Gonzaga University HS Tournament Conway Classic
2016 — WA/US
Kirk Abolafia Paradigm
Chris Adamcyk Paradigm
Greg Adkins Paradigm
Mike Anstine Paradigm
Nick Anthony Paradigm
Happy Avery Paradigm
Zach Bailey Paradigm
I did debate for 3 years in high school, and this is my second year judging. I'm pretty much a tabula rasa judge. Although I only did CX for one year, I have a pretty good understanding of the different types of arguments to be made. I don't have any hate against arguments like Kritiks or theory debates, and I especially enjoy debates about the rules of the round. However, please only run these kinds of arguments if you're comfortable with every aspect and can easily explain and impact them out. Just make sure that you tell me where to vote and why I should be voting there. I would rather have you make the decision for me instead of having to look back through the flow and weigh your impacts on my own.
I'm alright with speed, but if your speaking is too fast for me I'll simply say "clear." If you fail to slow down and I still can't understand you I'll stop flowing. At the very least slow down on tag lines.
Tag-team CX is allowed.
I won't run prep time for flashing.
Don't be jerks to each other.
Also just make sure to have fun and enjoy yourselves.
Bryan Baker Paradigm
I'm a pretty lax tab judge. I did policy for three years in high school, and I am currently a Parli debater at the University of North Dakota (GO SIOUX), so I've been around the block and I'll hear out any argument. Though when I say that, you had better warrant those damn arguments, or I'm gonna pull out my hair. And your gonna lose speaks, or worse, the round. Kritiks are fine, don't assume I know all the literature, and don't assume that I have any ideological biases towards any of the literature. You're gonna have to do the legwork on impacting and weighing all the non-quantifiable impacts, if you do you will probably win me over. I do have a soft spot in my heart for T args, and most framework for that matter, just make sure you can showcase abuse, or I'm probably not gonna be persuaded to vote for you. If you can make me care about or enjoy the round, you're gonna get higher speaks, so defintely plan on referencing Fetty Wap at least three times ;^)
Mrs. Bekker Paradigm
Ashley Boudreau Paradigm
Liz Bremner Paradigm
No road maps in expos!
Natasha Carpenter Paradigm
Katie Carter Paradigm
Camden Clark Paradigm
I debated for four years in high school.
I'm pretty much tabula rasa but there are a few trends/arguments I'm not particularly fond of.
I don't know much about this topic and I haven't judged that many debates on it. Please explain acronyms or anything idiosyncratic to this topic.
If you have any specific questions on anything, please send me an email: camdenclark2012 [at] gmail During tournaments I'll try to keep checking this to respond and am more than happy to answer.
TL;DR: Default aff on T, Framework is fine to run in front of me.
I tend to default to aff on topicality claims on reasonability. I don't like time-suck topicality arguments. That being said, on this topic, I have heard some very interesting T arguments that seemed valid. Use your discretion.
I really like hearing framework on K [affs], I think it's a very interesting debate. I'm tabula rasa on framework--I have no preference for either the offense or defense (I say this because I hear a lot of judges don't like hearing framework; you're fine to run it in front of me.
TL;DR: EXPLAIN YOUR LITERATURE, HAVE A COHERENT LINK STORY
I enjoy kritiks, feel free to run them in front of me. Like all other arguments, it will be very apparent if you don't know what you are talking about. If your K has somewhat obscure literature, please do a good explanation of what the literature says and how it relates to the debate or I will have a tough time evaluating the arguments.
Same goes with K/identity affs. You should have a good reason to not run a plan text and explain that well.
One other thing: if you have a long overview tell me in the roadmap so I can flow it on a different piece of paper.
TL;DR: I don't like these one-off answers to politics/DAs
Fiat solves the link is not a compelling answer to politics unless explained very well.
Intrinsicness arguments are compelling if explained but 2 seconds in the 2AC will not get my vote. This is especially true if the 1AR stands up and says "THEY DROPPED THE INTRINSICNESS ARGUMENT, WE WIN. MOVING ON..."
TL;DR I will have a hard time being convinced that condo is always bad, consult/process counterplans are probably abusive.
Running one conditional CP and one conditional K is probably not abusive and you'll have an uphill battle convincing me otherwise. If there are a significant number of conditional arguments I could be convinced that is abusive.
Consult and obscure process counterplans are probably abusive. You better have really convincing arguments otherwise on this issue if you want to run these types of arguments. Perm do the counterplan is rarely severance on these types of arguments--you'll have to explain this well.
Other in-round stuff
Don't lie, it's obvious.
I don't take prep for flashing nor do I care about tag-team in CX.
I don't care how you dress.
Don't be a jerk. You are all really smart students and you should act professional!
Thanks and good luck!
Brianna Cline Paradigm
Sadie Comer Paradigm
Abby Connolly Paradigm
Peter Cossette Paradigm
Zach Culpepper Paradigm
Garrity Dan Paradigm
Michael Dennis Paradigm
Kristen Drew Paradigm
Haleigh Farrelly Paradigm
Rick Findley Paradigm
I consider myself a traditionalist. Lincoln-Douglas debate was created for a reason. The intent of debate is to facilitate communication, therefore use of speed should not be the emphasis in this activity. A good litmus test is the following...would Abraham Lincoln have used spread during his debate with Stephen Douglas? No? Then you probably shouldn't either. Exchange of ideas, discussion of which value is superior, respect and civility should be of paramount importance. Analysis and organization is extremely important. The debater in front of me should explain why their analysis is superior and why their value defeats the opposition. I also look at framework. If you are going to run something out of the norm...i.e. counterplan, rights Malthus, general breakdown of society, etc., you need to make sure your links are airtight, otherwise I will not consider your impact. The two would operate separate of each other if there is no link. I started my involvement in LD in 1982, and have been judging since 2014.
A couple of administrative notes. Eye contact is really important if for no other reason, to see how much time you have left. My biggest pet peeve is cutting off your opponent during CX. I have no problem annotating that you did so on your ballot so your coach can discuss the matter with you after the tournament. Civility and decorum are important, and I can surmise several of you have had this happen to you.
JoAnn Flaherty Paradigm
Erin Fowler Paradigm
Ivanna Fritz Paradigm
Mariah Gladstone Paradigm
Luke Gordon Paradigm
I have done policy debate for 4 years in high school and coached policy debate for the last 5-6 years. I am fine with speed just make sure you are clear and I like when teams go *slightly* (doesnt have to be much) slower on the tags so I can make sure I get everything down on the flow.
Argument preference honestly none but I am always a sucker for a good fw debate since I was the 2n in high school. I have seen things in round where people were pirates and stole the ballot to having discussion that would put the floor of the senate to shame. I guess in honesty I tend to lean more policy maker. Not by preference since I ran K's in high school but usually teams can't articulate what my ballot actually does in the round or why my ballot is important.
I am not as well versed in philosophy as I should be. So don't assume I know what the terminology is BUT I am willing to learn and love learning new philosophy.
Anti-blackness: This is a kritik that I just simply do not understand. I would highly recommend not running it. I am sorry I have tried multiple times watching rounds where this is run and every time I walk out more confused than when I went into the round.
T is fine but potential abuse is hard for me to vote on. I usually see T as a gateway issue and thus need something that I am opening the gates or closing the gates on basically.
Generic Link DA's: Honestly in the 1NC is fine because I know teams have strats and I get that but I really like a good specific link story to come out in the block or be able to explain it to me.
Impacts: Obviously I am all about impact calc at the end for policy debates and roll of the ballot arguments in K debates.
Usage of Evidence (because they ask for it on the site for some reason: uhhh yea evidence is key... Point out warrants in your card I love it when teams do warrant analysis and not just tag analysis! That is how you seperate good debaters from excellent debaters!
Email Chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
PF: Honestly I have very little experience with PF so I follow the flow extend arguments and refute theirs.... Impact calc wins... I am sorry I do not know what else I can give you to help you since I am unsure what PF looks for.
Chase Hart Paradigm
Faith Heple Paradigm
Seaghan Herron Paradigm
Anna Hoerner Paradigm
Erin Hueter Paradigm
Vicky Hyde Paradigm
Britney Jacobs Paradigm
Dillon Johnson Paradigm
I debated at Coeur d’Alene High school for 3 years and Gonzaga University for 4 years.
I haven’t been heavily involved in debate for a few years as I was working abroad.
Essentially, do whatever you want and I’ll do my best. I try my absolute hardest to pay 100% attention while a debate is happening. This means that I try to make eye contact, listen attentively, and catch all of the arguments the best I can. This also means, however, that I flow on paper. As such, please give me some pen time especially if you have a really important argument you want to get across. **This is 10x more true for theory arguments/T debates - you must slow down.
Also, I really hate interrupting a debate. I don’t yell clear, please just…be clear?
Updates as of Kentucky
1. Line by line is important to me - I understand we're on a time crunch, but I have to know what you're answering. Numbers are great, use them consistently.
2. I like research - I love this aspect of the activity a lot. That said, I think that the way a lot of teams highlight cards is odd. I'm naturally more skeptical of a piece of evidence if you've made 1 sentence from 15 lines of text by highlighting a few words. I also really don't like the size 2 font on cards.
3. Compare your cards! I think every debate I've watched in recent memory could have been improved if no one said "their card is really bad". I'm more persuaded if you first tell me what makes your evidence so persuasive and why the opponent's evidence can't meet that threshold.
4. That said, CX needs to extend beyond just evidence. Asking "where in you card does it say 'x'" for 3 minutes isn't persuasive to me.
5. There are lots of arguments about how Russia/China think and whatnot - I need to know both a) why your theory is correct and b) why that matters and how it impacts the DA/case debate.
I don’t like obnoxious people. I have a pretty good sense of humor and I know when being funny crosses a line. I’m also not persuaded when debaters tell others to do harm to themselves or others. It won’t necessarily cost you the debate (unless I’m instructed otherwise) but I will tell you now; it’s a waste of breath that will probably lose you speaker points. I also do not enjoy debates where debaters don't defend the things they have said/read. If you read Irigaray, you have to defend Irigaray. If you try to weasel out of it, I'm either going to think you a) are unprepared/don't understand your evidence b) are a weasel c) are an unprepared weasel.
I lean neg, but everything is open to debate. This was never my favorite kind of debate and it is definitely not my strength. I don’t consider most things reasons to reject the team unless you tell me and give a good reason. I tend to lean negative on conditionality. As for judge kick,
Love it. Read it, but be honest with yourself. You and I know both know that T – Sub isn’t the best argument ever, but I’ve won on it and voted on it, so here we are. An important note: I find it easier to vote for/against T when I know what exactly a debate round looks like on average. What are the affs? Are they winnable? What are the DAs? Are they winnable?
Love them. If you’re going to have a super long, complicated text, please read it slowly. I try to write it down the best I can. If you have a lot of planks, you should probably have solvency cards for all the planks.
Love these too.
Go for them if they’re your thing. I was a philosophy student, but the K lit most kids read was never my jam. I like a specific link story and I would like to know how the alt solves or why, if it doesn’t, I still shouldn’t vote aff. Something that often confuses me about K debates is that I don’t know what to do with the things I am told, so please impact things clearly and let me know what to do with the information you provide.
I’m not a big fan of the dead-on-the-inside stuff as it all sounds like gobbledygook to me, but if it’s your thing and you want to shine, shine on, friend. I’ll do my best.
The more about the topic they are, the happier I am. That said, I don’t hate things that have nothing to do with the topic. Just explain the aff well and try to be as clear as possible. I will say, if all of your cards have paragraph-long tags, it will be harder for me to flow.
Please don’t hesitate to ask me questions before/after the debate. I really love debate and want everyone to do well and get better.
Ethan Kane Paradigm
Katie Kirkpatrick Paradigm
Joanne Love Paradigm
Jim Magdich Paradigm
Sara Menssen Paradigm
Jenna Mickens Paradigm
Madison Miles Paradigm
I am a traditional LD judge. A Value and Criterion centered debate is what I’m looking for. Progressive styling will be allowed as long as you verify with your opponent pre-round. The flow matters; explain why your arguements mean more to the round as it’s happening.
Patty Morrison Paradigm
Josh Munro Paradigm
Montana is a traditional debate style. Therefore, your speed and K's will likely not be effective with me. I prefer real arguments on the topic to theories and games. I generally default to stock issues and policy making so keeping things grounded in real world is key. The topic is given for a reason and I want to hear arguments and plans about the topic.
Decorum matters. Do not treat the debate space as a place to act unprofessionally and attack your opponents just because they say something you don't like. If you claim debate is abusive and then proceed to degrade and abuse your opponents you will lose. I won't vote for K's on words, pronouns, etc.
I will listen to your style and do my best to adapt and be open minded but things that are far off topic, too rooted in just philosophy with no real world impacts will likely not work. If you cannot explain your arguments or your K in your own words dont run it. Speed is only effective so long as you are clear and understandable. If I cant understand the argument it doesnt get flowed. I dont have the evidence in front of me so spread at your own risk.
Overall, clash is key. Respond to your opponents arguments. Debate the arguments and stay grounded in reality. You can claim all the terminal impacts you want but logic and analysis are likely to shoot those links down with empiric/uniqueness alone.
Jennifer Noyd Paradigm
Cole O'Brien Paradigm
Johab Penafiel Paradigm
Kevin Platts Paradigm
The most important thing is clarity and communication skills. I look for strong evidence with a strong link to your contentions. I like analytical analysis to go with your evidence. I do not like critical arguments or any jargon. Please be respectful and enjoy your round.
Abby Poelstra Paradigm
Brad Read Paradigm
Ben Reich Paradigm
Joe Robbins Paradigm
Did three years of policy debate for CHS, and some college PUFO in Ohio. Also did ADS, Edcom, IR, Panel, Extemp, and am familiar with the rules for the rest of them.
If you argue something well, I'm going to give it to you. My theory threshold is pretty high. I don't award speaker points based off of who is most polite. If your debate style is more, ah, confrontational, thats completely alright, as long as it doesn't look like bullying. If you are going to be condescending, please don't be wrong. Things like stealing prep or standing right next to someone while they are speaking to be intimidating is gross, and I will call you out on it with zero hesitation.
I was a 2ac, which means reasonability is a plausible argument for me. I will only drop a team on T if you put the time in. If you go for T, you will need to actually do standard comparison rather than just reading the shell. Also not a huge fan of fairness as a voter. Again, the standard debate will need to be good for me to drop somebody on it.
I'm cool with conditionality. Not a large chance I'm going to drop a team on it unless its an extreme case. That being said, please for the love of god don't drop condo because then I will have to vote somebody down on condo and that will make me an existentialy less happy person. As far as perm's go, I think they are a completely valid test of competitiveness. Multiple perms are ok, but please dont just rattle them off and be shady about it. I'm ashamed to say this but once I definitely read 6 timeframe perms and than made a huge deal about the neg dropping one of them, and the judge dropped me and called me a douchebag, and rightfully so. What I'm saying is, I will notice and call you out on it if you do something like that. Topical cps are fine, actor cps are gross but again, my theory threshold is usually high unless you can have a demonstratable in-round abuse story.
Do your thing. Timeframe on terror impacts is BS. Heg is always a fun debate. I will make it rain speaker points on you if you run the Beef DA.
OK. So I was a k debater. I love k's. However, the two things I hate most in this world are the Oakland Raiders and poorly run critiques. I ran a lot of weird stuff, so I'm familiar with a lot of authors and most critiques, so I will know if you are misrepresenting your authors. I have run or cut: Baudrillard, Cap, Nietszche/Schmitt/Schop, PostCol, Fem, Statism, Security, Hillman (I love him as much as I secretly love war), Foucault, Agamben, Racism and have run some of these on the affirmative as well as the negative. Also am fine with performance, as long as the aff's framework argument clearly lays out a reasonable amount of ground for the negative.
Framework is absolutely huge for me. First, I love Roland Bleiker on framework. Secondly, if your anti-k framework shell includes evidence from Ruth Shively or Richard Rorty, and the answering team points out that both of those individuals are so pro critique it is physically painful and any card tagged otherwise is taking them wildly out of context, I will probably break out in applause during the speech. Feel free to ask me about this in person.
Former K debaters often lean towards the K on FW, especially folks who have run K affs. I am not one of those people. I honestly like the framework debate more than the k debate. If your interperetation is that K's shouldnt be allowed in debate, that is of course going to be a hard sell; however, if you actually explain why your standards create a better debate space (education-wise or for other reasons) , than I have no problem throwing the k flow away. IF YOU READ NO OTHER PART OF MY PARADIGM READ THIS: as a K debater, your absolute first priority, before even becoming familiar with the k you're running, is to understand why you should be allowed to critique. If you don't want to put the time in on framework, you should stop being lazy, go cut those uniqeness updates your coach keeps getting on you about, and just run politics, a counterplan, and t every round like everybody else does.
I was a debater first and a IE-er second, so my tastes are pretty unrefined. I like funny speeches or interesting ones. Nothing else I say here will be at all enlightening or helpful.
Jonathan Roes Paradigm
Alejandro Silva Paradigm
Derrick Skaug Paradigm
I did high school debate for 3 years. I did nearly every form of debate except LD. I have qualified for nationals twice and broke at the NFL tournament. I also was a City Councilman. I am by no means a lay judge, however I believe debates are won on the merits of the arguments. Evidence and facts matter. I have done and judges most forms of the debate, Ihave judged it at many tournaments and have never been a sole vote in a 3 judge panel.
Treat your opponent with respect, you will not win any points from me by belittling them.
As far as speed goes, I'd say if your max speed is 100 miles per hour, go 60 miles per hour for me, I want to flow your arguments and if you rush them I may not get them all. Quality over quantity.
Do not drop your contentions, or your opponents, I will flow them as dropped and they can decide the ballot for me.
I am not very familiar with the K but open to hearing a K case and can and will vote on it if the case is made.
The flow is important, do not drop contentions or arguments or I will flow to your opponent as a drop and a won argument. Give me voting issues.
Enjoy your time debating, its about learning, not winning.
Willow Smith Paradigm
Competing and learned all debate styles in high school.
Competed at NSDA Nationals in Congressional Speaking.
Was a high school assistant coach for 2.5 years.
Founding member of my university's IPDA Team
Currently pursuing Bachelor degrees in: Psychology, Communication, and Early Childhood Development.
I do not flow cross-examination period. Meaning only the words spoken in a speech are accounted in my decision for the winner. I do listen, if you want a question accounted in my final decision bring it back up in your speech briefly so it is noted somewhere on my flow(otherwise it 'didn't happen').
Speed is no problem. Standard SpReading rules: Slow for Tagline, Author, Date of evidence. Sign post occasionally. I will say "Clear" if I no long understand you.
You may time yourself. I keep Official Time-so if my clock says you are done it is final. If you run out of time I allow approx 2 second grace periods to finish your sentence. In questioning periods if time runs out with a question unanswered I would prefer a quick answer.
If you make personal attacks on your opponent's character, your speaker points will suffer significantly. It is rare but occassionally if you are too rude and lacking in decorum you can loose a round from that alone. (We all make mistakes, malicious intent vs a slip up is very obvious.
If you won't be standing during your debate simply say so at the beginning of the round. I won't mind so long as it is specified.
I believe it is your debate round so you, the debater, determine the direction of the debate. I will listen to any type or style of arguments you want to run, simply explain why that is the most important thing to be looked towards in the round. I say I will listen but that does not mean you win just because your argument is unique. Whoever wins is whoever best explains and supports their claims, and refutes your opponents claims.
Tabula Rasa as much as I can be- knowing i have my own biases and experience that I try to leave at the door but isn't entirely possible. Primarily with emphasis on Flow. I weigh what you present and unless you are clearly and blatantly perpetuating obvious falsehoods I simply look at the facts presented on my flow, if something isn't on my flow it didn't happen in the debate.
Every claim needs a warrant and justification of relevance.
I will leave my political opinions at the door and do not reference them. I don't care what party the current acting president or house leader is, you will refer to them by the office they hold and no other. Don't assume that because you think I believe something personally that i will need less explanation.
In Lincoln-Douglas I have a slight preferential bias towards more traditional style and format. I will absolutely still listen to progressive styles, you must simply continue to warrant and justify all claims.
I think values and morality ultimately are the core of LD and debates of value are vital to a good LD debate.
I try to use the Value and and Value-Criterion as the primary weighing mechanisms for decision-making in the round. I would really like to see a focus on the value and value-criterion debate but not just how your value clashes with your opponents, I would like to see V and VC incorporated throughout the flow and relating to your contentions as well as how your's should be given more weight than your opponent's.
If you opt to utilize a Standard instead then you must explicitly explain why you chose a Standard over a Value and Value-Criterion and the relevancy of that, all other incorporation into the debate applies the same as what I want to see for V and VC.
If you are running progressive: your evidence needs to be relevant, if I could read your case in 2 months on a different resolution and nothing would need to change then your case will have much less ground to stand on in my eyes.
In Public-Forum the round is generally yours to do with as you please.
Courtesy to your opponents is vital. Being as 4 people can get very heated on topics quite easily I will not put up with disrespectful, rude, or threatening behavior in anyway. PF Cross-fire is the most common place in the debate sphere I consider if a team should loose on decorum, remember you are still talking to other humans that have to go back to their lives after this round ends, loosing civility is not worth maybe winning a round and if I'm judging you probably wouldn't end up winning anyways.
Voters at the end are recommended as it helps show what you as debaters believe to be important.
If no RA or definitions are provided by either side I will loosely judge the round assuming the most common Webster definitions of terms and utilize a Cost-Benefit Analysis approach of who most accurately addressed and supported their claims in relevance to resolutional question and demand.
In Policy I have the least experience. I have not dealt with Policy style much in quite a few years so I am not especially up to date.
I can listen to spreading but I have been hearing LD spreading primarily so consider slowing down a titch - especially on taglines.
Please do not do Performative Affs. I think they are very cool but often, for me, lead to just having more trouble tracking the debate thus harming you in the long run.
Don't expect me to just know your cards and arguments. You have to explain and justify your arguments. If you just say a tag and move on then you aren't willing to work for my vote and likely won't receive it.
I know most concepts within policy but am very lacking on the jargon that coincide so quickly throwing out a few jargon words will lose me.
John Sommerlott Paradigm
Emily Stephens Paradigm
Bridget Sundahl Paradigm
Krystal Ugolini Paradigm
Ryan Wagstaff Paradigm
Jackson Widmyer Paradigm
Brooke Wolford Paradigm
I would consider myself more of a traditional judge because I do place most emphasis on the framework arguments but I can deal with kritiks, theory arguments, etc. as long as you sufficiently explain and understand the theory you're arguing. If you do it wrong, I'll know, I'm a political science minor so philosophy is my thing. Arguments that hold the most weight with me are the ones backed by real word examples, or even better, quantifiable evidence. Quantification makes it easiest for me to conceptualize your arguments and makes it easier for me to vote you up. You can spread as along as you are clear enough for me to understand, otherwise I will not even try to understand you and stop flowing. Any other questions, feel free to ask!