I will adopt the debaters' paradigms and hear just about any type of argument as long as analytics are given to explain. I won't intervene by providing my own links or analysis if debaters just read cards at me.

Likewise, give me a framework and tell me how to weigh the round. In LD, I want this to be explicitly stated, even if it is a progressive framework. I'm fine with a non-traditional framework. Just explain it to me. In PF, the framework may or may not be explicitly stated, but I should be able to easily extrapolate a standard.

I like an LD 1AR/1NR or PF Rebuttal to be line-by-line, but feel free to tell me what you think is more important/has more weight in the round. I like LD 2AR/2NR to crystallize and give voters-not more line-by-line. Same with PF Summary and Final Focus.

It is imperative that debaters give voting issues and impact calculus linked back to the framework. If you don't, I'm stuck comparing argument to argument.

I am fine with both progressive debate and traditional debate. A bit of speed is fine, but I would prefer that it not rise to the rates in CX. I can follow you, but I'd prefer to have time to digest your arguments. Also, keep in mind that more isn't necessarily better. Be strategic. Introduce what you think you can reasonably handle. I'm fine with debaters kicking out of arguments. Funnel arguments down to what is really important and viable in the round.

I have been judging regularly for about 15 years; and I am in my seventh year coaching Harding Charter Prep HS in Oklahoma City. I love every single event offered for competition. They are all valid. Memes hating on particular events are lame. Follow @hcpspeechdebate on Instagram and Twitter.

LD/PFD: I prefer quality of information and sources as well as clarity and presence of speakers over speed and quantity of information and sources. The more you can tell me about the qualifications of a source, the better I can weigh them. If you give a simple (Last Name/Year) tag, you can assume I know nothing about the author. I like to see your personality as a debater and jokes/lighthearted moments are welcome as long as they are within the scope of the topic. I dislike plans and policy-style approaches to Lincoln-Douglas debate; if you want to do Policy, there's a debate for that. I believe that the heart of Public Forum debate is that it should assume any judge is a lay judge and is more informal and free of debate jargon. Limit pre-case observations and don't place impossible burdens on your opponent. Be civil and professional during cross-examination or your speaker points are toast. Use cross-examination time to ask questions, not make another speech. Use your speech time and prep time! Your constructive speeches should be as close to memorized as possible. I want to see you speaking/debating, not just reading. Cases on paper vs on a laptop gain an automatic advantage. Have fun!

Big Questions: Please, please, please read the Format Manual. Then read it again. Use the Format Manual as evidence in round if you need to. Please let this thing have a chance to become its own thing before we drown it in the other debate sauces.

Policy: If I am judging round round, I apologize in advance. Something has gone awry at this tournament and I am a kind-hearted person with a semi-functioning brain that has been put in to prevent the round starting hours late. We'll make it through this together. I'm probably not gonna disclose unless tab forces me to.

Congress: Don't read word-for-word pre-written speeches. You should have an outline. Pay attention to the whole of the round, not just sitting there prepping for when you are going to talk. Keep questions concise.

World Schools: Requests for POIs should rise/raise as often as needed but don't be a pest about it. You are at the discretion of the speaker. Avoid debate jargon. Rely on reason and logic. Appeal persuasively. Prop arguments should do their best to prove the resolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. Opposition arguments should be about broad rejection of the resolution, not just finding an outlier to say that one example is representative of all.

Final Thoughts: This activity is for education. Winning and excellence should always be celebrated, but not the only goal. Remember that Words Matter and Words have Power. Respect the purpose of the Pronouns and name pronunciation options in Tabroom. The NSDA has worked hard to be inclusive. Don't abuse that. #NotGarbagePeople

I mostly judge Lincoln Douglas, but I have coached all events offered by the NSDA and the OSSAA. I was the coach at Cascia Hall from 2007-2021 and have worked at the Tulsa Debate League since 2023.

I am more comfortable with a more traditional style of debate, but will make my best effort to judge the round in front of me, even if it isn't stylistically what I am most comfortable with. That being said, no matter what style you prefer, debate is pretty much the same. Tell me how to make an evaluation and then tell me why you win under that evaluation.

If you have more specific questions, I'm happy to answer them before the round begins if all competitors are present.

Kaitlyn Hurst
Norman High 17'
University of Oklahoma 21'

Kaitlyn is unqualified to judge debates. -Lawrence Zhou 

Background

I debated for Norman High School (OK) for 3 years. Attended the Oklahoma State tournament twice, placing second most recently. I attended NSDA nationals my senior year. I'm most experienced with traditional debate but I have exposure to progressive styles. I can handle pretty much anything if done well. 

Preferences Speaking Preferences

• Speed is generally fine. I'm somewhat familiar with high speed rounds but I'm not comfortable with intense spreading especially if you know you aren't going to be 100% clear the whole round. I'll say clear if I can't understand you.
• Slow down for important information (tags, card info, etc.)

Framework

• I think the framework debate is important to the round but it's not a deciding factor. I prefer a holistic approach to the resolution and will decide based on everything you present me
• Value/criterion aren't necessary. Do what you want to do, I can follow.

Theory

• I default to competing interps.
• Weighing is crucial
• I will listen to potential abuse as an argument.

CX

• CX is binding.
• Don't lie or intentionally obscure your answers.
• I don't care whether you sit or stand, but be engaged.

Weighing

• Weighing is the difference between bad debate and decent debate. Please do it early and often. Explain your clash and interactions with their arguments.

How to Get Good Speaks

• Show me clash
• Don't just tell me not to vote for "them", give me a reason to vote for you.
• Be polite and respectful. If you are overly aggressive and rude not only is that off putting but it takes away a lot of your legitimacy in the round.
• Clarity

I don't have a lot of experience with progressive LD, not as much as much as most circuit judges that you will run into, but as long as you articulate and explain your argument well enough, I should be able to understand it. I am somewhat conflicted with spreading in LD, so I am a bit susceptible to arguments against it in general but if both debaters are fine with it then feel free to go all out. I will say clear 2 times before i stop flowing you all together. I usually am pretty kind when it comes to speaker points, as long as a debater does not say something racist, homophobic, transphobic, or sexist. I do not want to see any attempts to exclude your opponent from the debate space. Develop clear, concise arguments, provide evidence for those arguments, signpost and apply your arguments and have fun.

Hi! My name is Robert (Trey) Morris, and I did a lot of traditional Lincoln Douglas throughout my 4 years in high school. I have some experience with progressive LD, not as much as much as most circuit judges that you will run into, but as long as you articulate and explain your argument well enough, I should be able to understand it. I am somewhat conflicted with spreading in LD, so I am a bit susceptible to arguments against it in general but if both debaters are fine with it then feel free to go all out. I will say clear 2 times before i stop flowing you all together. I usually am pretty kind when it comes to speaker points, as long as a debater does not say something racist, homophobic, transphobic, or sexist. I do not want to see any attempts to exclude your opponent from the debate space. As far as traditional LD goes, I think that framework by itself is unimportant, the only time framework matters, is if it is coupled with impacts and is contradictory to what your opponent is arguing on framework. It is just a weighing mechanism, so if both debaters have similar framework just state that you will argue it on the contention and impact level on that part of the flow. Also values are usually pretty dumb, I definitely will not vote off of a value, only the standard (criterion). I do not want to intervene in the debate (in most circumstances), so weighing is pretty critical. I will listen to T or Theory of pretty much any kind and will vote on it as necessary. I will not listen to PIC's. Don't do it. PIC's are dumb. I will not vote on a PIC. If there are any more questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Hello! My name is Ian Stone, and I did a mix of traditional Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum throughout my 4 years in high school. I am currently a debater on the OU Parli team. I am down for pretty much all types of argumentation. I think Oklahoma LD is often far too restrictive on the types of arguments debaters are supposed to run. Definitely feel free to spread, run a k, run theory, run weird link chains or do whatever you want in front of me. I will attempt to be as tab as possible. I enjoy funky arguments that either make me laugh or learn about something new. I will give you better speaker points if you run something I haven't heard before or if you do something unique and interesting in round. If I can't understand you I will clear you, but I am usually cool with most speed. I am pretty kind when it comes to speaker points most rounds, as long as a debater does not say something racist, homophobic, transphobic, or sexist. If you do, I'll dock your speaks and talk to your coach. Also, just be comfortable in the round. You don't have to ask me to use your phone as a timer or anything like that, just you do you. Also, I think it's dumb/prohibitory to dress up for debate, but that's a different subject. Don't worry if you don't have a tie in front of me or anything like that lol. Also, I definitely do not want to shake your hand after the round. I've touched enough clammy debate hands from my time as a competitor.

As far as traditional LD goes, I think that framework by itself is unimportant. The only time framework matters is if it is coupled with impacts. It is just a weighing mechanism, but people in traditional LD sometimes do not grasp that. It is not a voter in and of itself. Tell me how evaluating the round through your lens (the criterion) affects the big picture of the round. Also, values are usually pretty dumb, I definitely will not vote off of a value. Like, don't even read one in front of me probably? Kind of a waste of time to talk about IMO. Also, I do not want to intervene in the debate, so weighing is pretty critical. If there are any more questions feel free to ask me before the round! I disclose every round so stick around if you want me to tell you how I voted. More people in Oklahoma need to disclose because it makes tournaments way less stressful and better for competitors! Please be nice in round. In high school, I absolutely hated it when people were just obnoxious in round. I still hate it in college. Lets all just hang out, have a good discussion, and have fun. If you're mean to your opponent or talk over them a bunch in CX your speaks will definitely be affected. Also, if you're being mansplain-y or weird I'm going to dock your speaks.

For email chains, questions, or extended criticism: ianestone99@gmail.com

Last updated: 3/4/20 for OK districts

University of Oklahoma (class of 2021)
Bartlesville High School (class of 2017)
jackawilliams13@gmail.com

Last updated: 10/15/2018 for Heritage Hall

Overview

My background is in traditional LD, but lately I've been exposed to / enjoying more progressive styles of debate. That being said, if you expect me to vote on your semi-obscure theory, you're going to need to explain it well.
E-mail me for comments about the round or really anything. If you have a chain, include me on it.

Your job is to make the round easy for me to judge. In order for me to judge, I need you to make the round easy for me to flow. Some people are very good at this, some people aren't. Little things - signposting, pausing when jumping to a new off, etc - go a long way.

Should you pref me?

I don't have a lot of experience judging circuit-style debate. I'm not opposed to it, I just haven't heard a lot of it. If you depend on a judge knowing what every K is and what every card means ahead of time, I'm probably not the best judge for you.

Things I Hate:

- Framework is not a voter (generally - it can be done well, but it is usually better to make some offensive argument your voter, then link to the framework from there). I will drop speaker points if you just say "voter one is framework, here's why I won that", because it's not offensive and leads to lazy debating.
- Don't run team cases.
- I don't think value debates in general are a good use of time. Sometimes it's really important to the round, but usually, morality > justice arguments don't get you any ground or win anything offense, so they don't affect the ballot and are pretty boring. Unless it has some impact on the criterion debate or the way I should evaluate the round, value debates are meaningless.
- If you don't bring up something in the 1AR, it can't be a voter in the 2AR. If your opponent dropped something, just saying "extend Baudrillard" is not enough, tell me (briefly) what that card said / the contention means - this can just be a tagline, or a few words, but it's really helpful in flowing - I may not have gotten every single card down 100% correctly. Moreover, weigh early and often, and clarify impacts, especially on drops.
- People who spread for the sake of spreading. If you're reading 15 responses, they're probably all mediocre. I generally prefer fewer, higher quality cards to a dump of bad ones.
- Don't just tell me "the Johnson card turns the Jones card". You may know your case and cards really well, but I don't. If you do this, I have to take time to go back and look for what each of those cards said, and you have to hope I flowed what they said correctly, and that I understand how one turns the other. Don't make that assumption, and don't make me pause to go back and figure out all of that stuff. Just remind me briefly of what each card says.

Things I Like

- Good framework debate.
- Good utilization of CX. I think that's often the most important parts of rounds - don't waste it.
- Sign-posting. If I don't know what argument you're talking about, I can't flow it.
- Weighing. Weigh often, and early. I want you to make my job easy.
- Arguments that are accessible. If you're debating a traditional debater and go for high-level theory, I'm going to be annoyed, which will make you annoyed when you see the speaker points.

Specific Things:

Topicality

The debater that best defends their model of the debate is the one that tends to win. Affs who win their model is better tend to win. Negs who win that debate on a predetermined topic rather than one that the Aff chooses tend to win. That doesn't mean I won't vote for non-topical stuff, but the aff should probably justify why they're abandoning their initial burden of proof of the desirability of the resolution in advantage of whatever they end up going for.

Phil

I love philosophy. That being said, if you don't understand it, don't go for it. I prefer coherent arguments over buzzwords.
If it's something weird, explain it to me. Don't expect me to know everything about your esoteric framework off the bat.
Generally, I believe philosophy is underutilized in debate, so if you're able to apply framework to contention-level arguments well, I'll likely vote for you.

Note that when I say FW / Phil, I mean topical phil. Value-Criterion. A way to limit the universal world of arguments to what matters inside of the debate round. If you're going for non-topical stuff, justify it. I've voted on it before, but I expect a justification for abandoning the topic.

Plan Affs

I used to be opposed to these, but now, I love them. Spec your plan as much as you want. HOWEVER, if your plan is bad, extra topical, or defends only a small subset of the resolution, it's going to be harder for you to win.

Counterplans

If you're running a counterplan, tell me it's a counterplan. Don't try to hide it.
Same rules apply for accessibility
Don't be abusive.
Counterplans must be exclusive and functionally competitive.

DA's

Make them applicable to the case. Don't expect me to draw your links for you.

Theory

I'm a fan in general.
Don't be abusive, same rules apply for accessibility
I don't have a great understanding of high-level theory, so slow down and explain it.

K

K's are fun, but please (especially at districts) don't be abusive. You'll probably need to do more work than usual drawing the links ~to~ the K.

Don't expect me to have more than a surface level understanding of your K, unless it's super common. I can usually understand it in enough depth as is required for the round, but if you have a lot of links and burn through them fast, it will take time for me to process (which means less time thinking about the rest of your speech).

PF:

- Read the LD section, most of it applies here as well.

- Don't abuse evidence. I will look it up, and you will lose.

- Weigh. Often and early. I cannot stress this enough - you need to weigh so that your arguments can even begin to be compared, since PF (typically) has no framework.*

- When you weigh, do impact analysis - I need to know how X millions of dollars compares to Y jobs created, or whatever the circumstances may be.**

- Don't just tell me "the Johnson card turns the Jones card". You may know your case and cards really well, but I don't. If you do this, I have to take time to go back and look for what each of those cards said, and you have to hope I flowed what they said correctly, and that I understand how one turns the other. Don't make that assumption***, and don't make me pause to go back and figure out all of that stuff. Just remind me briefly of what each card says.

- Don't be a jerk in CX (or in round in general). You being mean makes me sad, which will make you sad when you see speaker points.

* I am all for the inclusion of a small framework at the top of the case, it makes rounds much clearer and thus easier to judge (and easier for you to know what to go for in order to win).

** If your framework says something other than pure impacts is most important, obviously do your comparative analysis with respect to that.

*** You making assumptions make me sad, which will make you sad when you see speaker points.

CX:

I've judged it before. You should probably remind me what the speech times are.