Arizona State HDSHC Invitational
2018 — Tempe, AZ/US
Christen Agnello Paradigm
Theresa Atkins Paradigm
Kimberly Berlat Paradigm
Eugene Chung Paradigm
Travis Clement Paradigm
Jon Cohen Paradigm
Crystal Coltrin Paradigm
Catherine Curry Paradigm
Chas Gurtler Paradigm
No speed or jargon. I will vote for the team that persuades me with facts.
Marissa Gurtler Paradigm
Abdul Hamed Paradigm
Shawn Haq Paradigm
Sarem Haq Paradigm
Denise Harper Paradigm
Pamela Jones Paradigm
Varun Kota Paradigm
Natalie Kujawa Paradigm
I am a lay judge.
Erica Lane Paradigm
Troy Morgan Paradigm
Policy: Traditional Stock Issues judge, but open to other paradigms if presented by a logical and reasonable case. Prefer slow to moderate delivery, but able and willing to flow high speed (if delivery is coherent)
LD: Well reasoned cases that present logical and clear links between Value and Criterion are preferred; clash is important; K’s are acceptable when presented and explained well.
PF: Well reasoned cases with supporting evidence preferred; clash is important; Slow and deliberate delivery style preferred, but not required
Pratyush Panda Paradigm
William Porter Paradigm
Greg Pratt Paradigm
Aleisha Readye Paradigm
I may seem like I am not paying attention but I am listening. I am not very good at small talk so if you have a question just ask me.
To the point:
I am very much a progressive traditionalist when it comes to Public Forum.
What does that mean?
Yes, I believe that parents should be 100% comfortable judging public forum debate at all levels. It is your job as a debater to adapt and NOT the other way around. However, isn’t it cool that you get to have someone who isn’t a parent and doesn’t believe PF is not real debate flow this round? I think so too. Fast talking is fine. Don’t spread. Creative Arguments, I am listening. You are not actually topical, but you are in the direction of the topic, YES, I am still listening.
FRAMING IS THE BEST PART OF PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE. How your team frames the round should be strategic and work in your team’s advantage. A team should only concede framework if they actually believe that they can win the debate under the other team’s framework. Otherwise, defend your framework. If they call you out for “abusive framework” tell me why it’s not and why I should still be voting under it.
While it’s not mandatory, if you are speaking second you should address your opponent’s rebuttal. I don’t expect you to split your time in some specific way, but at the end of the day a speech did happen just moments before yours and you kind of need to engage with it. (Translated: Must respond to your opponent’s case and defend your own)
Rebuttals: cover their case in the context of yours. cross applications are going to be key to get me to sign the ballot in your favor.
I do not flow cross, but I am listening and PRAYING that all the cool things that take place during this time find a place in speeches. Otherwise all the sweating, panting, and exchanging of evidence was pointless.
If it isn't in Rebuttal, it can't be in Summary. If it isn't in Summary, you can't go for it in Final Focus.
Oh ya, I am bad at speaker points.
As it relates to LD -
Fast talking is acceptable but I cannot deal with spreading for extended periods of time, flow, and be objective. My mind drifts whenever people speak to me in the same cadence for extended periods of time.
Spreading: My brain can’t handle it which is why I generally avoid judging TOC Circuit Varsity LD debates. I do this because I agree that spreading is a skill and I understand that since you are on the circuit you would probably like to have opportunity to do so. However, if you get the wonderful privilege of having me judge you, I will expect you to do a few things to enhance my involvement in the round. I ask that you not practice spreading in front of me.
“I hear everything when in sensory overload. But it’s not as if I can hear what is being said; rather it is just many, many sounds, unfiltered and loud. It feels like sounds are coming at me from every direction. Lights from all directions also seem to glare in my eyes. Sensory overload is horrible.” — Laura Seil Ruszczyk
I evaluate framework first. I prefer debates that are topical. That said, I think on most of the resolutions for LD there are lots of topical discussions debaters can engage about race and identity matters.
I default K before theory. However, I am open to persuasion.
If they say they are in the direction of topic and clearly articulate how they are, I would probably agree that they are probably pretty topical. However, I do think T is a real argument.
I prefer students use cx for question and answer exchanges not extra prep.
Connor Riano and I have a lot of similarities in how we view debate. The majors differences are in how we view speed, theory, prep time and speaker points.
Quest Sandel Paradigm
Neelam Shah Paradigm
Bob Shurtz Paradigm
LD Paradigm: I am an experienced LD judge. I do prefer traditional style LD. I am, however, OK with plans and counter-plans and I am OK with theory arguments concerning analysis of burdens. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I will try to be open to evaluate arguments presented in the round, but I do prefer that the debate be largely about the resolution instead of largely centered on theory. I am OK with fast conversational speed and I am OK with evidence being read a little faster than fast conversational as long as tag lines and analysis are not faster than fast conversational. I do believe that V / VC are required, but I don't believe that the V / VC are voting issues in and of themselves. That is, even if you convince me that your V / VC is superior (more important, better linked to the resolution) than your opponent's V / VC that is not enough for me to vote for you. You still need to prove that your case better upholds your V / VC than your opponent's case does. To win, you may do one of three things: (1) Prove that your V / VC is superior to your opponent's AND that your case better upholds that V / VC than your opponent's case does, OR (2) Accept your opponent's V / VC and prove that your case better upholds their V/VC than their case does. OR (3) Win an "even-if" combination of (1) and (2).
CX Paradigm: I am an experienced LD and PF judge (nationally and locally). I have judged policy debate at a number of tournaments over the years - including the final round of the NSDA national tournament in 2015. However, I am more experienced in PF and LD than I am in policy. I can handle speed significantly faster than the final round of NSDA nationals, but not at super-fast speed. (Evidence can be read fast if you slow down for tag lines and for analysis.) Topicality arguments are fine. I am not a fan of kirtiks or critical affs.
Michael Solomentsev Paradigm
Sakti Srivastava Paradigm
Carrie Strecker Paradigm
I am in my eighth year of coaching Speech & Debate (6 in OR; 2 in UT). I also teach High School English.
I will judge on true clash, the least dropped arguments, and strong voters. I like civil sass. Don't just tell me you uphold your value criterion or that your opponent does not; explain why (links). See PF paradigm for progressive vs. traditional.
Public Forum Paradigm:
I like true clash, but don't beat a dead horse. I don't want a debate that turns into hyper-focus on a definition or one small detail. Note the disagreement, concisely state why your side is better then move on.
My vote goes to whoever has the most sound logic and convincincing evidence. I also like strong links between each contention and framework and being able to point out flaws in your opponent's logic. Consideration of and insight into your and your opponents' warrants will go far. Being respectful will go far. Being disrespectful will lose you speaker points and will make me less forgiving of smaller flaws in your case.
I am fine with progressive cases (and sometimes prefer them if they are creative while maintaining logical appeal), as long as you are able to defend them aptly and you still truly attack your opponent's case and contentions.
Nathan Vigrass Paradigm
School: Clark HS, Speech and Debate Coach
Experience: 2 years
LD: I am a flow judge. I prefer the debate to focus primarily on the resolution with thoughtful, well-reasoned arguments. Avoid k and theory arguments with weak connections to the resolution.