Traditional, no spreading.

All Speeches (DEBATE AND IE'S) I Do NOT like speed. I cannot keep up and I do not give and warnings during speeches. (online be cautious of how well your mic keeps up as well). I also DO NOT give time signals.


Be caring toward your opponents go a long way. Respect and patience are key to my heart. I care about a good learning environment for you as students. Hoping you will learn how to improve.

I'm more traditional than progressive. I don't flow traditionally (because I'm autistic). I'm not necessarily a "Lay" Judge but I'm definitely a wild card, sorry, Good Luck.

For Debates (LD/PF/Spar) follow this link (copy-paste to URL) to a rubric I tend to follow to determine the rounds I judge. this was taken from California State University, Northridge.

http://www.csun.edu/~ds56723/phil338/hout338rubric.htm


Background:
Hi, I'm Shantell Neilson. I competed in High school speech and debate, from 2006-2010, on the South Summit High school squad. I have been a judge since 2011. I've volunteered as an assistant coach for many years for ALA (2011-2014) and I've helped mentor many other coaches and judges. I have assistant Directed many tournaments in the state of Utah with my husband Jake Neilson. Some examples are UVU's MCJ tournament, the CUSDC (Central Utah State Debate Circut) tournaments for the past 5+ years.

**Please be careful with Sensitive Topics like ALL ABUSE, Violence, Rape & Neglect. I'm a Childhood Abuse Survivor***
Most judges don't have a way for you to censor trigger warnings like this. And you don't know your opponents.
Be brief and give Trigger warnings and limit details that aren't related to the speech. **

My name is Sage :)

here's a little bit about my history with debate :) I was a PF debater all three years of high school, and my senior year I was the captain of my debate team. I'm pretty well-versed with public forum, and I did well in LD whenever I competed in it.

I am a fairly traditional judge. I'd much rather watch a nuanced debate focused on rhetoric than a rigid presentation of evidence. Spreading is a big no for me- if I can't understand what you're saying then I cannot flow effectively.

As a judge, I'm swayed by how you use evidence. For me, simply reading a card is not enough until you can explain the impact or relevancy without forcing me to jump to conclusions on my own. I love it when you focus on the big picture of your arguments instead of getting caught up in small debates.

Please DO NOT claim 'abuse' in the middle of a round. This is NEVER convincing to me. If you are convinced that someone is breaking a rule, politely bring it up to me in a round and we will talk to your coaches about it. Do not lay the importance of an entire round on a potential broken rule.

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.

Policy and other debates - I am a traditionalist in debate in that I believe debate should be training for public communication. I prefer a conversation of ideas, not a speed reading contest with no connection to your opponent. Please watch your speed and listen and respond to your opponents arguments to help strengthen your own.

- give me road maps throughout. Thanks.

- I am not experienced in Policy, except for coaching basics and judging. I learn more from you, so don't be afraid to show me what you know.

Public Speaking: A great public speaker chooses topics that are unique, interesting, and relevant and delivers them with passion and authority. Do not trauma dump on me. It won't work. I will vote for the best speech and speaker, not the most dramatic.

Be respectful and professional. The debate space is not a place for emotional manipulation, fallacious use of accusations, and cheating.

Thank you.