Millard South Squashfestival

2016 — Omaha, NE/US

Jacob Bartman Paradigm

Not Submitted

Gwen Colony Paradigm

Not Submitted

Victoria Freeman Paradigm

Arguments- I'm very open to whatever style of argument you want to make in round, so long as you do it well. Don't just dump cards, actually offer in round analysis and engage with your opponent's arguments. If something is important to the round, I expect you to spend time on it. Regardless of the style, I need to see some sort of weighing mechanism in round- that could come from an observation or impact calc (or whatever else) so long as I have some sort of idea what I should be valuing.

Speed- I prefer a moderate, not ludicrous, pace. If you want to go absurdly fast, that's fine, but understand I'll miss some details. I think it's really important for speed to be justified by content- so, if you're talking fast enough that you have to reiterate the same underview three times because you're out of content, I'd rather you slow down. At any speed, I really value clarity. It's also good to know that some days (because of dumb health things) I physically won't be able to flow super quickly, so it wouldn't hurt to double check with me about speed before round.

Round Structure- First and foremost, I expect the second rebuttal to address both sides of the flow. So, make sure, in front of me, you're allocating your time in a way such that you're able to address everything important, as dropped arguments are essentially conceded.

I don't expect line by line argumentation in summary and final focus. Instead, the round should be narrowed down to the main points. This is where I expect a lot of weighing and analysis, not just 50 author names back to back.


Other things- I am a fan of content warnings before round if you're running anything dealing with something sensitive. I am not a fan of hateful or discriminatory things being said in round, and will hesitate (heavily) to vote on anything racist/sexist/ableist. Additionally, problematic things (like racism/sexism/ableism, misgendering your opponent, anything that makes the space hostile to your opponent) will be reflected in your speaker points.

Ryleigh Gebers Paradigm

Not Submitted

Josh Genrich Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lilly Giesemann Paradigm

Not Submitted

Drew Harrahill Paradigm

Not Submitted

Hayley Hilker Paradigm

My preferences for public forum debate are as follows... 

I want to see clash and impacts clearly. I would like to receive LOTS of analysis and explanation with contentions and cards. During speeches, I expect proper decorum and respect for your opponents, especially in cross examination when directly speaking with one another.  During summary, I would like the round summarized not another rebuttal and then strictly voters in final focus. I want to see the big impacts of my vote and what ¨the world¨ would be like if I voted in affirmation or negation.  

Matt Matuszeski Paradigm

Not Submitted

Jake McMahan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Emily Nelson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Tori Qiu Paradigm

Not Submitted

Fred Robertson Paradigm

Not Submitted

SamuelR Segrist Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lindsay Vecchio Paradigm

Not Submitted

Alex Way Paradigm

Not Submitted

Zachary Wimmer Paradigm

Not Submitted