Sneddon,+Cheryl

About me: Cheryl A. Sneddon, Ph.D. – University of Utah and Hillcrest High School Debate Coach Years of Debate experience: <5 years

General information: Debate should be enjoyable for ALL involved. Be prepared, be present, be mindful of others and you will do well.

As a judge, I would like it if you do not make me work to find your position, argument, counter argument, or that you are highlighting as features that contribute to value and harm. Primary objectives should be obvious interpretation of the argument clean and concise. Second objective: a variety of plausible interpretations and counter arguments, again clear and should be engaging. Moreover, should showcase the student’s expertise.

Good research makes for good debates and doing your own makes for an engaged and persuasive debater, be comfortable about what you are saying. I highly value this and will judge accordingly.

I find L/D debates to be about deploying ideas from the philosophy “laws,” thus framework needs to be carefully constructed to describe how it will answer the questions and a defense of the framework from alternatives should be anticipated and noticeably addressed. Weaknesses should be exposed in the cross, but I like to see the negative engage the affirmative on all types of issues: interpretive, normative ethical and applied ethical.

I like to see given current paradigmatic practices, debaters using moral relativism and skepticism as effective strategies which can find me receptive, BUT I would like to see well represented philosophical arguments, subtle distinctions and ideas that are not oversimplify. Please do not overwhelm your opponent with objections, instead develop the best version of the BEST objection to each argument.

Debaters should have passion, really good vocabulary, grand ideas and lots and lots of stamina, have a good voice and articulate their ideas well.