Isidore Newman School Invitational
2017 — New Orleans, LA/US
Lorna Aho Paradigm
Jennifer Akers Paradigm
Shelby Akins Paradigm
Jay Angerer Paradigm
I am an ordained Episcopal priest and I teach elementary religion. I have a B.A. in history and an Mdiv. in theological studies and study mostly classical and patristic theology. I also study classical philosophy.
This is my second year judging and coaching debate.
Spreading: No. this is Lincoln Douglas, I want to hear it all.
The most important aspect to winning my ballot is threefold:
Clash: I enjoy and appreciate the clash of debate (who doesn’t). I am pretty tolerant of debates getting heated, but my patience runs thin when one debater is arrogant to another. Keep it civil, but engage each other in some way. The debater that engages the clash first and most will tend to get my ballot. I do not appreciate tricks, so you will want to stay away from them.
Clarity: I heard a judge say last year, “I prefer quality over quantity.” This is where I stand. If I cannot understand or follow your argument, I will struggle to judge you and you will lose the ballot.
Evidence & Philosophy: I prefer clear, concise evidence and sourcework. Don’t bring up evidence you can not support with documents, you will lose my ballot. This poses an ethical dilemma. I am an Aristotelianite. I find Aristotle's philosophy a breath of fresh air, as I prefer logic and reason in arguments. Do you have to argue Aristotelian philosophy to win my ballot? Of course not. Adding philosophical discourse will help your ballot.
Finally, Respect is key. That includes perceived arrogance and inappropriate comments or body language. Keeping under control is part of the civil debate process.
Spreading: YES for 1 & 2 AC and 1 & 2 NC. NO for CX, 1 & 2 AR and 1 & 2 NR. Add me to the email-chain if you are sending (Jay.Angerer@stmsaints.com)
I like and appreciate creativity in policy argument. Please have your evidence ready and back up what you say.
I take notes, but not flow. The better I understand, the better I can judge.
So, classically, I'm a hybrid of Tabula rasa (Blank slate) and Policymaker (Whatever is the better policy will win). Keep this in mind when choosing cards and setting your framework.
Spreading: No. (PF needs clash more than Lincoln Douglas!)
Most importantly, keep the arrogance to a minimum, no disrespect and any inappropriate comments or behavior (including facial expression) will automatically lose speaker points.
Point out to me clearly why your case should win, why the other should lose and a clear framework is very helpful on both sides. If you can not show your cards (evidence) then all case work based off that card will be dropped.
Thomas Barrera Paradigm
Gina Biddick Paradigm
Brandon Box-Higdem Paradigm
Katherine Broussard Paradigm
Michael Carey Paradigm
Leslie Castay Paradigm
Mason Chandler Paradigm
I am an English teacher and former IE competitor.
While judging, I focus on rhetoric and your ability to effectively persuade.
I appreciate being able to understand your arguments, so spreading and speeding are discouraged.
Courtney Chipman Paradigm
Annie Clifton Paradigm
Dominic Clust Paradigm
Throughout all styles of debate, clarity and clash are important to me. I need to understand what you're saying all the time. While I'm okay with some spreading, make sure you elaborate on which points you're attacking/defending if you decide to jump around. Also, I teach math. I deal with enough tangents throughout the school year. You can attack contentions with all sorts of wild card examples all you want, but you NEED to attack the structure of the case as well, be it a value, a plan, a model, etc.
I'll flow to the best of my ability, but I can only write so fast. Pace yourself properly, and have fun with it!
Daniel Commander Paradigm
1.Your background in debate (did you debate in high school or college? If so, where, when, and what events?)
I have taught communication/rhetoric for 6 years. I have coached debate for two.
2. How many years have you been judging? How many rounds do you typically judge each year?
I have been judging for 2 years. I normally judge 5 tournaments a year.
3. Do you have any argument preferences or speaking style preferences that debaters should be aware of?
I do not like spreading. I prefer straightforward arguments, but I do not mind more meta-arguments.
4. When the debate is over, what process do you use to pick a winner (use of evidence, direct clash, speaking style, impact calculations, layers of the debate, etc.)?
I assess the arguments laid out, consider evidence, speaking style, impact, and presentation.
-Don't be rude. I do not respond well to aggressive CX
-Signpost. I will be flowing and without clear signposting, I will have a difficult time doing so without those signposts.
-I like to see congenial debaters who are respectful of their opponents.
-Generally, arguments that devolve into debating the worth of a single piece of evidence or contention drawn out across multiple speeches do not interest me. Of course, this is not true if the evidence or contention is integral to the overall argument.
-I like seeing passion and emotion. I dislike dull recitals of speeches with a monotone voice. However, I equally dislike zealous, over-the-top speaking.
-Eye contact is important. I understand looking down to remind yourself of your points and structure, but do not like it when speakers stare at a piece of paper the whole time.
Megan Dorsey Paradigm
General Experience: I am a retired coach (one diamond) who judges a few tournaments a year. I competed in extemp and LD as a student and went to nationals in LD.
Extemp: You must answer the question. I will weigh both content and delivery when making my decision. Academic integrity is paramount, so I may check your sources.
L-D Debate: I am a somewhat old-fashioned L-D judge. I want to see persuasive communication and a clash on values and value criteria.
I am a retired coach (one diamond) who judges a few tournaments a year. I competed in LD as a student-- when dinosaurs roamed the earth and LD was value, not policy, debate.
What I want to see:
I like a mix of pragmatic and philosophical arguments. The winning debater will have a mix of persuasive speaking, logical arguments supported by either philosophy, empirical evidence or expert opinion, and the value which has been proven to be superior based on the criteria in the round. I don’t want to see evidence during or after the round. I don’t think I’ve ever voted for a kritik.
I will flow. If you speak faster than I can flow, I will put my pen down and not record your arguments. Keep in mind, I value convincing delivery in making a decision, so don’t go for speed if you can’t do so clearly and persuasively. You should stand when you speak.
Your chance of winning the round drops dramatically if you:
- don’t allow fair ground for debate
- are rude to your opponent
- show me the back of your laptop instead of your face
- mis-use or mis-quote evidence (academic integrity is paramount!)
Michael DuBose Paradigm
Eric Eagan Paradigm
Cole Emerson Paradigm
Andy Favret Paradigm
Christie Fletcher Paradigm
JP Fugler Paradigm
Jennifer Gary Paradigm
Lauren Gaudet Paradigm
Dorothy Gault Paradigm
Jessica Heflin Paradigm
Theresa Helms Paradigm
Jamie Howard Paradigm
Julia Howell Paradigm
Speed- Medium to medium-fast (If speed gets in the way of speaking style, I'm not a fan. I don't like fast for the sake of fast). I will judge progressive style arguments if that's what's presented, but it's not my favorite.
Framework- May possibly be a voting factor depending on its use in the round, but not always. Voting issues- fine to use, but I'll only vote on them if I agree debater won the argument.
Speaking style/evidence/argumentation- all important!!
Policy- Speed- Medium to medium-fast. I will listen to spreading and it doesn't bother me as long as it's clear. I can handle K and Theory.
Policy Maker/ Stock Issues
Only vote on Topicality if Aff is highly off-topic or a squirrel case.
Seth Hunter Paradigm
Christopher Hunter Paradigm
Taylor Jarman Paradigm
Sheridan Johnson Paradigm
Lisa Kleimeyer Paradigm
Seth Latiolais Paradigm
Roman Law Paradigm
Jody Leblanc Paradigm
Terry Marek Paradigm
Julia Mauro Paradigm
Meaghan McDowell Paradigm
Kristi McHale Paradigm
Katie McKenzie Paradigm
Please, for the love of all that is good and holy, weigh impacts and give voters. Otherwise, I will create my own voters, and you don't want that.
If it is not on the flow, I will not look to it. That being said, I will not extend things for you. If you want it to be important, it needs to be extended all the way through all speeches you give.
I don't adore speed, but I can listen to it and flow it. Be strategic about it.
If it seems a little out of the box as an argument, please break it down for me.
Also, unnecessary yelling is not really something I vibe with. I get it, passion good, but if It's the first round of the day and you make a conscious effort to not give me a headache, I will be much nicer on speaks and ballot comments.
If you want to run theory, either put it in a shell or insure that you talk about all the important parts of the theory. If it isn't impacted or accompanied by how I should change my vote, it has wasted round tine
Rory McKenzie Paradigm
Current coach/DOF at Lindale High School.
For email chains: mckenziera @ lisdeagles.net
CX - This is where I have spent the majority of my time judging. While I am comfortable judging any type of round, my preference is a more traditional round. Debate rounds that are more progressive (kritikal affs, performance, etc...) are totally fine, but you'll do best to slow down and go for depth over breadth here. I think that judges are best when they adapt to the round in front of them. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.
LD - Despite judging policy debate most, I was raised in a traditional value and criterion centric area. Still, I think that policy debates in LD are valuable. See my notes above about progressive argumentation. They're fine, but you'll probably need to do a few things to make it more digestible for me. Again, though, you do you. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.
PF - I judge only a few PF rounds a year. I'm not up-to-date on the trends that may be occurring. I naturally struggle with the time restraints in PF. I generally feel like teams often go for breadth instead of depth, which I think makes debate blippy and requires more judge intervention. I'd rather not hear 20 "cards" in a four minute speech. Framework is the most reliable way to construct a ballot. Writing the ballot for me in the last few speeches can be helpful.
Congress - Speeches should have structure, refutation, research, and style. Jerky Parliamentary Procedure devalues your position in the round.
Speech - Structure and content are valued equally. I appreciate, next, things that make you stand out in a positive way.
Interp - Should have a purpose/function. There's a social implication behind a lot of what we perform. I value great introductions and real characters.
Chelsea Moreau Paradigm
Susan Ontiveros Paradigm
Dimitri Poulis Paradigm
James Preston Paradigm
Marco Ramirez Paradigm
Laura Ratliff Paradigm
Azriela Reed Paradigm
This will be my second year judging. I provide research for public policy. I would rather a student use an off topic factually supported argument than something completely false and made up. Use of evidence and impact hold the most weight in my post debate calculations. Good luck to all teams.
Shannon Richmond Paradigm
Tracy Rubens Paradigm
David Rush Paradigm
I'm and old and slow "dad judge". Talk too fast and I'll miss much of what you said. Slow and clear wins the day. Two points that I can hear and comprehend will do you more good than six points that all came out so fast I could't follow any of them. You've been warned.
Monica Salda Paradigm
Sacred Heart Catholic School.
12 years judging experience.
I am traditional. I have judged PF, Lincoln Douglas and Policy and have witnessed both change over time. I believe that LD should revolve around traditional value/criterion debate with contentions, but I am not completely opposed to more progressive arguments if properly adjusted.
AC: Plans are fine, but don’t rely on heavy jargon and policy implementations.
K’S: Kritiks are fine if properly explained, I am not well versed in literature, so if you are depending on me understanding your K perfectly then I am not the judge for you. Don’t rely completely on the K--go at your own risk.
CP’S: Please adjust them to the aff. CP’s for the sake of a CP’s is pointless in front of me. Be clear and clash with the aff or I won’t weight it.
DA’s: I prefer actual NC’s with FW.
Theory/Topicality: Abuse needs to be present and needs to be pointed out. Topicality needs to be obvious at well. Do not run them unless you can tell me exactly where abuse is and why it matters. Go at your own risk.
Speed: Don’t. Spreading for the sake of spreading will not get my ballot. If you are going to win, you can do it speaking at a normal rate of speech with well-warranted arguments.
Again, I am traditional. Keep that in mind.
John Sanpietro Paradigm
Hannah Sawyer Paradigm
Wesley Saylor Paradigm
I am somewhat new to judging debate. I performed in speech in high school and I am a performer so rhetoric and persuasive appeal does play a big role with me, please show me that you are confident about your case, even if you’re not. That being said, I do want to take the role seriously and I have done what I could to prepare for it in recognition of your hard work in preparation for debate. Of course I don’t need to tell you that good sportsmanship and professionalism are of the utmost importance.
1. Please do not spread. This just loses my attention in your debate and I will just vote for the person from whom I caught the most thoughts/ideas. Help walk me through your arguments and make sure I hear them: evidence and rebuttals. It would be helpful if you sent me your case: email@example.com
2. Avoid progressive arguments unless you are 100% comfortable and prepared to defend them.
3. During rebuttal/final focus be specific with why you think you won and your opponent lost. This really stands out to me.
Rajni Sharma Paradigm
Alexandra Simon Paradigm
This is my second year judging (and coaching) speech and debate. I've judged LD, PF, Extemp, OO, DEC and DI. I am a veteran educator with a theatre background who believes that speech and debate are foundational activities to train well rounded students and leaders.
Speed: Clarity and speed are important to me. Speak clearly; it is just easier to follow your reasoning when I can take notes. NO spreading please.
Decorum: The best speakers are polite and respectful to their opponent(s), especially when the round is lopsided. Please stand when you speak.
Framework: Framework is very important. It tells me my role in the debate and how I should decide who won the debate. Remember, this is a competition.
Things I find beneficial: Crystallization, Weighing, and Voters. I'm judging on the substance of the arguments. I love a good summary in rebuttal.
Sara Sise Paradigm
I expect professional, respectful behavior throughout the rounds. Spreading is not encouraged. If I can not understand your content, I cannot adequately judge your arguments. I value credibly sourced evidence & logical presentation. Thank you. I look forward to judging.
Heidi Trevithick Paradigm
Mike Trevithick Paradigm
I am a judge who willingly judges PF, LD, and World Schools debate. I competed in Policy debate many years ago in both high school and college, finishing third in the nation in CEDA debate when that event was still popular. As a coach, I have moved away from Policy debate with it's emphasis on speed and evidence wars over well-reasoned arguments. This affects my view of other debate events as I am quite completely opposed to the infusion of policy debate techniques, such as critiques, into other forms of debate. I do recognize that Public Forum is often fast and evidence heavy and I have no concerns with either the speed or the amount evidence as long as it supports credible arguments. In LD, I am more of a tradionalist who expects value clash and strong case argumentation at a reasonable speed. I enjoy World Schools precisely because this style of debate also places a premium on organization, argumentation, and rhetoric.
As a critic, I am stricly Tabula Rasa when it comes to the arguments themselves; meaning I will only consider arguments the debaters make in round and will not interject my own philosophical or policy paradigms into a round. I am a flow judge who decides votes in favor of the debater(s) who do the best job on convincing me that their arguments should carry the round based on the relative strength of their evidence, reasoning, and argumentation. I NEVER award low point wins. If you didn't do the better job while debating, you will not win my ballot.
Two notes are worth mentioning on procedure. First, I only allow evidence requests during CX/Crossfire. Evidence requests made during prep time will be discouraged. Second, please remember to be polite and try not talk over one another during Crossfire. All speakers deserve a chance to be heard.