Neil Warren Invitational USUE
2016
—
Price,
UT/US
Other Debate Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Blake Alanis
Salem Hills HS
None
Kelsie Albee
Manti Templars
None
Heather Allred
American Leadership Academy
Last changed on
Fri November 3, 2017 at 1:31 PM MDT
Hi! I am an experienced judge that loves speech and debate. I have a background in theater, so please speak up and enunciate. I like traditional debate, I like to flow your rounds and I want you to debate your points & your opponents case. Please be respectful and enjoy your round. After all, this should be fun.
Trinidad Allred
Westlake Debate Team
None
Kylie Angell
Beaver High School
None
Carrie Ashwell
Providence Hall High School
None
Debbie Beukema
Park City High School Debate
None
Victor H Billings
Skyridge Debate
Last changed on
Sat February 10, 2024 at 2:55 AM MDT
When I was a High School student at Mountain View H.S. in Orem Utah. I participated in Policy Debate. After graduating, I then went on and was accepted on the University of Utah's debate team and competed in the NDT Circuit for a year. After graduation, I volunteered several times to judge high school debate tournaments as an alumnus for MVHS. Much later I became involved with debate again with Skyridge High School as the assistant coach.
I love a good policy debate! I have come to appreciate and respect Public Forum. I also have a fondness for Lincoln Douglas as I was initially a Philosophy and Political Science major at the UofU before moving into Computer Science. I will judge Individual Events, but I feel inadequate at times in this area.
Speed of speaking is not an issue for me. I will flow the entire round save perhaps the rebuttal speeches. I do request that the speaker is able to face the judges and also have their mouth be visible. I am somewhat hard of hearing and having a visual indicator of speech helps me understand better. Clarity should not be sacrificed for speed. If you cannot speak clearly at high speed you should slow down. I will not penalize teams who speak more slowly and thus are required to group arguments. The most persuasive argument should win regardless of speed of delivery.
I try to be a Tabula Rasa style judge and leave my personal political leanings outside of the room. I will vote for arguments that I find distasteful if I believe that they have been presented clearly and persuasively and the alternate team has not defended well against them. I count myself as a politically moderate independent.
I will vote for Topicality arguments if they are presented well. I will vote for a Kritik. I will vote for a Counterplan. I would prefer to have clash though and see a good policy debate. I do not mind tag team cross examination. Please be respectful of one another.
I prefer to disclose and give oral critiques if I am allowed to by the tournament organizer.
Best of luck to the competitors and participants! My goal is to help spread debate and critical thinking. Even if I vote against your team, I hope that you have a positive experience.
For email chain exchanges please use vbillings@entangling.net
Megan Bird
Richfield High School
None
Kellie Bosarge
Providence Hall High School
None
OrlieAnn Bush
Park City High School Debate
None
Liz Cantlebary
Park City High School Debate
None
Matt Ceniceros
Grand County High School
Last changed on
Fri December 15, 2017 at 6:48 AM MDT
I know about a lot of different things, try not to make stuff up to win (unless you're supposed to), I'll know.
I enjoy a spirited debate or event, where the speakers are passionate (but not overbearing) and CLEAR. Get your point across, stand your ground, but don't lose it when you're called out.
If congress (or any event), please take a moment to state your name before your start, clearly- every time. If you don't there is a good chance I might not find you before the next speaker, and not be able to give you proper points/ feedback.
Please don't be gross or overly grotesque.
Have fun!!!!!
Thanks
Matt
Lisa Cleaveland
Richfield High School
None
Bryce DeMoux
Cyprus High School
None
Rebecca Devenport
Salem Hills HS
Last changed on
Fri January 18, 2019 at 5:27 AM MDT
I’m a very willing lay judge. I want to give the most impartial verdict possible. Please help me out by doing the following:
Please, no observers. Having them around distracts me from the work needed to give you an impartial verdict.
Please don’t be frustrated if I don’t give you comments. Keeping up with your intellect in order to declare a fair verdict quickly enough to keep the tournament running on time is challenging. I will *work very hard* to give helpful comments, but make no promises.
Please be aware that your speed may be detrimental to your desired outcome. You may present a brilliant contention, but if I can’t understand it, it won’t help you win. Remember, NSDA says, “The objective is to convince the judge that [your] side of the resolution is preferable.” If I can’t understand you, I’ll not likely find your side to be preferable. Please slow down when identifying tags. Like another judge said, “Clarity is far more important than speed. I personally prefer a slow, deliberate, thoughtful speech over a speech that is simply trying to wedge as much as possible into a short window of time.”
Please give me off time road maps. Other judges may not like them, but I find them very helpful. Also, punctuating your speeches with hand gestures indicating numbers is welcome and helpful.
Please keep emotion in check. This is a contest of rationality, not of passion, speed or volume.
Please be respectful. Be kind and civil. If you are condescending or disrespectful in any way, expect penalization.
Please know that I am rooting for you. I love that you are debating! Deep respect for your work and risk taking!
Don Dorton
Timpview HS
None
Ashley Downs
Maple Mountain HS
None
Danny Duvall
Lehi High
None
Sarah Duvall
Lehi High
None
Kraig Farrar
Timpview HS
None
Kasey Freeman
Emery High
None
Brooke Garza
Kearns High School
None
Monica Gustafson
Park City High School Debate
None
Garret Haeck
Carbon High School
None
Mckade Hansen
Emery High
None
Morgan Hess
Manti Templars
None
Sariah Hillam
Timpview HS
None
Limb Jessica
Maple Mountain HS
None
Kristin Johnson
Grand County High School
None
Justus Jorgensen
Manti Templars
None
JOhn Kitches
Kearns High School
None
Ren Manzanares
Carbon High School
None
Elena Martinova
Park City High School Debate
Last changed on
Wed November 30, 2016 at 4:45 AM MDT
I expect to see value debate. If you speak fast you run the risk of me not understanding your point. Do your best to present coherent and appropriate arguments to attack your opponent's case. I value well layed out, clear arguments.
Martin Martinova
Park City High School Debate
None
Sahara O'Rafferty
Carbon High School
Last changed on
Fri March 10, 2017 at 1:44 PM MDT
If I can't understand you I can't judge. Making eye contact with the judge. If your points are not clear and understandable I can't judge.
Oscar Peterson
Cyprus High School
None
Erika Phyillaier
Beaver High School
None
Amy Pierce
Emery High
None
Parker Pingel
Beaver High School
None
Kaleb Richardson
Salem Hills HS
None
Joseph Robinson
Salem Hills HS
None
Last changed on
Wed October 5, 2016 at 2:13 PM MDT
I am an Assistant coach for Alta High School. My Mother is a debate teacher so I grew up with it in my life always and so understand it very well and love it a lot.
First, debaters should know that I debated in high school and understand rules and purposes for each debate and use these for my main source of determining the outcome of a debate. If you are debating LD then I look for a case that sways me morally, for Policy I look for cases that focuses on creating solutions through concrete plans etc. I am also a 'news junky' and try to stay up to date on many current events, with this I am familiar with most topics brought up in debate. That being said I remain very impartial coming into a debate round and look for you to sway me to your case.
Specifics in judging:
Speaker points: To obtain high speaker points its not just about speaking clearly and persuasively. I am all about confidence both in yourself and your case. I stand by the traditional style of debate where you are standing when presenting. A lot is said in body language when speaking and I like to analyze this in the debate as a way to see how confident you are in what you are presenting to me. Tips to help you with this is to know not only your case but the topic inside-out. This allows you to focus on presentation instead of reading. Do not run anything that you do not understand.
Cross-X: I will also draw a lot of speaker points from the cross examination. I judge Respect and Professionality throughout the entire round but this is the perfect ground to really see the depth of that when there is debater interaction. Make sure that questions are pertinent to either building your own case or clarification. Those who dont use all of the Cross-X time I have a problem with that.
K's: I find Kritiks fasinating as long as you keep it topical and like I said above know how to run it. Explain yourself well I am not a philosophy major but it you slow down and make it make sense I'll keep up with you.
Theory: I am a very traditional judge and want you to debate the topic. If you keep a theory topical and explain yourself go for it! If you come to a round to debate about debate not the topic it will hurt your score.
Speed: I can handle some speed but it has to be clear enough to where I can understand you. I will call out clear or slow down once maybe twice if I still can't understand you i put my pen down and stop judging. Just remember I can't judge on what I can't understand.
Final Speech: In your final speech I want specific voters on the main arguments. Debaters who can take an entire round and sum it up into a few surviving points on why their case stand out have my favor. Put the weight to it. I as a judge will not with the issue for you and having to do so will nock on your score.
Pet Peeves: Extensions. Do not extend your case if you have not sufficiently rebutted your opponent's arguments against your case I don't want to hear the word extend at all. Blatant rudeness will knock speaker point's like none other for me. This is supposed to be friendly and fun stuff. Topicality if your opponent doesn't call you out on it, I will in your judging sheet. Debate the topic at hand not tangents.
Other FAQs: i don't care if you use computer or paper just make sure your opponent has access to your case. You can use your phone to time or whatever I will just make sure an internet is disconnected.
All in all be confident, be clear, and have fun!
Last changed on
Tue January 9, 2024 at 6:46 AM MDT
I am a coach of over 15 years for policy, pf, ld and all speech events at North Sanpete HS, Mission San Jose, Alta and Summit Academy, at Westlake High School and currently an Assistant Coach for Salem Hills High School.
In HS I competed in Speech events, LD and coached policy teams (there was no pf then).
I am the Chair for the NSDA Sundance District and former president for the UDCA. I have judged IE and debate events at the Nationals Level and have served on the pf wording committee. In other words, I know what I'm doing and know speech and debate very well!
I believe that you should give a well organized logical argument in any debate or speech. Topicality is imperative to a debate, and supporting and explaining your position on that topic is vital to a clear argument construct. If you don't say it, I didn't hear it. Don't assume I will know what your evidence means the same as you...
Policy debate should be relevant, and well understood by the competitors otherwise it will not be understood by the judges. I do not mind speed, but if it is so fast that I can no longer understand your words, then I can no longer understand your argument to judge it. K's and theory are fine as long as they go toward the overall value of the debate and topic. They should in no way demonize or devalue any individual or group of people asa part of the K. Analysis and connection of evidence/cards to the plan and solvency is imperative in making a good argument and being a good debater. Cards do not a case make, the debater does. Know your cards, know your plan, and know how they work to support and solve the inherency of the issues involved.
Public Forum should be a thoughtful discussion and not overly repeat questions and answers. Don't just read evidence and think it will make your argument for you. PF IS NOT just policy light....it is its own event with no plans and merits. Treat it well. Weighing and analysis of the topic, evidence, and oppositions arguments are imperative.
Lincoln Douglas should have a clear value and criterion from which to work from, and stay focused on topic and argument. Don't just read evidence and think it will make your argument for you. CARDS and EVIDENCE DO NOT A CASE MAKE...the debater does. Analysis, rebuttal, and connections to the value criterion are paramount in an LD round Plans are ok, as long as they are relevant, on topic, and are shown how they connect to the value criterion like any other argument in the case.
IEs should be unique, appropriate, and follow all structures outlined in their respective events. I look for organization, relevance, creativity and thoughtfulness as well as the presentation being engaging, and suitable for piece and audience. Remember when trying to engage an audience, one should want to help them understand, be brought into the conversation, and allowed to learn another perspective while still maintaining their own in the end. Try not to preach, demean, or ostracize your judge in your piece or presentation---even when controversial topic---they can be great, if done right.
Brianna Scoville
Carbon High School
None
Mark Smith
Skyridge Debate
None
Carrie Strecker
Grand County High School
Last changed on
Wed February 7, 2024 at 4:16 AM MDT
I was a head coach for 11 years (6 in OR; 5 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 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. And don't lose enunciation.
LD:
I have judged LD at Nationals and have coached National competitors. I prefer traditional, but can roll with progressive.
I will judge on true clash, the least dropped arguments, and strong voters. I like civil sass and speaking styles that engage and entertain as long as it's not at the expense of argumentation and substance. I try to be tabula rasa. Don't just tell me you uphold your value criterion or that your opponent does not; explain why (links).
I prefer to not have card battles. If I want to see a card, I'll ask for it at the end. Don't waste too much of your time on it. Yes, specific and credible evidence is needed but I look more holistically at the logic.
PF:
I like true clash, but don't want a debate that turns into hyper-focus on a definition or card battle. Note the disagreement, concisely state why your side is better then move on.
My vote goes to whoever has the most sound logic holistically, with strong voters and impacts. 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.
Congress:
I have judged Congress at Nationals and have coached National competitors. Do not deliver a pre-written Oratory (unless you are giving the author/sponsorship speech). Synthesize previous points made and refer to them. If you are not bringing anything new to the discourse, do not try to get a speech just for the sake of giving a speech. Vote to PQ and move on. I like an engaging speaker who can balance pathos, ethos, and logos. Volunteering for chair and presiding adequately or better will go far for my ballot.
Policy:
I am least experienced in this event but enjoy it. I will stick to traditional stock issues and true clash. Can roll with speed as long as you keep enunciation.
Jaden Sykes
Cyprus High School
None
Valentino Valencia
Westlake Debate Team
None
Jared Vesely
Beaver High School
None
Sam Winkel
Manti Templars
None
Anita Wolfe
Park City High School Debate
None
Tiffany Zurawski
Kearns High School
None
Kathryn Zwack
Park City High School Debate
Last changed on
Sat December 4, 2021 at 12:30 AM MDT
I am a parent judge and have been judging for about 6 years - primarily IE, PF, LD, and Congress. I am a marketing professional with a large software company, but also have experience in public policy research (I have a master in public administration). I love data -- so feel free to provide a lot of evidence to back up your contentions. Just be sure that it is relevant and logical. I take "tech" over "true" and expect opponents to question data/evidence and point out falsehoods.
Please do not spread -- you will lose the debate because I will not be able to follow you. Speak up, use eye contact. When doing debate virtually, please don't stand too far away from your laptop and check in once in awhile to be sure that the connection is still sound.
Please provide me with sign-posts -- where you are on the flow and when you move to the opposition's case. Be sure to let me know your voters and what to weigh. Let me know the impacts of your contentions/arguments and why they matter.
For speaker points, focus on showing me your strategy, thought process, impacts, sign-posts. Extend your arguments and explain well. Don't just repeat yourself, but further your argument and explain why your side will have the best outcome (impact).
Some other points:
- Don't use gratuitous profanity. There are so many words in the English language that you don't need to swear.
- No K-debates. Please debate the given topic. You won't win if you veer away from the topic
- Be kind. Be passionate about your argument, but don't get mean or condescending
- Be sure of your facts. If you bring something about current events into the argument, be sure that you are clear about the facts. I read the paper too, although I will not bring my own knowledge of the events into my judging until your opponents bring up the falsehood. It just reflects badly.
- Don't be too catastrophic in your impact, unless you really can show that, in all probability, the end of the world is at hand
Kathryn Zwack
Park City High School Debate
Last changed on
Sat December 4, 2021 at 12:30 AM MDT
I am a parent judge and have been judging for about 6 years - primarily IE, PF, LD, and Congress. I am a marketing professional with a large software company, but also have experience in public policy research (I have a master in public administration). I love data -- so feel free to provide a lot of evidence to back up your contentions. Just be sure that it is relevant and logical. I take "tech" over "true" and expect opponents to question data/evidence and point out falsehoods.
Please do not spread -- you will lose the debate because I will not be able to follow you. Speak up, use eye contact. When doing debate virtually, please don't stand too far away from your laptop and check in once in awhile to be sure that the connection is still sound.
Please provide me with sign-posts -- where you are on the flow and when you move to the opposition's case. Be sure to let me know your voters and what to weigh. Let me know the impacts of your contentions/arguments and why they matter.
For speaker points, focus on showing me your strategy, thought process, impacts, sign-posts. Extend your arguments and explain well. Don't just repeat yourself, but further your argument and explain why your side will have the best outcome (impact).
Some other points:
- Don't use gratuitous profanity. There are so many words in the English language that you don't need to swear.
- No K-debates. Please debate the given topic. You won't win if you veer away from the topic
- Be kind. Be passionate about your argument, but don't get mean or condescending
- Be sure of your facts. If you bring something about current events into the argument, be sure that you are clear about the facts. I read the paper too, although I will not bring my own knowledge of the events into my judging until your opponents bring up the falsehood. It just reflects badly.
- Don't be too catastrophic in your impact, unless you really can show that, in all probability, the end of the world is at hand