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. 

Debaters should state their arguments and framework clearly, and present their evidence and counter-evidence in a clear and logical manner.

To help with the flow please assume that the judge is always ready. No need to ask me. You have my undivided for the time of the round.

Please no spewing! This is very rude to not only the judge, but also to the judge. It is hard to judge you if I can not understand what you are saying. Make Sure that you are talking at an intelligible speed.

However, with that said please do not assume what is spewing to the judge. IE debating the paradigm will not win you the round. STAY ON TOPIC!

2nd time judge.

I am very new to judging Policy Debate, but from what I understand these are what I will vote on:

•Well explained arguments (if you want to run anything more complicated, such as a Kritik, make sure to explain it well and state why it is worth taking into account in the round)

•Do not talk fast to the point that I cannot understand you, if it is too fast I won’t be able to add it onto the flow

•Good impact calc and voters, this is what I will primarily vote on, tell me explicitly why you should win the round

•Considering how new I am to Policy, I’ll need help with understanding the structure and format

•Do not use debate lingo if it can be avoided, I know very few terms, and most of the ones that I do know I have used in this paradigm

•I am okay with tag team cross-ex, but make sure that both of you get relatively equal speaking time/don’t have only one partner dominate

•I will not flow cross-ex unless you tell me specific things that I should add to the flow, or if you reference it in a speech and cite what was said in the cross-ex

I will give higher speaker points and tend to prefer speakers who are confident and well spoken in round. Good job on all of the hard work and success you have found in debate!

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!

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 was debating in college when critical arguments became widespread. I understand them and value them. I don't have argument preference...do what makes you happy and pick a strategy that you thing you can win with. Please be clear with your decision calculus.

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.

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.

EXPERIENCE:

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.

JUDGING:

DEBATE

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!!!)

SPEAKER 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.

IE'S

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.

Salutations, I am Zeque (pronounced: Zeek) Murillo. I am so stoked for the exposure to the topics you are all bringing to the table and using this platform to bring attention to the passion of the future.

-----------------

BACKGROUND:

Competitive Experience: I competed on the high school level from 2010-2014. My main events of the competition level were Duo Interpretation, Dramatic Interpretation, Humorous Interpretation, Original Oration, Impromptu Speaking. I definitely understand what it's like to Double/Triple/Quadruple/Penta/Hexa - Enter, so I'm always understanding of individuals who do multiple events.

Judging/Coaching: I've been part of the judging circuit from local, state, and national level since the fall of 2014 season - Current. I've judged all speech categories and even up to a few quarter final rounds at varying national years. I was an Alumni volunteer assisting with the NSDA program for 2-3 years. I then started Assistant coaching specifically for speech from 2017- Current. My main expertise is in the Interpretation events, but I am also well versed in assisting with the Public Address Events.

JUDGING:

Interpretation:

Content: An introduction in the piece that states the title and author is weighed heavily into account. I also really enjoy the details in the piece and if it's from a play/book/media content that is typically longer than 10 minutes, how is it cut? I enjoy material that has a nice flow and reflects the message that you are trying to get across whether that is humorous or serious in nature. Your piece should still make sense and leave an impact.

Blocking: I do love seeing the choices that students make to elevate the piece and create an environment. I notice the details in pantomime and the consistency of items that you have created out of thin air. For example, if you are holding a cup and then all of a sudden it disappears because you never put it down, I'ma notice :) Blocking is such a beautiful technique to help transport me to the environment of the scene. I think it's super cool when you can play with the dimensions of your speech.

Characterization: I take into account the emotion that you flesh out in your characters and utilizing voice, attitude, posture, and mannerisms to create an easily recognizable character. If you have multiple characters in a piece, I also will evaluate the technique in how you are transitioning from character to character. Lastly, I also consider facial expression and emotional invocation that allows us to better understand the character.

Public Address Events:

Content: Originality of the topic or stance on topic is an item I will take into consideration pretty heavily. I also am dissecting how you structure your speech and how the information is flowing into each other to develop one systematic idea. If you are providing sources, are you citing the original source, & dates.

Delivery: How are you using your movement, tonality, & gestures to engage with the audience? I look for effective speaking tools through using your natural instruments as a speaking tool to elevate the information and bring us in. I also listen to the words you are emphasizing to show how you are highlighting the information and playing with pace.

Impact: I need to know your take/stance on the presentation. Why do you feel passionate about this topic or how do you truly believe this will be resolved. Why should we be listening to this speech and what will be the major take aways?

Lincoln Douglas:

As I flow your round, I’ll be looking to see how your value and criterion work in tandem to prove the moral rationale that LD rests; furthermore, I don’t like when crossfires engage in obnoxious back-and-forths with questions that don’t add any substantive value to the round. Lastly, it's imperative that you underscore the credibility of your cards, especially when making claims including stats, data, points, and political and historical claims that attack your opponent’s arguments.

Public Forum:

I enjoy PF and like to flow the rounds I judge to provide you with the best feedback I can. I love to see link chains and impacts that are substantial to the case; rather than just reading the cards, I’d appreciate you explaining and further reinforcing your points, data, and stats, to let me know that you know your case all around. If you speak too fast, I’ll try to keep up as I flow but once you’ve lost me, I’ll stop flowing. I am not a fan of voters that are reliant on ethos; I prefer you use logic in voters that explain to me what you’ve argued in round. Don’t forget that I’m also flowing the round so if your claim is that they’ve dropped certain points, I’ll refer to my flow to assess that claim.

I watch for a professional presentation, including courtesy toward all competitors, diction, enunciation and speaking just fast enough so the facts presented are understandable. It is better to eliminate thoughts than spew facts.

Winning entry is determined by the actual argument presenting convincing facts and sources.

Hi, I'm Ryan! I’m a former captain and the current coach of the East High team in Salt Lake City, Utah. [Insert obligatory High School Musical reference here.]

I’m totally open to any argument. Seriously. Ks on either side are fabulous. T is fabulous. Performance is really fabulous. But please don’t assume I’m familiar with the lit. Always explain what you're talking about and treat it like it’s, you know, the start of something new. Also: I value analytics and explicit voters over massive card dumps.

Utilitarianism is not a criterion if you don't explain what "good" you’re providing the greatest amount of people.

Speed? Great! Word vomit? Not great! C’mon, you’ve gotta get’cha, get’cha, get’cha, get’cha head in the game.

I give speaks for presentation, creativity, and HSM references. Break free! Don’t stick to the status quo.

Disrespecting your opponent will result in the intervention of a very unhappy judge. Respect is not debatable. You gotta work this out.

TL;DR, use your best judgment, and you’ll bop to the top. I know you can! Bet on it.

I have judged Policy yearly for the past 15 years. I prefer LD and PF, but I am familiar with the ins and outs, but I don't know them intuitively as I have never competed in Policy. I am willing to try and follow whatever you present. However, I expect you to communicate with me. I am the judge, not your opponent. What that means is this, you need to tell me what you are doing and why. Slow down and communicate with me. When I say slow down, what I mean is this:

1. I don't follow speed. I try, but I won't get most of what you say if you are going a million miles an hour. However, I understand the strategy and need. If you spread, you need to slow down and tell why I should care about what you just said. Give me a quick, slowed down summary of what you said, and why I should care.

2. Make taglines very clear! Don't assume I heard your 'next DA' when you're going a million miles an hour. If you want it on my flow, make it clear what it is and where to put it. Spread the rest, but slow down for taglines and summarize what you just said! This is especially important for the 1AC and 1NC.

3. Email chains are helpful, but not. It is nice to have an email chain, but if I have to read the email to understand what you are saying, why give speeches? Also, trying to follow evidence because I can't understand you makes it difficult for me as a judge. I will refer to reference, but will not pour over it after a round to determine a winner. Doing that means I don't need to hear from you. I could sit at home and read your evidence to determine a winner. Don't rely on chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I prefer traditional LD Debate with a Value/Criterion. I have voted for flex-negs, and other more progressive type arguments, but I prefer debates that use Value/Criterion. Don't spread! If you spread in LD, I won't flow. You can go at a crisp pace. In fact, I prefer a crisp paces, but...spread and you will most likely lose.