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
Urian Ayers Paradigm
Debaters should state their arguments and framework clearly, and present their evidence and counter-evidence in a clear and logical manner.
Alan Barry Paradigm
Candis Bowen Paradigm
Kennedy Brown Paradigm
Isabella Cauley Paradigm
Piper Christian Paradigm
Regina Clark Paradigm
Gary Coller Paradigm
2nd time judge.
Renee Daly Paradigm
Karilee Dayton Paradigm
Jayson Dean 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!
Dana Emery Paradigm
Sara Erickson Paradigm
Gina Ewell Paradigm
Megan Fairbanks Paradigm
Daniel Hallmeyer Paradigm
Jim Ireland Paradigm
Heidi Iverson Paradigm
Dan Jeffrey Paradigm
Cathy Lanigan Paradigm
Jennie Larsen Paradigm
Shaylee Lawrence Paradigm
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 4 years and I competed for the University of Utah for 4 years. I graduated from the U in May 2017.
General Overview: I am honestly down for anything as long as it is accessible to your opponent. I try 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 is the risk of either the advantages and or disadvantages and then I will evaluate on impact calc. I am good with theory, kritiks, 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 in the round.
I WILL CONSIDER drop you if any new arguments in the rebuttals. I do, however, like it when the other team first, calls out the new arguments, and second responds to them.
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 wont hurt you if you dont do it.
Theory: I like good theory debates. Please don't throw just any theory at me and expect a win. For me you need to do a couple things:
- I do not vote on 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 can usually come 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 unique 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 kritiks need a solid framework. I feel like your access to the round through a kritik can based on if you win the framework.
- If you run a reject alt,please tell me why this is unique, how it solves, and what does it actually do. I dont 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.
- Like I said I am down for any crazy lit. 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 most of my high school career on. You should be clearly linking how/why this ideology effects how we should perceive the resolution. I love some good philosophy/value rounds.
What to do to earn low speaks:
- Being rude
- Any type of ism. Like 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 your not debating.
- Not sign posting. I have seen this way to much .If you don't sign post then I can't flow, which means I get to play the guessing game and you might not where I put your arguments.
Speed: I can handle speed. I really do love technical rounds. But I would proceed with caution. Like I said if you make the round inaccessible, then i will drop your speaks.
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. Just please provide me a good articulation on why they matter other than "because you would be dead."
- Please have a criterion. I really 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 just want to see some clash on the value criterion debate.
- This is where I look to first when it comes to evaluating the round, it helps me frame my decision. However I will not solely vote off of the value or criterion. I feel like you need to prove how you gain access to your value or criterion also to win.
- Also please impact the value and criterion. I think this is a something that people ignore, if your value/criterion doesn't impact 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.