2019 — UT/US
Heather Allred Paradigm
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.
Jenni Andrist Paradigm
LaDawna Applegarth Paradigm
Nikki Archibald Paradigm
Crystal Blankenship Paradigm
Candis Bowen Paradigm
Isabella Cauley Paradigm
Piper Christian Paradigm
Regina Clark Paradigm
Renee Daly Paradigm
Karilee Dayton Paradigm
Shenglou Deng Paradigm
Courtni Dickerson Paradigm
My name is Courtni Dickerson and I am a veteran debater with a Bachelor's of Science in Electrical Engineering.
I competed all three years of my high school career and I devoted my life, heart, and soul into debate. My main events were PF, DUO, and Impromptu; although I dabbled in the IEs quite a bit. I qualified for Nationals 2 of the 3 years, was one of the captains of my team for 2 of the 3 years, and ultimately graduated with Superior Distinction in the National Forensics League (now known as NSDA).
In terms of how I judge, I am very old-school and one of the few people left who truly believe speaking skills are more important than argumentation skills. Here's my advice for you if I judge you:
a. BE COURTEOUS!!! Perhaps my biggest pet peeve are those debaters who believe if they're the loudest and the most dominant, then they must win. If I am judging you, and you're doing rude things such as rolling your eyes at other competitors or being aggressive and not letting your opponent finish a thought or question, I will immediately mark you down, despite how good your argument may be.
b. The round doesn't start when you enter the room, nor when I call your name. The round truthfully begins when you enter the school. I pay attention to how you behave while other's are competing as well as outside of the room. You NEVER get a second chance to make a first impression, so make a good first impression before I see you in my round. I will respect you and I'll be excited to listen to you.
c. Speak loudly and clearly.
d. Don't sway back and forth. Plant your feet firmly, approximately shoulder-width apart. Do not shift your weight from side to side. Women, especially, have a tendency to try to stand with their feet together or in a very formal way, don't do this. *Take control of the stage* I'll say this often, but basically be loud, be assertive (not aggressive) and occupy the full space.
e. If you care about what you're saying, I will care. If you don't, I won't. Simple.
f. Make me listen to you -- not by being the loudest, but by intriguing me and maintaining my attention. The best speakers have the ability to take a loud room and silence everyone just by the words he/she says. It's a powerful tool, so use it well and you will win.
Ultimately, as a veteran, I know all of the tips and tricks to play so I know exactly what to watch out for. Don't try to pull one over on me, because I will call you on it. My biggest piece of advice, however, is YOU DO YOU! The thing I loved most about debate is everyone has their own speaking style, in much the same way as Picasso had his painting style, or Beethoven had his musical style. If you've found something that works, then do it. Have fun with Speech and Debate!
Good luck and I hope to see you out there!
Matthew Douglas Paradigm
Dana Emery Paradigm
Sara Erickson Paradigm
I am like a debate dinosaur. Maybe not a dinosaur, but a majestic unicorn that wants to be understood. I have been doing this activity since 1991 and I have literally done/coached every event. I believe that this is a community and we should all treat each other with respect.
I can flow. My skills are not what they used to be, but I can flow. Please be super clear in your organization and if I can't understand you, I will let you know. I am good with theory and enjoy it when done well. I don't have argument preference...do what makes you happy and pick a strategy that you thing you can win with.
Gina Ewell Paradigm
Megan Fairbanks Paradigm
Aaron Grennon Paradigm
Daniel Hallmeyer Paradigm
Mr. Hardy Paradigm
Jason Hsu Paradigm
Jim Ireland Paradigm
Heidi Iverson Paradigm
Dan Jeffrey Paradigm
I prefer strong logical argumentation built on solid citing of evidence. You did your research for this, so use it and show me. Emotional arguments and pure logic have a place in a framework of solid research.
Shaylee Lawrence Paradigm
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.
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.
Mats Mudrow Paradigm
I competed in Oratory as my main event throughout my high school career.
2 of my proudest moments include:
Sundance Nat Quals: Picket Fencing across 8 judges
2018 UHSAA 6A State: When my two novices and I broke into finals with only 5 slots. (Taking 3 of them.)
In prep for competing at Nationals, I did as much research as humanely possible.
The result is that I know when I see a National Speech and when I don't.
I competed in LD for a year and a half. Not that good, but still love the format!
Competed in one PF tournament and walked away with 2nd place... so, take that as you will.
For whatever reason, I've ended up judging CX more than I'd like to. If that's the case, here's what you need to know.
1AC - Interested
1NC - Interested
2AC - Interested
2NC - Interested
1AR - ZZZ
1NR - ZZZ
2NR - Interested
2AR - Interested
Without fail, no matter what I do, I always fall asleep during the 1AR and 1NR. I don't mean to, but the round is so long and the topics generally confuse me.
The winner of ANY debate round will win based on whether or not I ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND what you're talking about. The team I understand better will end up winning the round. GUARANTEED.
As for LD or PF
Very traditional. I could care less about the actual debate. For me, it's ALL about the FW. If you can tie your case back into your FW better than your opponent, you WILL win. (If you tie it into your OPPONENT'S FW, BONUS POINTS!!!)
30: I wouldn't want to compete against you.
29: ABSOLUTELY NO STUTTERS and captivated my attention.
28: Some stutters, and overall FANTASTIC speaker, but lacked some "National" elements that I'd expect from a champion.
27: Stuttering, and very little eye contact.
26: Lack of preparation is obvious. (Thus, didn't have good eye contact, stuttered, and may have even admitted that they weren't prepared.)
25 or less: Find a new event.
I believe Debate is supposed to be educational above all else, and I also believe that the competitors learn the most while AT the tournament. (Not to mention my penmanship on paper ballots sucks. Might as well help the competitors in some way.)
I will give critiques after rounds much like a normal debate round.
Double entries should do their other event first if they want critiques.
These critiques include 1 positive comment and 1 critique for improvement to each competitor.
I also want the state of Utah to become nationally recognized in debate, and the only way to do that is to make sure EVERY competitor is good. No better way to do that than helping in rounds.
DyAnn Nielson Paradigm
Allissa Nipper Paradigm
Rebecca Petty Paradigm
Connie Plato Paradigm
Courtney Ricks Paradigm
Victoria Riggan Paradigm
All of my high school debate competition experience stems from Lincoln-Douglas at Taylorsville High circa 2011-2013. Since this was right as things were evolving from more traditional to more progressive, I have experience with all kinds of debates and thus I consider myself a "hybrid" kind of a judge.
For starters and generally speaking,
Value/Criterion: We have them in LD for a reason. Try not to forget them. I will revert back to them as a weighing mechanism for solvency if things get messy. If they are the same, then great lets move on and not worry about them too much unless we have specific/new arguments related to them. Otherwise we can all carry on through the round with the assumption that I the judge will weigh the round at least 50% based on who wins here.
Clash: I like clash all throughout the round. From the value/criterion debate to the key arguments from the contentions to impacts. The more back and forth on arguments vs we just have better impacts in our world than theirs, the better. That being said, try to keep it to the key arguments that actually matter in the round. i.e. don't beat small dead horses. Let's focus on the bigger stuff and what that means and how it ties back to the v/c.
Speed: I can handle a decent amount of speed. Speed is two fold for me, I can listen to fairly quick speech and keep up, in my head. My fingers can only move so fast though. So that being said, please take into account how fast I literally can go to flow when listening to you. Contention Taglines/Key Card names should be slowed down on at least a tad so I can catch them for the flow. I can summarize my own key points of it as you go and I listen but at least help me not get lost on what info goes where ya know?
Counter-Plans/K's : I don't like to judge K's because they aren't done very well usually. If you want to run one, please let me know and only do so if you really feel strong in doing so. This includes strength in explaining your K and its fairness and legality in LD to your opponent in case you happen to be the first person they come across this with. Counterplans, not to be confused with simple alternatives suggested within your case, basically are of the same. I only make the distinction so that you know I'm not against any and all mentions of alternatives.
Voters: I LOVE having voters at the end of final speeches for two reasons. One, it clearly shows me that you are aware and able to identify for me the key arguments that the round should be weighted by and based on how well you do this, I will give you that 29 or 30 on speaker points. I believe this is a speaker skill. Second, if the round is messy its like my last saving grace to get some clarity! Ahahahaha
CX: Sit or stand. I don't care. I'm SUPER CHILL. It's not a big deal to me honestly.
Speaking of being super chill, have fun. I'd love it if you can time yourselves! Overall, I'm here for a good debate and a good time. Let's keep it friendly and have a good time and learn a lot!
PLEASE BY ALL MEANS ASK ME ANYTHING IF YOU DON'T FEEL LIKE YOU GOT A CONFIDENT/GOOD ENOUGH ANSWER HERE! I'M SUPER NICE! :) I'D RATHER YOU ASK ME IF YOU DON'T KNOW AND I CAN CLARIFY FOR YOU!
NOW LET'S GO!!!