Shaylee Tulane Paradigm

Last changed 2/25 8:31P MST

since Updated: 2/25/2020
Background: As you may have guessed, my name is Shaylee Lawrence (Formally known as Shaylee Tulane). I graduated from Viewmont High in UT in 2012. I competed in LD for four years, and I competed for the University of Utah for four years. I have coached off and on since 2017. I have taken a break since March of 2019. I graduated from the U in May 2017.

General Overview: I am honestly down to listen to any argument as long as it is accessible to your opponent. I try to judge solely off of the flow. If the flow doesn't tell me who won, then I will first turn to the framework debate for LD. For policy, I will usually default to a risk type paradigm. Meaning what the risk of either the advantages and or disadvantages is. From there, I typically default to impact calculus. I am good with theory, critics, CP's, advantage counter-plans, etc. Run what you want. That being said, don't try and kitchen sink someone just for kicks and giggles. Be accessible and reasonable.

Important things:
I WILL drop you if you make any racist, sexist, ablest, transphobic, xenophobic, homophobic, etc. remarks or create a hostile environment (this includes targeting comments towards the other team or me)in the round.

I WILL CONSIDER dropping any new arguments in the rebuttals.

Slow down between tag lines, interps, plan texts, alt texts, etc. If you can have a written copy of any plan or counterplan text, that would be preferable. But I know that may not always happen. It won't hurt you if you don't do it.

Speed: I am ok with most speeds. I have been out of the debate for the past year. Also, I have developed severe carpal tunnel. So that being said, while I can understand most speeds, it is sometimes hard for me to flow as fast as I use to.

Theory: I like ethical theory debates. Please don't throw just any theory at me and expect a win. For me, you need to do a couple of things:

  • I do not vote on the potential for abuse by default. If you are going for theory, you need to prove the violation of your interpretation. If you want to run potential abuse, then please articulate why I prefer it.
  • Theory, for me, usually comes down to competing interpretations. But reasonability arguments are fine, but I need some articulation on what I should prefer.
  • Voters are a must! Please give me an a priori voter at the very least. I default to competing interpretations when evaluating the interpretation. So if you want me to vote for or against theory for a particular reason, then please say so.
  • Also, please have some different standards. Education/fairness for me are more of impacts to standards.
  • If you drop the T [if an A priori argument is made (which please do)], I will look there first in my decision.

CP's, Perms, Plans, and DAs: If you have them, then go for it.

  • Politics DAs NEED to provide a clear link that is unique and intrinsic to the plan text or the resolution. I think it makes the link scenario cleaner. I find it harder to vote on politics if I do not have a clear link to the plan text.
  • Perms. Slow down for the perm text. Clear net bens. Also, some argumentation on how the perm functions.

K's: I love them. Some things I like:

  • I believe all critics need a robust framework.
  • If you run a reject alt, please tell me why this is unique and how it solves. I don't really like reject alts. I feel like they are kindof of a cop-out. But I mean, if you have the evidence to back it up, then go for it.
  • As I said, I am down for any literature you want to run. But make sure the Links, impacts, and the Alt are clear.
  • Case-specific links are preferable.

Philosophy: I love philosophy. That is what I focused on most of my high school career. You should be linking how/why this ideology affects how we should perceive the resolution. I love some good philosophy/value rounds.

What to do to earn low speaks:

  • Being rude
  • Any ism. As I said, I WILL drop you if you make any racist, sexist, ablest, transphobic, xenophobic, homophobic, etc. remarks or create a hostile environment in the round. And by dropping, I mean both dropping you in the round, and I will not give you above a 15 in speaks.
  • Spreading to spread. What I mean is I can understand to put out 2-4 sheets of paper. But when you are presenting 7-12 ( I have seen it done before) pieces of paper, you are not debating.
  • No signposting. I have seen this way too much. If you don't signpost, then I can't flow, which means I get to play the guessing game, and you might not like where I put your arguments.

As I stated above, I was a traditional debater in high school. So when it comes to judging LD, I turn to the Value and Criterions first. Somethings to be aware of:

  • I don't find the standard values like life, morality, etc. very interesting. I have voted on those values in the past, however. Please provide me a good articulation on why they matter other than "because you would be dead."
  • Please have a criterion. I get annoyed when the neg says, "Yay, I accept their value and criterion." That kind of defeats the purpose of LD in my mind. However, I find it necessary to clarify that you can still argue that you uphold your opponents value better. I want to see some clash on the value criterion debate.
  • Also, please impact the value and criterion. I think this is something that people ignore; if your value/criterion doesn't affect society at large, then why are we even talking about it.

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Marie Clegg Jones Memorial 1/25/2019 PFD Octofi Timpvi Teasdale & Lakes StaSta Reiter & Saunders Neg Neg on a 2-1
Marie Clegg Jones Memorial 1/25/2019 PFD R5 Juab Parkin & Parkin RowHal Truong & Houden Neg
Marie Clegg Jones Memorial 1/25/2019 PFD R5 Juab Hennrich & Steele Skyrid McConnell & Tea Aff
Utah Speech Arts 11/9/2018 VLD R2 SLC West JZ Northridge KD Aff
2018 UHSAA 5A State Tournament 3/9/2018 CX R6 105 101 Neg Neg on a 3-0
2018 UHSAA 5A State Tournament 3/9/2018 CX R5 100 111 Neg
2018 UHSAA 5A State Tournament 3/9/2018 CX R4 105 107 Aff
Claremont Wolfpack Invitational 1/6/2017 O Par Octo University HS, Irvine CK Redlands MP Neg Neg on a 2-1
Claremont Wolfpack Invitational 1/6/2017 O LD Doub Cypress VF San Marino AL Aff Aff on a 2-1