Southam,+Shannon

My name is Shannon Southam. I was a Lincoln-Douglas Debater & International extemporaneous State Qualifier from Ohio’s Cleveland District during 1994-1997. I was an extemporaneous speaker in college as well at the University of Akron. I was a volunteer judge and served as an assistant coach in Ohio’s Cleveland District from 1997-2008. In January of 2015 my husband and I moved to Florida and during the 2017-18 school year I formed a speech and debate team for Keystone Heights Jr./Sr. High School. Overview: In general I prefer traditional value debate in Lincoln Douglas. My judging will emphasize how well you explain your value, how well you weigh your value against your opponent’s, and how well you link your arguments to your value. You need to signpost and extend your arguments. If I don’t know where you are on the flow, it’s as if you aren’t making the argument. If you use Cards, I would much prefer three solid cards with excellent analysis to thirty cards without any analysis. Be a debater, not a competitive librarian. I am not a fan of the narrative. Plans: I will accept cases which offer a vague plan, so long as that plan clearly and fully relates to the resolution. I see LD as being different from Policy-I don't think very narrow and specific plans are effective in LD. Your side should show a smart plan in support of it. It is your opponents job to point out if you have any flaws. Kritiks: I'll accept them. Values/Criteria: I strongly prefer a framework that allows me to clearly pick one position over another. If your value is “morality," make sure you can give me a good sense of what is moral and what is not moral. Cards are a waste to me. Speed: The extent to which you use speed should not interfere with your ability to communicate intelligibly. If you want me to put your arguments/cards on the flow slow down. You’ll know you’re speaking too fast if I stop flowing. Questions/Etiquette: If your opponent is abusing your cross-ex by taking too long to answer a question, you may politely interrupt; I will not consider you rude for the interruption. However, not every question has a yes or no answer, and your opponent is perfectly within their rights to say they need to give an explanation. The person answering the questions may only respond with questions for clarification (“Are you asking about my 1st or 2nd contention?” for example). Blatantly offensive arguments: I will drop debaters for arguing (within either frameworks or contentions) that something we all agree is horrible is actually a good thing (e.g. slavery, rape, etc.).