CarterKing Quest for the Dream
2016
—
Atlanta,
GA/US
Public Forum Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Madeeha Ahmad
North Cobb HS
None
Jenniese Ali
Henry W. Grady
None
Sophia Ali
Henry W. Grady
None
Randy Baily
Henry W. Grady
None
Andrew Barclay
Henry W. Grady
None
Matt Bartula
Sequoyah High School
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 10:37 AM EDT
I strongly believe in narrowing the debate in the summary speeches. I really want you to determine where you are winning the debate and explain that firmly to me. In short: I want you to go for something. I really like big impacts, but its's important to me that you flush out your impacts with strong internal links. Don't just tell me A leads to C without giving me the process of how you got there. Also don't assume i know every minute detail in your case. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear. Give me voters (in summary and final focus).
Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I work very hard to flow the debate in as much detail as possible. However, if I can't understand you I can't flow you.
Peter Belle
Henry W. Grady
None
ben bizot
Henry W. Grady
None
Rick Bizot
Henry W. Grady
None
Charlie Bliss
Henry W. Grady
None
Charlie Bliss
Henry W. Grady
None
Denise Bomberger
Henry W. Grady
None
Andy Bradbury
Henry W. Grady
None
Susi Campbell
Sequoyah High School
Last changed on
Fri February 16, 2024 at 9:58 AM EDT
UPDATE: 2/14/2020, re: Harvard tournament - This will be my second tournament judging Congress; I judged previously at last month's Barkley Forum at Emory. In other years, here at Harvard, I've judged both PF and LD.
I have judged both PF and LD, on local circuits and at the Harvard National tournament, for the past three seasons and judged BQ @ the 2018 NSDA Nationals. I'm a former high school (Science) teacher, and love being involved with high schoolers again through Debate.
A few things:
-Although I've been judging for quite awhile now, I began as a parent judge, with no background in debate. After 3 years of judging and parenting a varsity LD debater, my technical knowledge has expanded tremendously, but still has limits. Know that I will judge you technically to the best of my ability. But ultimately, as judges, we are to award the round to the most convincing debater(s). You might have a technically perfect case, but that doesn't necessarily mean that you'll ultimately actually CONVINCE me.
- I'm not a fan of progressive debate strategies. IMO, spreading is a gimmick, and devalues the essence of debate. If I can't follow what you're saying, you're not communicating with me. And if you aren't communicating, what's the point? So, while a little speed is fine, if you see me stop flowing, you know you've lost me. Similarly I'm not a big fan of counterplans/Ks etc. either. BUT I'm always open to hearing them; sometimes they're awesome! (Just don't pull that if you're a 1st year novice debater going against another newbie. It's no fun to see a 14-yo kid get obliterated in only their second round ever because your varsity teammates shared their cases with you for the purpose of doing just that to your opponent. I've seen it - more than once - and it's really painful to watch and demoralizing for your opponent.)
- I WILL be flowing throughout the debate, so please organize/structure to make that easier for me - i.e. a clearly defined framework and contentions (signposts!), off-time road maps, voters etc.
- I like when opponents challenge evidence during CX, so that we ALL know the info is being accurately and honestly presented. Have your 'cards' ready!
- Typically I won't disclose at the end of the round, but will enter RFDs and speaker notes in Tabroom where I can better organize my thoughts.
- Demonstrating respectful behavior is huge for me. Sighing/eye-rolling behaviors are rude and disrespectful to your opponent. Be very cognizant about coming across as verbally abusive or condescending. Simply having the courage to come into the room and participate in the challenge of debate makes you worthy of MY respect, and your opponent's. I WILL deduct 'speaks' if this is a problem, or if really egregious, I will drop you.
- I'm very relaxed as a judge. I want you to be comfortable in the room with me, and am really proud to have gotten a lot of positive feedback from debaters about that. Introduce yourself. Feel free to joke/laugh. Smiles are great. Remember to have fun and ENJOY the experience!
Jason Carter
Henry W. Grady
Last changed on
Sat October 5, 2024 at 11:50 AM EDT
I have a policy debate background, but I have judged a number of different events. I am comfortable with any arguments or line of reasoning. Of course I expect people to be respectful.
Robb Coltrin
Henry W. Grady
None
Darius Copper
Starrs Mill High School
None
Mary Beth Cutshall
Henry W. Grady
None
Bailey Damiani
Henry W. Grady
None
Ben Damiani
Henry W. Grady
None
Brandi DeLancey
Henry W. Grady
None
Mark Dillard
Henry W. Grady
None
Mark Dillard
Henry W. Grady
None
Frazier Dworet
Henry W. Grady
None
sharon eddy
Houston County HS
None
Kim Eger
Henry W. Grady
None
Mike Esterl
Henry W. Grady
None
Kathy Evans
Henry W. Grady
None
Andrei Fedorov
Henry W. Grady
Last changed on
Sat October 28, 2023 at 5:56 AM EDT
I judge based on the following priorities arranged in the order of their importance in winning the debate:
- Clearly defined contentions with no ambiguities in their stated meaning
- Crisp and well documented factual evidence with sources and data supporting each contentions
- Presenting the contentions in the order of their significance/importance (start with most important)
- Spreading is fine as long as you enunciate clearly and make a pause ( brief but distinct) as you move between presenting the contentions or distinct arguments
- Unambiguous mapping of presented contentions to the value criteria
Carrie Fleming
Henry W. Grady
None
John Fleming
Henry W. Grady
None
Abbas Gebba
Henry W. Grady
None
John Gollner
Sequoyah High School
Last changed on
Wed November 9, 2016 at 5:34 AM EDT
My name is John Gollner, and I normally judge varsity PF, although I have judged LD, some speech events, and Policy in the past (some of it a long time ago). I had debate experience as a student at Woodward Academy in the 60's, and the University of Georgia in the 70's, and have judged on and off when attending tournaments over the last 7 years or so while my sons have been High School policy debaters at Sequoyah HS in Canton, GA. My philosophy is simply to try and judge using the published guidelines from the National Speech and Debate Association, and when it comes to PF I expect debaters to present their arguments as if they were presenting to the public. I try to track the flows in writing as much as possible to make sure I'm not misled as to the performance of both teams. I judge evidence on both how well it's tied in, and how relevant it is. By way of explanation, a citation of a non-tenured professor of history at a small school when evaluating the legality of something in the topic will not carry the same weight in my decision as a US Supreme Court decision on the same topic. I will answer any questions as openly as I can, but rarely disclose immediately because I review my notes thoroughly before making a final decision.
Halle Griffe
Henry W. Grady
None
Mercedes Guzman
Henry W. Grady
None
Keegan Hasson
Henry W. Grady
None
Last changed on
Sat January 18, 2020 at 3:33 AM EDT
History: I did PF debate during highschool, debated in the GA circuit and went to many National Circuit tournaments. I have been judging PF for a while now. I have been off the circuit for a little while though, and may not be knowledgeable about recent developments within the last year in regards to PF.
How I evaluate the round: I expect you to extend your arguments throughout the whole round. This means offense from the rebuttal needs to be extended through the Summary and Final Focus for it to be weighed in the round. I also do not like it when teams bring up something from rebuttal in the final focus without extending it through summary (called extending through ink), doing this will likely result in the argument being dropped off my flow.
Argumentation: I expect all arguments to be properly warranted and impacted with supportive evidence to go with it. However, don't just speak off cards.
If you want the argument to be important, then make sure I know that it is important.
Michael Hawkins
Henry W. Grady
None
Lyndsey Hinckley
Columbus High School
Last changed on
Sat January 6, 2024 at 3:46 PM EDT
Experience/Background: I coached at Columbus HS from 2013-2021, primarily Public Forum, and now coach at Carrollton HS (2021-present). I did not debate in high school or college, but I have been coaching and judging PF, a little LD, and IEs since 2013, both locally (Georgia) and on the national circuit, including TOC and NSDA Nationals. I spent several years (2017-2022) as a senior staff member with Summit Debate and previously led labs at Emory (2016-2019).
Judging Preferences:
If you have specific questions about me as a judge that are not answered below (or need clarification), please feel free to ask them. Some general guidelines and answers to frequently asked questions are below:
1. Speed: I can flow a reasonably fast speed when I'm at the top of my game, but I am human. If it's late in the day/tournament, I am likely tired, and my capacity for speed drops accordingly. I will not be offended if you ask me about this before the round. For online rounds, I prefer that you speak at a more moderate speed. I will tell you "clear" if I need you to slow down. If I am flowing on paper, you should err on the slower side of speed than if I am flowing on my laptop.
2. Signposting and Roadmaps: Signposting is good. Please do it. It makes my job easier. Off-time roadmaps aren't really needed if you're just going "their case, our case", but do give a roadmap if there's a more complex structure to your speech.
3. Consistency of Arguments/Making Decisions: Anything you expect me to vote on should be in summary and final focus. Defense is not "sticky" -- meaning you cannot extend it from rebuttal to final focus. Please weigh. I love voters in summary, but I am fine if you do a line-by-line summary.
4. Prep (in-round and pre-round): Please pre-flow before you enter the round. Monitor your own prep time. If you and your opponents want to time each other to keep yourselves honest, go for it. Do not steal prep time - if you have called for a card and your opponents are looking for it, you should not be writing/prepping unless you are also running your prep time. (If a tournament has specific rules that state otherwise, I will defer to tournament policy.) On that note, have your evidence ready. It should not take you longer than 20-30 seconds to pull up a piece of evidence when asked. If you delay the round by taking forever to find a card, your speaker points will probably reflect it.
5. Overviews in second rebuttal: In general, I think a short observation or weighing mechanism is probably more okay than a full-fledged contention that you're trying to sneak in as an "overview". Tread lightly.
6. Frontlines: Second speaking team should answer turns and frontline in rebuttal. I don't need a 2-2 split, but I do think you need to address the speech that preceded yours.
7. Theory, Kritiks, and Progressive Arguments: I prefer not judging theory debates. Strongly prefer not judging theory debates. If you are checking back against a truly abusive practice, I will listen to and evaluate the argument. If you are using theory/Ks/etc. in a way intended to overwhelm/intimidate an opponent who has no idea what's going on, I am not going to respond well to that.
8. Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire. If it comes up in cross and you expect it to serve a role in my decision-making process, I expect you to bring it up in a later speech.
9. Speaker points: I basically never give 30s, so you should not expect them from me. My range is usually from 28-29.7.
Marnie Jackman
Henry W. Grady
None
Praise Jackson
Henry W. Grady
None
Kerry Jones
Sequoyah High School
Last changed on
Fri November 18, 2016 at 11:55 AM EDT
Name: Kerry Jones, Director of IT Service Continuity Management, Georgia Technology Authority
Affifiation: Parent/Sequoyah High School
Judging History: Witnessed at least 20 Varsity and Novist PF Debates in 2015 prior to being trained to judge in the Harvard Tournament in 2016. Judged several debates during 2016
Preferences in order of importance:
- Develop a solid and clear framework
- Provide logical and well explained contentions
- Communicate in a clear and confident volume and tone
- Provide reasonable, varifiable facts to support contentions
- Know the material well enough to defend case during xfire rounds.
Joy Kenyon
The Lovett School
Last changed on
Sat January 27, 2018 at 6:53 AM EDT
The execution of the argument is almost as important as the quality of the argument. A sound argument with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended does little to compel. I like well-developed arguments that I can understand. I prefer debates that are intelligent, articulate, and persuasive rather than a speed-talking jumble of statistical evidence.I have to be able to comprehend and flow the internal logic of your arguments. If you are clear, enunciate well, with good diction and voice inflection it helps me understand the key parts of what you are saying.
Evidence is extremely important, but debate is more than just tag and card. I expect debaters to spend time talking about the implications of evidence and making analytical comparisons between arguments. Description of arguments through analogy, examples, testimony, or hypothetical situations is a much more persuasive style of debate than just presenting a flurry of statistics.
Debaters who take the time to create good cross-examinations are appreciated. A goal of the cross-examination is to reveal the fallacies of your opponents' arguments and how their claims appear to run counter to probable impacts or how their silence or ambiguities are cause to vote against their conditional claims. A good cross-examination will go a significant way to winning a debate and scoring high points. Take time to consider what it is you are going to ask and how to develop your line of questioning.
I wish to hear clear and impactful speeches. You must spend time accentuating the evidence as you read it and after you read it. Contentions should be more than a number and a few words. You must articulate the warrant extended to the claims you are offering up for consideration.
Everyone in the debate should be courteous through-out the debate, and it is preferable that you keep your own accurate time. Winning arguments are good arguments, not necessarily plentiful ones.
Have fun and show how your arguments matter and why you should win!
This is also my paradigm for LD - Please NO SPREADING for LD.
Krehbiel Krehbiel
Henry W. Grady
None
Susie Lazega
Henry W. Grady
None
Liz Lieberman
Henry W. Grady
None
Kerri Markovic
Henry W. Grady
None
Noelle Marozeau
Henry W. Grady
None
Omer Mehovic
Starrs Mill High School
Last changed on
Wed March 1, 2017 at 11:43 AM EDT
College student judge. Recently graduated from SMHS.
Susan Miller
Henry W. Grady
None
Brian Mobley
Henry W. Grady
None
Schuyler Morales
St Pius X Catholic High School
None
Martina Morley
Henry W. Grady
None
William Myers
Bethlehem Christian Academy
None
Andronica Nkosi
Henry W. Grady
None
Daisy Pareja
Henry W. Grady
None
Meg Pearlstein
Henry W. Grady
None
Rich Pearlstein
Henry W. Grady
None
Chloe Prendergast
Henry W. Grady
None
Melissa Pressman
Henry W. Grady
None
Susan Pulse
Sequoyah High School
None
Max Rafferty
Henry W. Grady
Last changed on
Sat November 23, 2019 at 9:35 AM EDT
I'm a student at Georgia Tech who debated at Grady. I did mostly PF with a bit of congress and poetry.
CX is for drilling down into points you disagree, not asking a surface questions and saying "I'll ask for cards later"
If you want to use Jargon, Framework, and Road maps make sure that you are doing it for a reason, not just because it is perceived as necessary!
Bonus points if you run a dumb case really well.
Shawn Rafferty
Henry W. Grady
None
Gabriel Ramirez
Houston County HS
Last changed on
Tue February 25, 2014 at 7:51 AM EDT
ffiliation: Houston County High School, Mercer University
"I'm not a cop" was what one of my favorite coaches told me when I asked him how he evaluated round. I'd like to think that I can function under the same paradigm. Usually if I'm judging you or someone you know, I would like to think that I'm not here to save any fictional lives, rather I would like to think that for the two hours we have together maybe we can have a discussion that a accomplishes a little more than the heg/ptx debate that you've probably had for like the last four years. That being said, if you are a fan of that then you do you, I'll try my best to evaluate the arguments but you should probably know that I'll be very lenient on the K and my threshold for policy framework may not be where you want it.
If you didn't know I am currently a project debater and I would like to think that I care for this activity and hope to see it grow. That being said, I think that I've been told for so long that my job in the back of the room was simply to evaluate arguments but I think as debaters we can evolve past that simple game and maybe do something productive with the time we have together? I know quite a few people that have gotten scholarships from their work in debate, and that's great for them but I'd like to think that if anyone were dedicating this much time to an activity then maybe we can make it count.
But in general do what you want to do for the next two hours or so, but I think it would just be fair to warn you that my ability to evaluate the case v. ptx debate isn't that great because my ballots in those rounds just feel really ironic.
Also, I reserve the right to vote you down on racist, sexist, and/or homophobic language. Elijah Smith does the same thing, and I think having that rule is probably good for the activity.
William Reilly
Henry W. Grady
None
Gerry Rivard
Henry W. Grady
None
Mike Robinson
Henry W. Grady
Last changed on
Sat February 10, 2024 at 7:22 AM EDT
I'm a former competitor in Extemp and Public Forum. I've been coaching for around ten years. I teach world history in Atlanta. I haven't judged much policy debate but I've judged and coached plenty of speech, LD, Public Forum and World Schools.
Things I like: arguments with warrants, citations, consistent logic, argument extensions, relevant questions, speaking skills (good flow, clear, etc...), theory, speech roadmaps, evidence, etc...
Things I do not like: rudeness and arguments without citations and/or warrants.
Analytic arguments are fine for any of the debate events.
Worlds Schools - Do not spread.
Policy - Kritiks, disadvantages and topicality are all fine. I like line-by-line and clear organization in your speeches. For me, an ideal debate would be polite, insightful, and have some relevance to our current historical moment. It would represent the zeitgeist so to say.
If you have any questions at all, please feel free to ask.
mrobinson43@gmail.com
Elizabeth Rogan
Henry W. Grady
None
Robin Rosenfield
Henry W. Grady
None
JanMarie Schell
Paulding County High School
None
Wendy Skibinski
McIntosh HS
None
Jason Slaven
Henry W. Grady
None
Bill Taft
Henry W. Grady
None
Andrew Toole
Henry W. Grady
None
Randy Vincent
Starrs Mill High School
None
Katie Walker
Warner Robins HS
None
Dan Wang
Westminster School - Augusta
None
Charles Washington
Henry W. Grady
None
Fredrik Westin
Henry W. Grady
None
Leigh Wilco
Henry W. Grady
None
Marilyn Witbeck
Henry W. Grady
None
Chris York
Henry W. Grady
None
Last changed on
Fri November 9, 2018 at 7:13 AM EDT
I like voters, so you like voters too. Make sure to have voters, cause I vote on voters which is why they're called voters.
On another note, I come from a background of 4 years of PF debate. I'm fine with speed, in fact speed is great.
Make sure to extend arguments in Summary -> Final Focus if you want it to be a voter. A good line-by-line makes me happy, and makes my ballot much easier to write. And don't forget: I like voters.