Assistant Debate Coach Skyline High School UT (2011-present)

Update: 11/14/18

[justinbaker006 gmail com]

I evaluate debate argumentation before evidence. Unless you specifically tell me to look at x,y,z evidence first, it's unlikely that I will hinge the debate on the evidence. I prefer voting off of the flow, but will look to substantiate evidence comparisons through the evidence.

I heavily favor debates that actively encourage clash. I find this notoriously lacking in small circuit policy v k debates. For the kritik, I like concise overviews and additional link analysis.

I prefer contextualized theory debates, over flow heavy theory debates. Resolution and round specific analysis carries more weight on my flow than the number of your turns to topic education.

I try to follow a speaker point system with median 28 and deviation .5. In this system a 29.5-30 reflects top 2% of speakers on the national circuit.

I am primarily a policymaker judge, with a stock issues influence. If you have no idea what this means, you need to ask your coach. Whether you know what it means or not, everyone needs to learn how to adapt to judges.

While I am an experienced policy debater, after my debate career, I experienced a traumatic brain injury. This makes some things harder, but in all reality, I think you should debate this way anyway. EXPLAIN your knowledge of every piece of evidence or analytic that you bring to the table. ARTICULATE/EMPHASIZE the taglines and analytics, because if I can't flow it, you don't get credit for it. What's more, part of my brain trauma was to the right hemisphere which impacts my understanding of most Kritiks, so it's safer not to run Ks in front of me, sorry! I thoroughly understand UTIL.

I'm mean with speaker points. I feel that 30 speaks should be triumphant, not expected. HUGE bonus points if you can make me laugh, if you make fun of someone, if you reference Psych, quote Brian Regan, and if you keep speech times short. You absolutely should not feel like you need to ever fill up all of the speech time, say what you need to say; if it takes all 8/5 minutes, great, if not, perfect, sit down. Ask questions. If you don't know if something is allowed, try it anyway.

P.S. Speechdrop.net is my favorite way of sharing evidence.

** Updated for the 2023-2024 Academic Year**

She/Her/Hers

Evidence: Apparently I need to put this on here now, but evidence standards will always be an a priori issue to evaluation for me. If there is a procedural argument that is brought up on the standards for evidence (example: distortion, not being able to access source for evidence, clipped evidence, or non-existent evidence). I will default to NSDA evidence standards unless there are other standards governing evidence evaluation. I will also only evaluate evidence that has been brought up on an ethics violation. Once an evidence ethics argument has been made, I will stop the round and vote immediately on that issue before anything else in the round proceeds. I see evidence as a core ethics argument that impacts the ability to go through anything else in the round and impacts my ability to trust any evidence that has been read by a team with evidence issue.

General Background: I’ve been in the world of policy debate for about 15 years, ranging from participation to coaching. Way back in the day, I debated at both Topeka High and Washburn Rural HS. I also debated in the regional circuit for University of Kansas for a few years and coached in Kansas, Alabama, and Mississippi. I have a deep love for the activity. I am currently working on a Ph.D. in Political Science and I study immigration surveillance as part of my research.

Topicality/Procedural Issues: I vote on these. While I default to competing interpretations, it's important that you are answering all levels of the argument-- including the impact level of the debate. If you are negative and hope to win the round on T, you need to make sure you have a complete argument out of the gate to vote on. I should see a definition, interp, link, and impact level to your argument and I should see the aff responding to these. Cross-apply this to any procedural argument as well (such as ASPEC, condo bad, etc.)

Disads- There needs to be a terminal impact (or at least solid analysis as to why that impact outweighs aff impacts in the round), a risk/okay probability of the disad happening (otherwise, why does your UQ matter?), and a plausible link to the aff. Generic DAs are fine, but there needs to be a plausible link, even if just at an analytical level.

Counterplans-- I tend to be alright with CPs and lean negative. I think most are generally smart. However, that being said, the CP needs to be both rhetorically and functionally competitive. I think Affs can/should be held accountable for clarifications made on positions and that those links apply across both CP and DA grounds.

Kritiks-- I'm fine with these, however, keep in mind that I am studying political theory in a Ph.D. program, so if your whole knowledge of your K is from a long series of back files on the K or from reading a few paragraphs of Nietzsche, this might end badly for you. I tend to prefer Ks with wider reach (capitalism, feminism, racism, etc) and less so Ks of particular authors, mostly because they are generally done poorly. If you run a K, it is EXTREMELY important that you provide a clear narrative of a) the role of my ballot, b) the world of the alternative, and c) how I should prioritize impact calculus in the round.

General Notes:

- If you are going for more than 2 major things in your 2NR/2AR, there is a low chance you are going to win the round. Similarly, if you don't provide an impact calculus, you likely will not like the decision I make at the end of the round.

- Negative strategy-- there needs to be some sort of offense in the round. A defensive strategic approach has rarely won my ballot.

- Please don't be unpleasant during the round. I can almost guarantee that if you are, it's not aligned with the quality of your argumentation and it's just going to be a long round. For me this looks more like arrogance or intentional cruelness-- I'm fine with bluntness, anger, frustration, etc. If you are unsure what I mean by this, please ask.

- I pay attention to the rhetoric used in the round. Slurs and derogatory language will almost assuredly earn you lower speaker points.

- Both teams should start impact calc early, use this to frame your speeches and line by line, and use impact calc to prioritize voting issues and role of the ballot.

- I reward debaters who make an effort to deeply engage with the topic area and issues.

- Squirrel affs are rarely good affs. They generally have poor structure, poor solvency or advantage foundations, and generate poor debate. I would rather see a super mainstream topic that prompts a lot of clash in the round than an aff that is poorly written for an ambush factor.

- In more policy-centered debates, I may err more on the tech aspect of the debate. In other cases, I may give some leniency on tech if the arguments are "true" (understanding that truth can be a subjective value).

- I'm starting to realize through my working social justice that I'm more easily affected by detailed narratives of sexism, racism, ableism (esp. invisible disabilities), and sexual assault. Trigger warnings aren't very helpful for me as a judge (I don't have a choice to opt out of them and I don't think that I would want to) but know that I may ask for a minute to just breathe or get some water between speeches, so I can have a clear head for the next speaker if there is a particularly vivid or powerful speech. This is by no means a common thing that I do, but I did want to add this to affirm the value of self-care in this activity.

- Add me to the email chain: devon.cantwell@gmail.com

- I flow on my computer, so please make sure you take a beat at the top of flows before jumping in and please slow down to about 70% for analytical arguments, especially if they are fewer than 5 words. I have physical pain in my joints, especially at the end of long days of judging. This doesn't make my ability to assess your arguments any less, nor does it impact my competency. I will do my best to say "slow" if my joints can't keep up.

- If you think you might want my flow of the round, I'm happy to send it. Please try to give me a heads-up before the round starts, as I organize my flows a bit differently when they are being distributed. Also, send me an e-mail after the round to remind me to send it to you.

TL;DR: You do you. Have fun. Be a decent human in the round. Learn some things.

I've debated policy all throughout high school and have been judging for almost three years.

I'm open to any arguments as long as the team can articulate them properly. Please do not run a kritik unless you are familiar with the argument, and no generic links! Other than that, I have no bias to any style or argument of debate.

I am a traditional PFer. I did PF all four year in high school here in utah and in california. Morals will not play a key in my decision process as it is part of LD not PF. I can understand speed but i prefer that you do not spew as it is hard to understand on all sides. Key things that i look for in rounds is strength of case, how it was defended, and if your evidence lines up with the point you are making. At the end of the day your are the debater so convince me that your case should win and the opponents shouldnt. Also be polite in your cross ex and dont talk over your opponents.

I forgot to update this, so apologies in advance if it caused any issues.

I mostly did LD throughout high-school, and a bit of a mix between progressive and traditional. So, with that in mind, here's generally how my paradigm boils down.

I don't really care much about what you run between kritiks, DAs, etc, so don't be afraid to read those in front of me, but understand that I likely haven't read the literature you're reading, or may not understand hyper-specific jargon, so it is in your interest to guess that I don't know what you're talking about and give an understandable statement as to what it all means. I care more about how you tell me to vote than anything; make the round about what you want to discuss (hint: this makes it easier for judges to make a decision, which prevent situations where debaters get pissed at the judge. It's harder than it looks!)

In regards to speed: I can handle a decent amount, but the main problem is that clarity is often disregarded by debaters. If it's really bad I'll call clear a couple times, so please just make it good from the beginning. Also, keep in mind that since I graduated I've barely even thought about debate (because I'm finally free!) so it is probably in your best interest to not go at your max speed. I'd like to be included in email chains so I can follow along, but don't take me reading your case as an excuse to sacrifice clarity: whitmanhoward@gmail.com

Furthermore, I'm not versed basically at all in the over-the-top technical stuff. I don't even know exactly what examples to give as I never even had a round with stuff like that, so unless you can succinctly explain what it means in your speech, you should probably avoid it.

Aside from all that, here are just a few preferences:

1. Be relatively nice. There's a difference between assertion and aggression, and the former is always better.

2. You can sit or stand, I don't really mind, but know that standing is better for airflow, forces your blood to stay pumping (which is good for your brain, quite basically), and makes it easier for me to hear you.

3. PLEASE give clear signposting and tags. Simply saying the order at the start isn't enough if you never again indicate where you are on the flow, and speeding through tags will get me lost quite quickly. In addition to slowing down, change the tone of your voice a little when switching between flows, reading tags, or emphasizing certain points.

4. Try your best to have fun. I know this is a typical statement from younger judges, but it's really painful to see other debaters get too stressed out, as I've been in many of those situations. Realize that debate isn't everything: it's a learning experience at the most fundamental level, not a system of grievances and grudges (though this seems to be the case for many kids)

If you have questions feel free to ask before the round, I'll do my best to answer.

Last Updated for Copper Classic 2018.

Affiliation: Woods Cross High School, Weber State University, Beehive Forensics Institute (University of Utah), Wasatch Debate Institute

TOPLINE

With the exception of things that are listed in the "misc. important things section" everything else is merely a guideline and my personal preferences, i would much rather see a debater(s) go for an argument that they're more comfortable going for and have fun with it than feel pressured to align themselves with things that i prefer to see in debate. Thats not to say don't continue to read the rest of my paradigm, especially if you're a rather versatile debater, but moreso that i'm pretty open.

I believe I have an unique experience as an autistic disabled member of the debate community and I believe that any opening of inclusion in debate is best for activity as a whole. I will do anything and everything in my power to make sure that the round you are involved in with me is a safe and inclusive space. The round MUST be accessible to all, and I think pre-round disclosure is crucial in assuring that happens, particularly when in the context of debates where there is a significant difference in terms of the style of arguments and debate presented. If there is anything I can do during the round to make it more accessible to YOU please let me know.

SHORT

Background: I grew up debating in a traditional LD circuit, but gradually became more fond of critical debate, this in no way means that my judging paradigm is more skewed to the progressive debater compared to the traditional one.

Things I like: Voters, clash, impact weighing, topical links, critical arguments, real world application, link turns, really good case debate, being polite. Impacts that don't include nuclear war.

Things I dislike: Really anything that could make the debate space hostile, that would be ablest, racist, sexist, homophobic rhetoric. (Don't further exasperate the social problems that debate attempts to solve.) Failure to signpost, stealing prep time, not articulating the link = impact level. Feel free to ask further questions.

How I view a Debate: I typically default to some form of comparative worlds/cost benefit analysis type of FW unless told otherwise.

LONG

--------------------MISC. Important Things---------------------

• If you think something runs even the slightest risk of warranting a trigger warning, then for the sake of your partner, opponents, or maybe even me please use a trigger warning.
• If you use the word "retarded" as equivalence to "stupid" or "bad" expect 20 speaks. - Exception would be as a method to reaffirm one's identity as a crip debater within the debate space.
• Need to win the link to win the impact
• Seriously, slow the hell down on the T shell, and slow the hell down on the tags and authors, if i have to say "slow" more than 4 time's i'll probably stop flowing.
• Really solid analysis over reading 6 different cards all saying the same thing any day of the week.
• Someone told me I didn't give a single 30 all last year, that's probably true.
• I flow straight down on an excel sheet. - I very much vote off the flow
• Dropped arguments are important
• I try not to be extremely expressive, but I am. Use that to your advantage.
• Don't make args outside of your social location - I don't want to hear white people read Wilderson.
• I call for cards probably more often than i should.
• Both you and I would prefer me paying attention to the arguments you are making, and not having to stop and focus on giving you the right time signals. Please time yourself.
• As much as I would like to give a 30 minute critique at the end of each round, (there are several obvious reasons as to why i can't do that), therefore i'll spend a good portion of CX writing comments on the ballot or finishing up the flow. I DO NOT FLOW CX, So if there's something super important that came up in CX bring it up in the next speech.
• CX is binding.

---------------------- Policy ---------------------------

Affs:

• Really I’m down for whatever, plan text, performance, but don't assume I am going to weigh the impacts of your affirmative out for you.

PTX Affs:

• Tell me how you solve and emphasize it, weigh the advantages. I feel that a lot of teams get caught up in answering the neg and not utilizing the affirmative as a mechanism to outweigh.

Performance:

• I am very fond of these arguments
• I need warrants as to how/what the performance does. Specifically in the debate space/other spaces and what my job as an educator includes if I endorse you/your method with the ballot.
• Refusing to affirm the resolution in front of me is fine, as long as you warrant out sufficiently why the resolution is problematic. Some form of topical link/semi-topical link is preferred and makes that a lot easier.
• Exclusionary ROB's may be hard to win in front of me.

Neg Strats:


T:

• Things such as fairness and education are rarely genuine and I hate the time suck that T is becoming.
• Theory/Topicality is almost always a question of access to the debate. I’m very skeptical of your ground, limits, education arguments when you’re reading the same shell you’ve read all year in addition to 3 other off-case positions.
• I find myself often defaulting to T as a question of reasonability when not specifically framed as competing interpretations. If you point out that your Aff is on open-evidence and its the same aff literally everyone is reading (I.E the drones aff from a few years ago) +1 speaks.
• This doesn’t mean never read T in front of me. I think theory arguments are incredibly important when there is evidence of actual abuse or a discrepancy between access to the debate. Accessibility is almost always automatically a voting issue.

The K:

• My favorite type of debate - I am familiar with substantial portions of lots of different types of the literature.
• if you decide to make critical arguments, make sure that you not only slow down, but you explain them clearly and concisely, that will make the round more accessible for everyone involved.
• Have a good link, don't run the same generic cap link for every aff. Also win the link, i'm not giving you access to other parts of the argument if the link articulation is extremely clear.
• Links based off of action and behavior in round is something that I am extremely sympathetic to.
• Historically I have trouble voting for criticisms that lack an above average articulation on the alternative. Tell me EXACTLY what the world of the alt looks like, (no zizek says its a good idea, so what?)
• Super familiar with: Ableism, Biopolitics, Ecofem
• Explain it to me like i am 5: Lacan, D&G, Virillo, Heidigger.

CP/DA:

• Unique, reasonable scenarios > rehashed shells with somewhat recent uniqueness updates.
• PIC's are cool and easy to win in front of me if you can do a good job on its distinction from the aff.
• Process/time CP's are pretty abusive in my opinion, but that's your arg to make not mine.

Politics:

• All I ask is that your politics scenarios are realistic and the Squo/Link level is well articulated.

------------------------LD-------------------------------

Write the ballot for me. Tell me what I should evaluate.

I typically default to some form of comparative worlds/cost benefit analysis type of FW unless told otherwise.

Dropped arguments are the easiest place for me to vote in LD

Theory: I feel that T is becoming an ever increasing important part of debate to maintain opportunity for equal engagement in LD debate particulary in regards to bigger debate schools v smaller debate schools. Theory should also be run as a way to counter proven abuse not probable abuse. In LD i'm totally open and have voted on things such as Condo, 1 AR time skew, those sorts of things. But in general my threshold for theory is not incredibly high, and is viewed moreso as a legitimate way for debaters to gain access to the round.
That doesn’t mean that im going to vote on it by any means, but a round where theory is warranted and not understood how to be executed a conversation will definitely be had as to how to level the playing field in future rounds for debaters who may be disadvantaged.

Condo: I'm pretty sympathetic to the aff when it comes to multiple off-cases. Especially regarding LD. But no matter what event it's probably bogus to have to answer an absurd amount of off cases. I don't care if Congress has multiple options on an issue, aff debaters arrive at a extreme disadvantage even if it is as simple as perm do both to seven different things. This isnt to say don't run any off cases, its simply to say its probably really bad for educational engagement and I’ll be rather annoyed if you read more than 2 + case in an LD round.

"Become the link-turn to the disads in your own community."

Wirtjoleonard@mail.weber.edu
I would like to be on your email chain.

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.

Values/Criterions:
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.