Arizona State HDSHC Invitational
2018 — Tempe, AZ/US
Christen Agnello Paradigm
Hello! I'm a parent judge, so I'm not super familiar with jargon or progressive arguments that neglect to fully explain their positions, but if you have a cool idea, I'm all ears as long as it's understandable and clear.
Traditional - preferred
Plans and Counterplans- will buy them, as long as they are supported
Kritiks - please don't
Theory/Topicality - not a big fan of the theory shell format, if something is abusive just point it out
Speed - it's ok if you go fast-ish, just don't spread to the point of incomprehensibility
Speaker Points- 25- offensive or unintelligible
26-27- ok, a bit unclear or content is hazy but mostly fine
28-29- good, likely to move on to out rounds
30- flawless, well-supported, clear.
Theresa Atkins Paradigm
Kimberly Berlat Paradigm
Eugene Chung Paradigm
Please speak clearly, and try not to spread.
Please be respectful to your fellow competitors, especially during direct questioning.
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
- I like unique/creative arguments and the use of props.
- I highly value good research and well-sourced information — and I will fact-check you.
- Good decorum is a must. I’m not judging based on the best debater, but rather, the best legislator. Keep your arguments within the relative mainstream.
- I do not value critical arguments or spreading.
Sarem Haq Paradigm
Denise Harper Paradigm
Pamela Jones Paradigm
I like to hear clear diction so that I can understand what you are saying, a slow enough tempo for me to process what you are saying; emphasis on important words; quality arguments, intelligent questions in crossfire, and confidence.
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.
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.
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.
Quest Sandel Paradigm
email@example.com any and all questions are welcome
I have been the head coach of John F. Kennedy Speech and Debate since the 2016-17 season and was a competitor the previous 4 seasons. I primarily did congress and that is my team's main event so I'll be writing about that.
First off I believe this is a debate event before anything. That means you should be adapting to the round as it goes. Everyone from the sponsor to the closer has an equal shot at getting my one as long as they do their job. The job for the sponsor and first negative speaker is to set up the round for strong debate. The sponsor should state the problem, how this bill fixes the problem, give one or two impacts from solving it, and if you're a superstar give me a framework. The first negative should give us the main idea of what we should expect from a strong negation argument. This should take the problem the sponsor laid out and then give us the negative thought process on if this legislation fixes it. After that I should see an increasing amount of refutations and original arguments as to why this legislation is good or bad. Once we are 3/4 of the way through I should be seeing a lot of extensions as the debate is coming to an end. Still give an original POV but keep it within the frame of the debate. Lastly, I should see nothing but refutation and crystalized speeches. Once again I want your own original analysis but use it to end the debate through a refutation of the other side instead of individuals. (Side note: I love aggressive refutations)
Effective cross examination is when you attack your opponents arguments and shut them down. You can use your argument to help you with that but I hate seeing someone just ask questions to set up their arguments even if it doesn't have ANYTHING to do with the speech their opponent just gave. Defense in cross x is a little more straightforward because all I want to see is that you can defend your argument to the point where it is still standing strong after cross x. Overall, I tune out when both sides start over talking each other and I prefer calmer cross x over yelling.
When it comes to speaking I don't have a preferred style. I can respect all styles as long as it suits you. Picking a speaking style is like picking a batting stance in that there isn't a wrong way as long as you're doing what is best for you based on your natural voice, range, and variation. If you stick to that then I'll probably think you're a great speaker.
I do rank presiding officers pretty well as a scorer and if I'm a parli it can serve as a tie breaker between two kids that I'm picking between. As long as you do it well then it'll boost you but if you don't then it'll drop you pretty far.
This next part should go without saying but your arguments need to be backed by evidence at all times and have clear logic behind them. If they don't meet this criteria dont run them because I'll ignore them.
Lastly, be respectful and have fun. If you aren't having fun then you're doing this activity wrong. I can't wait to see y'all in round!!!
Neelam Shah Paradigm
Bob Shurtz Paradigm
PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge on the national circuit. I judge primarily on impacts. You need to give a clear link story backed up with logic and evidence. Framework is important. Weighing is very important. It is better to acknowledge that your opponent may be winning a certain argument and explain how the impacts you are winning outweigh than it is to ignore that argument made by your opponent. Don't extend through ink. If your opponent attacks your argument you need to respond to that attack and not just repeat your original argument. I don't mind rapid conversational speed - especially while reading evidence, but no spreading. I will keep a good flow and judge primarily off the flow, but let's keep PF as an event where persuasive speaking style, logic, evidence, and refutation are all important. Also let's keep PF distinct from national circuit LD and national circuit policy - let's avoid kritiks, disads, plans, counterplans and theory arguments.
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 ninth year of coaching and teaching Speech & Debate (6 in OR; 3 in UT).
Overall, I want to see true clash and I usually judge on the flow. Strong, crystallized voters can win me over though.
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.