Marie Clegg Jones Memorial

2019 — Utah Valley University, Orem, U, UT/US

Victor Billings Paradigm

When I was a High School student at Mountain View H.S. in Orem Utah. I participated in Policy Debate. After graduating, I then went on and was accepted on the University of Utah's debate team and competed in the NDT Circuit for a year. After graduation, I volunteered several times to judge high school debate tournaments as an alumnus for MVHS. Much later I became involved with debate again with Skyridge High School as the assistant coach.

I love a good policy debate! I have come to appreciate and respect Public Forum. I also have a fondness for Lincoln Douglas as I was initially a Philosophy and Political Science major at the UofU before moving into Computer Science. I will judge Individual Events, but I feel inadequate at times in this area.

Speed of speaking is not an issue for me. I will flow the entire round save perhaps the rebuttal speeches. I do request that the speaker is able to face the judges and also have their mouth be visible. I am somewhat hard of hearing and having a visual indicator of speech helps me understand better. Clarity should not be sacrificed for speed. If you cannot speak clearly at high speed you should slow down. I will not penalize teams who speak more slowly and thus are required to group arguments. The most persuasive argument should win regardless of speed of delivery.

I try to be a Tabula Rasa style judge and leave my personal political leanings outside of the room. I will vote for arguments that I find distasteful if I believe that they have been presented clearly and persuasively and the alternate team has not defended well against them. I count myself as a politically moderate independent.

I will vote for Topicality arguments if they are presented well. I will vote for a Kritik. I will vote for a Counterplan. I would prefer to have clash though and see a good policy debate. I do not mind tag team cross examination. Please be respectful of one another.

I prefer to disclose and give oral critiques if I am allowed to by the tournament organizer.

Best of luck to the competitors and participants! My goal is to help spread debate and critical thinking. Even if I vote against your team, I hope that you have a positive experience.

For email chain exchanges please use

Sarah Bingham Paradigm

While I don't have a long history of being involved in debate, I can follow a good argument. My primary concerns are 1, your argument is topical and argue the resolve; 2, your contentions are based on evidence with sources; 3, you have claims, warrants, and impacts; 4, you attack the opposition case with logic and reasoning to expose vulnerabilities; and 5, you successfully defend against attacks on your own case using logic and evidence. I try to vote based on the best cases, speakers, and arguments of the round. I appreciate a traditional debate.

Also: Any sentences that begins with "Judge, you cannot vote for them," or "Judge, you must vote for our case," will make me not want to vote for you. Don't tell me what to do; I will do what I deem the best and most fair. However, saying things like "Judge, Their contention fails on this point," or "Judge, our case should win because of..." are acceptable, as are detailing the voters.

I appreciate a polite and civil debate. If you show disdain for your competitor, I will have a hard time wanting to vote for your position, however a solid case and sound logic will win over likeability. I just won't be happy about it.

I do not disclose, unless the tournament asks us to, nor do I give critiques. Giving critiques is basically the same as disclosing, since I have no poker face.

Bailey Brunyer Paradigm

Please put me on the e-mail chain:

Just run whatever you want, I expect to have to do nothing to get the round going.

I will vote on anything if you have won it FW, Set. Co., Fiat, Fem., Aff., Neg., neither, honestly IDGAF.

Emily Child Paradigm

Not Submitted

Leo Doctorman Paradigm

Leo Doctorman


Yes email chain(and questions):

Affiliated with Rowland Hall Debate(Asst. Coach)/John R. Park Debate Society

Experience: 4+ years policy @ Roho

Currently Debating @ University of Utah


You do you.

In the words of Mike Shackelford “Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible. Feel free to ask.”


  • 4 years national circuit policy at Roho

  • Currently debating Parli collegiately

  • I was a 2N

My beliefs about debate:

  • Efficiency/Clarity>Speed

  • Clash over tricks

  • Kritik is a verb

  • Engage, don’t exclude

  • Case debate = undervalued

  • Cross X = binding and important

  • Debates are won before they begin

  • Truth is important, but tech can define it

  • There is inherent value in research and discourse

  • Debate is game!


I have a deep appreciation of debate as an activity and as a community. I will strive to do everything I can to ensure a equitable debate. Debate is a game, and games are fun.

I will try to not intervene with my decision. I vote off the flow. All that I ask is that the 2NR/2AR slows down(a bit) and works to write my ballot. If I can’t flow it, it’s not in the RFD.

Don’t ask just put me on the chain. If you don’t flash analytics then slow down on them. In addition, generally slow down on tags. Otherwise I’m cool with speed so long as you’re clear. In fact, speed is good. Emailing is not prep if you are quick about it.

Some truth claims are non-negotiably false, dropped or not. Racist, Sexist, Anti-Semitic, etc. claims are always false.

My Voting Process: After the round I will reread all evidence I view as pertinent to my decision. I will probably take a while to decide. I will write the easiest ballot possible and won’t do work for you if I don’t have to. Disclosure and critiques are good for everyone and I will always try to provide these.

What my ballot does: My role as a judge is to determine the winner and loser. That’s it.

My ballot probably isn’t the link to upending debate norms. There is no narrative or radical argumentation that gets tied to my ballot. You need to win a spillover argument to change my mind. Judge instruction is good. If you want me to do a certain thing with a ballot, make the argument.


(I’m stealing this format but I personally found it helpful)



Fiat is good-x----------------------------------Fiat is bad

Cross-X is a speech------------x-------------------Cross-X is prep time

K affs: I don’t mind K affs. But they need to do something. It should also be tangentially related to the topic. I think K affs are ideologically good for debate, they are also pretty strategic.

K affs that have clear, strong advocacies that are well developed and backed up will make for an excellent aff round. Inability to access your discussion through the USFG is convincing. Justify everything you do.

Performance is an ends to a means. If you read a poem but don’t attach it to an argument you’ll probably lose. Same goes for narratives.

T-USFG: At the end of the day, the T-USFG debate is less about if ‘rules are broken’ and more about if the K aff ruins the fairness/education/etc. A well run T versus a K aff is very convincing. T with a TVA is even more convincing.


1 off T----------------------------x--------Diverse strat

Theory(Non-T): Meh. Not really my schtick. If its dropped, I’ll vote on it. Don’t replace answers with theory. Don’t plan on going for theory before round. I’m probably sympathetic to a Neg’s multiple worlds, but I think condo is a good arg if a team is truly skewed out of the round. Theory is a check on abuse, use it for that. Nothing more.

Condo good-x--------------------------- Condo bad

T: It’s cool. Being on topic is important. Go for it if you need to. I will scrutinize your interpretations as a means of determining reasonability. I believe that in-round impacts definitely exist. Impact it out. Tell me where the abuse stems from. The most important part of T, next to your interp, is the internal link to your impact. Why does not defaulting to your interp explode limits? Even if you lose that your interp isn’t as good, it can still garner impacts if you win that it is uniquely key to limits. 2NR/2AR needs to slow down a bit and delineate standards.

Limits good(depth)----------x-------------------Overlimiting bad(breadth)

Reasonability-------------------x-------------Competing interps


After I started doing Parli in college, I have shifted to the K pretty dramatically. I have a pretty good knowledge of many lit bases and I love the K debate.

Kritik is a verb. You should be doing something with the argument, not simply describing why “cap is bad”. You should provide a stable alternative, preferably not just rejecting the aff.

Framework is underutilized by both the aff and neg. I start my judging process on every K debate here. I’m probably willing to frame out a team that doesn’t have an interp, or looses that they get to weigh their arguments.

I believe strongly in kritical specificity. The more specific, the better. Contextualization is key.

If you can’t explain your alt, you’re in trouble. Be ready to define what the world of your alt looks like. It’ll make your life easier on the perm debate. Mechanisms to deploy your alternative(i.e thought experiment, rejection, counter-methodology, fiat, etc.) are very important.

Yes floating piks----------x--------------------Tell me why not


VTL is inherent------x----------------------------Sometimes No VTL

Reading a K you don’t understand-------------------------------x--Reading a disad

CPs: CPs are great. A good CP debate is awesome. CP specificity is important, and should probably have a solvency advocate. I’ll vote on a perm if the aff beats the net benefit and/or proves it’s not mutually exclusive. Solvency deficits won’t necessarily lose you the CP if you explain how you solve sufficiently. Solvency is a net benefit.

Explain your perms

I’ll judge kick if you can justify it

2NC CPs are probably abusive.

Lit=legit----x-------------------------------- “I don’t like weird CPs”

DAs: Specific DAs are good. Generic links usually kill uniqueness. Overbroad uniqueness usually overwhelms the link. This being said, very few disads are ‘true’, but they can be true enough. Impact calculus is important and undervalued. I also think that ‘topic DAs’ are a good fall back and can be debated very well. A creative politics disad will impress me. The newer the cards, the better the disad is.

Case: Case debate is undervalued. I think it’s a perfectly fair strategy to read fewer off and incorporate a higher level of clash on case. Turns, such as dedev, can end up being strategic 2NRs. Circumvention arguments can turn into NBs for a CP. One thing that’s difficult to judge is the brightline for presumption. This being said, never go for defense unless you think it’s a clear cut win.

Pet Peeves:

  • Old politics cards

  • Not knowing your K

  • Excluding opponents

  • Too many buzzwords

  • Extending cards not warrants

  • Not disclosing. Lacking a wiki page or at the very least disclosing past 2nrs/ the aff will go very, very poorly in front of me. It is good for big and small schools. The exception is new affs.

  • Miscut/cited evidence: If you aren’t giving cites, I’ll ignore the cards. If you’re doing anything more sketch than that, I’ll drop you.

  • Not having evidence: Obviously not for obscure/new args. Analytics are still cool. But for topic disads/CPs, or common affs, it just doesn’t make sense. The wiki is a thing. Go recut some evidence. There are thousands of well-cut cards coming out of camps. No excuses.

Speaker Points:

I will award good speaking with good speaker points. I will award wittiness, passion, efficiency, strategy, clarity and boldness with good speaks. I appreciate aggressive debate, but not overtly rude debate. I will detract speaks for exclusionary language, unintelligibility and strategic issues. My speaks reflect strategy and execution as much as speaking. If I can’t understand I’ll say clear maybe twice and then stop flowing.

My speaks reflect the tournament.



Death Good-------------------------x-Death Bad

Jeremy Farner Paradigm

My daughter is a debater and has taught me well.

I prefer if you don't speed through like a maniac (concentrate on quality, not quantity).

Keep your arguments logical with an empirical basis.

I am a college professor, and I am not dumb. Make me believe what you are saying is true, everything on the internet is not simply true just because your opponents don't argue it. I want your sources read in speeches, and prove why you consider it to be a reliable source.

Act in a professional manner and treat your opponents with respect. Leave the drama in the hallway. I do not appreciate yelling or bickering, my 7 kids do enough of that.


30 = PERFECT.. not too much speed and intelligent.

29 = Too fast, but I understood. OR Some stumbling throughout your speeches.

28 = Great.

27 and below = Excessive use of "ums", filler words, or long pauses.

Linda Flores Paradigm

Not Submitted

Wendy Garvin Paradigm

I appreciate a respectful and clean debate. I'm okay with a little speed but keep it understandable. I am a lay judge, so what's key for me is being able to follow your arguments. Good luck!

Aysha Jaffer Paradigm

Not Submitted

Zane Jolley Paradigm

Not Submitted

Shaylee Lawrence Paradigm

Updated: 1/8/18
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.

Important things:
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.

Scott McCardle Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Dalila Munoz Paradigm

My background:

I did debate for 3 years in high school. (LD, policy, Pf) I am currently on a college debate team. I am completely fine with speed & “progressive” cases in all three events.

Ways to impress me

•Don’t say “umm”

•If you are spreading & I can’t understand you... I will say clear 3x. After that read at a normal pace.

•Clear flow. GO LINE BY LINE.

• Be clear & specific about your arguments. I will ask to see cards if necessary.

•Be polite. Everyone loves a salty round but the brightline is set between being a smarty pants & a total jerk.

Jennifer Palomino Paradigm

Not Submitted

Hans Pande Paradigm

Not Submitted

Nicole Probst Paradigm

Not Submitted

Katy Sena Paradigm

Not Submitted

Katie Shirley Paradigm

Not Submitted

Eric Snow Paradigm

Not Submitted

Austin Turner Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted