phrase tabula rasa and go from there. If this is policy/CX, this means that it's 100% tech over truth. That is, if your opponents have a wacko source that says the human population on Mars is higher than Earth's, you'll have to address this in your flow. If this is LD or PF, then it's "mostly" tech over truth -- I will intervene if a warranted "non-fact" is introduced and I have 99.7% certainty that it is indeed a "non-fact".
Think of me as a juror on a civil case -- I will weigh my verdict based on the preponderance of evidence and logic, and I will likely ask for specific evidence cited in your case.
Speed: Go as fast as you want as long as I can understand what you're saying.
Evidence: Sign post. If you are going fast, please make an emphatic "Next" or "And" between your taglines. I try to flow the tag line, the author/year, and a few bullet points from the EV that is read. If the internet is available at the tournament, please feel free to add me to your email chain: kurtis_araki at yahoo dot com.
Cross-Ex: I flow it.
Topicality: Just follow the general "counter interpretation, violation, standards and voters" model.
Theory: Run it as if I've never heard of it before. Not being well versed in debate jargon hurts my ability to give you a good summary of what I know, but it seems like it should be run similarly to topicality.
Kritiks: Up until recently, I thought I was okay with Kritiks. Then, I was hit by something I hadn't heard before called a "Deleuze" K. So, adjusting to this, I highly recommend that you prepare me as a judge that you will be running a Kritik. Run it very slowly. Perhaps signposting "Link", "Impacts", "Alternative" will make it easier for me to flow. Make it 100% obvious how it ties into the resolution/plan. Alts must either include a counterplan or a warranted and active agent in the status quo.
Kritikal Affs: I don't understand them. Please do not run them.
Performance Affs: I also don't understand these. Please do not run them.
Morally abhorrent stances: Despite my want to be 100% tech over truth, I won't accept "Genocide good", "Extinction good", "Debate bad", or "Racism good" as part of a link chain. If your opponents explicitly state any of these four abhorrent stances as part of any of their link chains, and if you point it out and flow it to the end, you will win the ballot. As a note, your opponents have to explicitly state it in an unprompted manner.
Time: I don't consider evidence exchange as prep time. Please do not have your hands on your laptop or pen in hand while receiving your opponents evidence. I'll leave it up to the competitors if they want to self time or if they want me to govern strictly.
Gender Pronouns: Try your best to respect each other's preferred gender pronouns. It will not affect my ballot if you or your opponent makes a mistake in gender pronoun usage.
Wade Bergstrom Paradigm
Robert Bradley Paradigm
Paradigm * November 2019
I like judging. That is why I am here. Have fun during this tournament and during your debate adventures. You can make some great friends through high school debate. Let me know if I can help, or if you have any questions. I appreciate humor, and I prefer courteous debate. I won’t judge you on what you wear, or other irrelevant factors. During a debate round I do not judge you on any “speech” criteria. Most tournaments do not allow me to give any type of results, comments, or advice after the end of the round. If you see me later during the tournament I probably can give you feedback.
I am looking for significant “voter” issues. I do not choose them myself unless forced to choose because the debaters did not help me to make a choice. I want the debaters in the round to tell me how to vote. I will sometimes have to decide on my own which arguments are most significant but I always prefer the debaters to tell me. Your debate will have a much bigger impact on the type of judge I am than anything I could say here. Remember to have fun! Don't be rude. Sassy and humorous are fine. Be confident without being a jerk. If the teams are mismatched don't be condescending; don't roll your eyes. Don’t lie. Debate like you want to be here debating. If this is your first time debating… keep this to yourself. Please do not tell me “I’ve never done this before!”
Speed: I have an issue with speed. If you talk too fast I will tune out. *
Help me flow your debate. I like signposts. I like crystallization. I like it when you point out your voting issues at the end of the round. I like stock issues: solvency, harms, inherency, and significance. Off-time roadmaps are fine. Finish your question if the time runs out. The opposing side does not have to answer, but they can answer if they want to answer.
I will evaluate the kritik first in the debate round before any other question is resolved, and if the kritik must be compared to the plan, then the kritik will outweigh the plan or value position. The kritik is an argument that must be adjudicated first before we can evaluate other issues in the round. This pre-fiat discussion takes place before we even get to talking about what happens after we pass the plan (post-fiat). Topicality is the same: we have to decide if the plan is even allowed to be discussed within the resolution before we can evaluate it. Kritiks are ‘pre-fiat’ because it is the only ‘real’ thing that happens in a debate round. Kritiks often target things which are explicitly real world that had an impact in real life. We should talk about what really happened in the debate round before we talk about what might happen in an imaginary world where some made up plan might get implemented.
I am well informed about local, state, national, and international issues, including politics and the environment. I am passionate about personal freedom and individual liberty.
Judging/ Coaching Highlights:
8 years as a coach and judge at Highland High School, Pocatello, Idaho
Idaho State Speech & Debate Championships 2014 to 2018
Beehive Bonanza at the University of Utah
Alta High School (TOC Debate) in Sandy, Utah
Jack Howe Memorial Debate Tournament at Cal State Long Beach
National Speech & Debate Association Nationals: 2014, 2015 & 2016
Coach for: + Individual Speech Events + Debate + Congress
Brooke Calderon Paradigm
Colleen Calzacorta Paradigm
Mark Caragio Paradigm
I am a communications judge. I have no experience judging and will vote using voters given in rebuttals.
Mary Caragio Paradigm
I am a communications judge. This is my first season judging, so I am unfamiliar with a lot of the language used in debate rounds. Individuals should speak slowly and clearly and also provide clear roadmaps and sign post. Please tell me why I should be voting for you in the final rebuttals, write my ballot for me.
Jazzlynn Carranza Paradigm
Pronouns: She/her & they/them
email chain pls: email@example.com
I am a flow/tab judge. I will Vote on what you tell me to vote. Please do the work for me because I won’t accept just name dropping impacts, you need to do the weighing analysis! I will be able to keep up with flowing no matter the speed, just stay coherent and we’ll be cool. Also just don’t be rude to each other. That makes debate a very toxic place. I don’t mind a little sass and clash. That’s just entertaining tbh.
I went to a really policy oriented school. I did nothing really but, policy. I don’t count that one time in pf... However, just because I was in a more traditional circuit does not mean I’m a only traditional debater. I did go to some national circuit tournaments and had to adapt. I went to pretty progressive debate camps for three years. I also have qualified and broken @ state multiple years. I’ve qualified to nationals and broke. I coach policy for local high schools now and I judge while I’m a full time student.
Policy: read above for my thoughts on policy. I love it. That’s pretty much it (:
congress: I’ve done Congress a couple times and did fairly well. I know how procedures function. Please don’t repeat speeches and say you have a new point when you really don’t. It’ll make me happy. Be nice (:
Pf: I know a quite a bit about pf, i competed in it only twice but, I do help some teams currently. Just don’t be conceded & be kind. (:
LD: I know quite a bit about LD. I never competed in it sadly but, I judged in it many times and I know how to keep up.
* I am tech over truth except if you try to impact turn oppression towards minorities.
F/W: I love f/w but, if it’s done well. In public forum if you give me a cost ben, then i don’t really care for it tbh. But, in policy and LD I love a good F/W debate.
Theory: I ran theory quite a bit in high school and I will vote on it if it is structured, warranted, and ran properly.
K’s : fortunately I know a lot about K’s and I also love a good K debate. Link of omissions are not something I’ll Vote on. Do the actual link work for me!
CP: i ran lots of CP’s, I also will follow a CP round. However please make your CPs mutually exclusive!! I hate that I have to say that but, sadly I’ve seen lots of rounds where the CP wasn’t.
Speed: I’m cool w/ it just don’t mumble please because I will shout “clear”. Also make sure to sign post !!
Ron Clevenger Paradigm
Alison Corgatelli Paradigm
Danielle Darragh Paradigm
Andrea Dearden Paradigm
Donovan Di Dio Paradigm
I debated policy for three years in high school and debated policy for a year in college.
Fundamentally, I think of debate as a game: one side will make arguments, the other side will answer those and make their own. That repeats until the final speech where I evaluate all the arguments made and decide who won. When I make my RFD, I want it to be grounded in what you have said -- tell me where you want me to vote, why I should vote there over some other issue, and why you are winning these issues. I will only call for evidence if I am unsure on an issue, if the content of a piece of evidence is contested by the debaters, or if I just want to see it.
As far as I feel about types of arguments:
I will vote Topicality
I will vote on Theory
I will vote on Counterplans
I will vote on Kritiks
I will vote on Disads
I will vote on presumption
I try to be as tabula rasa as my biases allow and usually evaluate with offense-defense. When I debated, I preferred policy focus strategies, but I did run kritiks. If you want to read a kritik or K-Aff, you should know that I don't read that literature very often. I don't want to dissuade you from debating what you want to, as they are good for education and good for strategy, but you should feel confident in your ability to explain each piece. Don't expect me to fill in gaps of knowledge. Don't just repeat tag lines and expect me to listen. I do like these arguments, I just want them in more depth than what was usually done.
Nick Fairbanks Paradigm
Robby Fox Paradigm
Teri Friend Paradigm
Overall I am a communications style judge.
For Public Forum/Lincoln Douglas:
I'm often a beginner on the topic so clarify any acronyms/abbreviations, uncommon terms, and/or advanced concepts when used.
Your off-time road map, as well as clear signposting during your speech, are important and appreciated for my notetaking. Slow down and really emphasize each of your contentions and evidence tag lines so that I can make myself notes.
As for speed: I'm OK with a fast pace presentation as long as you are completely understandable using good diction and clarity and that the arguments are clear. If you lose me, you've lost the argument.
I like line-by-line refutation of arguments presented by the opposing team.
Respectful clash in cross makes debate interesting and helps me be attentive.
I will compare and weigh the arguments presented, including likely and convincing impacts.
End with voters and impacts...go ahead and write my ballot for me in your final speech :)
In Lincoln Douglas debate, I think definitions, resolution analysis, and framework are an important and interesting part of this style of debate but don't make them the only focus of your argumentation. I love to hear clear and specific arguments about the topic. I will base my vote on any and all arguments presented.
I haven't judged a single round of policy debate this year, so goodness help us all if you are find yourself sitting with me as your judge in policy debate now. Haha! I'll do my best for you, but you'll need to explain it all to me slowly and clearly. Present your best arguments and be sure to directly refute arguments presented by the opposing team. Good luck!
I love well organized and passionately presented arguments designed to convince your fellow Representatives to vote with you. Well researched and prepared speeches are appreciated, but how they are presented definitely impacts the score I give. Eye contact and presentation with purposeful variation in volume, tone, pace, and inflection for impact and persuasion will set you apart for me.
The bills and resolutions being argued are interesting, but I like the discussion to move forward. So, if you have a prepared speech that just restates points already presented, I would prefer you didn't give it. I like it when speeches given later in the discussion refer to points previously made by other representatives and either support or refute them. I also think that extemporaneously style speeches with fresh points given later in the discussion can be impactful, so feel free to listen to the discussion, use your brain, common sense, and add something meaningful to the discussion even if you did not originally have something prepared for this bill.
Bryce Funkhauser Paradigm
Show clear impacts and links. prove through more than just evidence why the argument flows in your favor.
Sara Godfrey Paradigm
Nick Grunig Paradigm
Hello, I am Nick, your judge! I did mostly Public Forum, some LD in High School for all 4 years. I love coaching, and I will do my best to give you good constructive criticism. I have been judging for 4 years now and enjoy debate. I've also been an assistant coach for 3 years.
I try to be as tab ras as possible. You tell me what matters and contextualize impacts. The clearer the link story and impact crystallization the better. Impact calc is great. I study philosophy and political science, so if you want to argue something, prove it with the use of strong warrants and evidence. I go off the flow as much as possible. Being organized helps you. Roadmap and signpost please!
At the end of the day do what you feel comfortable doing and try your best.
I am tech over truth in most scenarios.
If you would like to disclose pronouns please feel free to do so when I am asking speaking order.
Lastly, debate is an academic game that should be accessible to basically anyone, if there should be a discussion about speed or a specific rule please do so, if people agree upon the rules of debate (within tournament guidelines) it can be a shared experience for more individuals. Some examples include learning disabilities needing accommodation through flashing files over and/slowing down to a reasonable pace, or mental health reasons such as not having an audience. Debate should be a safe space for people, and I am here to protect that.
I will put things specific to each type of debate down below, hope it helps guide you! If you have any questions feel free to ask me before the round starts, I am happy to answer them. I want to make debate accessible to vast amounts of people.
The messier the flow is, the more I go off of what you tell me to weigh (voting/weighing). Don't be abusive with framing, as they are supposed to make the debate better not worse. Speed is okay (ish), see what I think about speed in the policy section. Rebuttals should be line by line unless you can show me how contentions group together well. Theory arguments are cool, evidence helps but good analysis can be just as good if not better sometimes. Do not falsify your cards, unethical people disgust me, remember this is an academic activity, learning skills is the goal. The same thing with logical fallacies, they are easy to spot and I tend to not vote on them unless they are untouched in the round. Straw person fallacy annoys the hell out of me. I don't time evidence transfer (beyond ridiculous scenarios and I'll let you know if it gets there) if both teams don't steal prep (don't talk to partners nor write things down).
First, I need to admit that I am not the most skilled policy judge. I can handle a lot of speed, but I know some people can get insanely fast, and I may not be able to stay with you with the flow all the time. Slow tags and author/date are recommended if you want me to keep a tight flow, as well as well placed analysis. I can keep up with a lot of people on speed, but I don't want to pretend like I am a super good judge with speed. LINKS are SUPER IMPORTANT. I need a road map, tell me where we are going so I can get my flows in the right order. I do not time flashing evidence unless you start taking too long (I will let you know with a little warning). Don't steal prep.
T/Extra T- Needs to be fair for the neg team. I prefer time not to be spent on T if they are fairly topical. Extra T I understand problems, in some instances I think it's worth going for, and I'll listen to it, but it's a bit hard to vote on, especially if the aff is on open evidence or part of the major lit of the topic. Voters is the most important argument on T.
Vagueness- If aff has a super vague plan, it's hard for me to know what the Aff team is doing, feel free to debate over it
Stock Issue stuff- I think stock issues can be a great display of skill in policy from neg, as it isn't memorized and it becomes a chess match between the teams.
Solvency- Should go for it, I tend to use this as the most important stock issue.
Inherency- You can go for it for sure but hard to prove usually.
Sig/Impacts- Without a decent impact I don't vote Aff, as why waste time solving nothing? I prefer a mixture of more grounded and real-world impacts and magnitude impacts such as war or genocide.
I see a lot of value in Ks and have picked up many of them but I have dropped my fair share of them as well. I have a pretty dense knowledge pool for philosophical topics so I should be able to keep up well. I will weigh them just like every other case, impacts and links become the focal point of the debate. Focus on what makes it unique to vote the other team down based on the K and the opposite for Aff.
I am cool with both progressive (see progressive debate section under policy) and traditional styles. I can handle a lot of speed, but some may be a little too fast. As long as you give me slow tags and author/dates I can keep up for the most part. You by no means need to run a traditional case, and I am teaching my kids more plan style LD cases with moral weighing mechanisms and traditional cases. But I'm cool with traditional LD too. I believe LD can be the most critical thinking out of all the debate types through philosophy. If you lose val/cri and accept your opponents, you can still win the debate, prove why your case is better for the agreed val/cri. Value thesis and value criterion is simply a moral weighing mechanism. I try to go off the flow as much as possible. Counter plans are fine, aff can perm them if they aren't mutually exclusive (yadayada). Do not falsify your cards, this is a learning experience to test and build your skills.
A bit about me, I enjoy listening to a plethora of philosophical discussions. My D&D character is named Diagones. And I eat existential crises for breakfast. In other words, I am pretty comfortable with dense philosophy.
I wish BQ was around when I was in high school because I love the discussions that can happen because of the topic areas. I have studied this topic a good amount, and I'm excited to learn more.
Because this is a more fact-based topic, I feel it is super important to use good framing. The words 'primarily' and 'driven' are essential to discuss and depending on your definition can make it way more comfortable for me to judge it. The better the framing, the easier you make it on me to judge. The presumption of my voting goes to the preponderance of the evidence, that whichever side has more proof of it should win. If you have a different way to weigh that is clearer be my guest to show me.
When it comes to things like religious arguments I weigh them just like I weigh other arguments. I am fairly indifferent about religion in general, I see both benefits and harms from them. However, I think religious arguments should be more in logic or fact and not a faith appeal, because that really isn't a strong debate argument.
Gabe Guerrero Paradigm
Karen Gump Paradigm
I prefer a slower debate. I think it allows for a more involved, persuasive and all-around better style of speaking and debating. It is your burden to make sure that your speech is clear and understandable; the faster you want to speak, the more clearly you must speak.
Being aggressive is fine, just make sure you don't say or do anything that is offensive.
Overall, have fun, it's your debate.
Arayah Harbauer Paradigm
Ginny Hatch Paradigm
Cara Hope Paradigm
Dan Knowlton Paradigm
DiAnn Lei Paradigm
Joe Lewis Paradigm
Greg Light Paradigm
Danielle Martell Paradigm
Danielle Martell: 2 years of Judging Experience (Stanford Finals)
Preferred Debate Styles: Public Forum & Lincoln Douglas
How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches?
Clear and concise delivery, I won't flow the argument unless I can understand what you're saying. Make sure that taglines are especially clear and that evidence you want me to remember is emphasized. Some eye contact and influx is also a plus! Evidence should directly correlate with your arguments, I don't need to hear fluff and fancy words that contribute nothing to the actual contention or subpoint. Sometimes less is more, debate should be accessible to everyone, not just those who have read the entire oxford dictionary or can spread at the speed of light. :)
How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches?
As stated above, clear and concise delivery. Mentioning specific cards is welcome, and if you want me to remember something make me remember it. I'm a line by line judge, make sure to address all of the important points and address them in an organized and appropriate manner. Sign-posting is MUCH appreciated.
How Should Debaters approach Evidence?
1) Evidence exchange won't be timed as long as it doesn't take up half of the round.
2) Just read it off, last name of the author and year would be great. If I would like to see evidence after the round I will call for it.
How Should Debaters approach Crossfire?
Some respectful clash is welcome, if you are mean or your attitude it taking away from the round don't be surprised if your speaker points don't turn out super great.
How would Oral Prompting affect your decision?
Passing notes or writing down a question is fine, but don't take over someones else's crossfire.
How should Framework be approached?
Be diligent in explaining how the framework of the round and your cases/arguments tie together and make me vote for your side.
How should debaters use values, criterion, and arguments to support a value position?
Value and criterion should be upheld throughout the round. Explain how each contention is related to the criterion and how that upholds the value. Don't disregard the value criterion debate, we can't debate LD without it.
What arguments (such as philosophical, theoretical, or empirical) do you prefer to support a value position?
As long as they are understandable and relate back to the debate, any kind of argument is great. Empirical is easiest to understand, so make sure to really explain the theoretical and philosophical arguments.
Please explain your view on kritical arguments.
Not a fan, if you can avoid it then please do.
How should debaters run on case arguments?
They should be prioritized in the round.
How should debaters run off case arguments?
I would rather see all arguments presented to me in the constructive speech. Other than blocking out a contention in a rebuttal, avoid bringing new arguments into the middle of the round.
How should debaters run theory arguments?
Standards and voters are very important. If you're going to run abuse tell me why it's abusive, if I don't know why then it just sounds like you're out of things to say and a lot of complaining.
What other preferences do you have, as a judge?
Debate isn't just about the communication or just about the flow. Both have to work together in order to convince me to vote for your side. If you have excellent arguments but I can't understand them, I don't know that they're actually excellent. If you speak beautifully but what you're saying makes no sense, then I can't vote for that either. I appreciate effective sign posting and organization, and if it's something that should be weighed heavily in the round repeat it like there's no tomorrow. Make me remember the important things in the round, bring the argument into every speech so that I know that I need to be voting on it. Make sure voters are listed out, clear and effective. Other than that, make sure you enjoy your round and keep debate an experience that everyone can access and wants to come back to!
Anna McDaniel Paradigm
Hylliari McRorie Paradigm
Estelle Miller Paradigm
George Mullin Paradigm
Melissa Murano Paradigm
Eric Olvera Paradigm
Danny Orrock Paradigm
Shaylynn Parker Paradigm
Brent Phillips Paradigm
Logan Potter Paradigm
Garrett Richardson Paradigm
I competed in LD for three years in high school, I'm currently a First-Year Media/International Relations major at Occidental College. In regards to this topic specifically, I'm familiar with the various schools in IR theory and am familiar with this topic in general.
- am fine with most types of arguments. I like aspects of traditional but am perfectly happy judging more progressive styles of debate.
- Kritiks, Plans, Counterplans, etc... are all fine, although I am not a fan of PICs and will almost always vote aff on PIC bad theory.
- am a big fan of theory, so long as it's not frivolous. I typically will not vote on education as a voter. Since this topic doesn't specify an actor it will be difficult to convince me through theory that the aff has to put forth a plan.
- really enjoy a philosophical debate. On that, I really need to see clash on criterions. Your value means nothing if you don't explicate how I'm supposed to weigh and contextualize it.
- like a fast debate. Feel free to go as fast as you'd like, so long as it's not abusive. If you spread, send a doc.
- give speaker points holistically (how you speak, structure of your case, etc...)
Jason Risch Paradigm
Victoria Rogers Paradigm
Elliot Roldan Paradigm
Ethan Romriell Paradigm
Holly Romriell Paradigm
Jose Rubio Paradigm
Anita Ryan Paradigm