Experience-

I have done all debate events, but I have substantially more experience with LD (both traditional and progressive). Four time state qualifier and two time national qualifier, once in Extemp and once in Worlds. While competing in Worlds, my team placed sixth and I placed fourth speaker.

Worlds-

I will judge the round how it should be judged according to Worlds norms and standards. Don’t try to be too limiting with framing, definitions or models. I will not evaluate the round using any other influences (LD, CX, PF). Ideal speed would be about conversational, and spreading will result in a a reduction of speaker points, speaking quickly to cover everything may not. I love POIs when done tastefully. Don’t stand up constantly with the sole purpose of distracting your opponent, but everybody needs to be asking them (not just the same team members). I also think that using POIs as more than just questions is a phenomenal strategy (20% of your overall rank).

LD-

Framework-

I prefer to have a framework to weigh the round with. Some sort of weighing mechanism makes the round more clear. I tend to evaluate different impacts though that weighing mechanism presented and won.

Arguments-

I need warrants and impacts. I will vote on most anything not obviously offensive (racism, sexism, homophobia ect.). While I have some familiarity with K's, it is not anything close to being extensive. If you decide to run one, you will probably have to give me more analysis and slow down more for claims and warrants (adding me to an email chain or flashing it won't hurt). I also require clash.

PF-

A framework is preferred, but not necessary. There needs to be clash and the other team's case must be addressed. My least favorite debates are those that heavily center on only one case because that usually results in a purely defense/offense debate.

Speaking-

I would rank myself as about a 7 as far as speed goes. Answers to questions-

I don't care where you sit

I don't care if you time on your phone

I don't need to see if your laptop/phone is on airplane mode

I don't care if you sit or stand for cross ex

In the intent of judging LD debate, I have a strong preference for policy-centric argumentation. I have never participated in  LD and I obviously have no preconceived notions on certain philosphies, but arguments framed/contextualized in terms of competing policy options or the status quo will be the easiest for me to understand. That said, there is nothing I will refuse to evaluate so long as it is compelling and well-warranted.

Updated Last: May 4, 2023

Email: christian.d.jones[at]gmail.com (yes, I would like to be on the chain)

Experience: Head coach for 11 years.

My General Paradigm
Debates must be fair and winnable for both sides, but debaters may argue what is and is not fair. Debaters may try to convince me which particular instance of debate ought to occur in each round. I will try to have an open mind, but I do have likes and dislikes.

Speed
I prefer debaters to ensure clarity before trying to accelerate. I can handle speed, but if I can't understand it, it doesn't get flowed. If I am being honest, I would estimate that I can catch almost every argument at about 85% of top speed for the national circuit. But if you brake for taglines and present them in a unique vocal inflection, top speed is not a problem.

Decision Calculus
I will only intervene if I feel I absolutely have to. I prefer that debaters to help me decide the debate. Comparative arguments will usually accomplish this. Extrapolations in rebuttals are acceptable if they are grounded in arguments already on the flow. Arguments that are extremely offensive or outright false may be rejected on face.

Style
I enjoy and find value in a variety of argumentation styles as long as they do not preclude a debate from taking place. A debate must have clash.

Framework
The 1AC presents their argument to a blank slate. If you want to change this, you will need an interpretation and to be clear on the criteria for winning the round. This criteria should offer both sides the possibility of winning the debate.

Topicality (or any other procedural/theory argument)
If you want me to vote on a proposed rule violation, then you need to win the complete argument. You must win that you have the best interpretation, that the other team has violated your interpretation, that your interpretation is good for debate, and that the offense is a voting issue. If you want to argue that the other team is breaking the rules, then you have the burden of proof. Procedural arguments may also urge a lesser punishment, such as, excluding the consideration of an argument.

Kritik
I do not want to proscribe specifics when it comes to kritiks, but I do want to see clash and comparative argumentation in any debate. I prefer Ks that are germane to the topic or affirmative case in some way. I like kritiks that have a clearly defined alternative. Alternatives that propose something are preferable to 'reject' or 'do nothing' type alts. I am not a fan of ontological arguments, especially nihilistic ones. If you choose to enter the debate space, you have already ceded certain assumptions about reality.

Counterplans
I am open to any type of counterplan, but all arguments are subject to the standard of fairness determined in the debate round. That said, if you are going to read a counterplan, it should probably have a solvency card.

Conflicts: Jenks High School

Experience: I debated for four years at Jenks High School in Oklahoma (2013-2017). I traveled out-of-state and went to state three of those four years. I ran heavy K stuff my sophomore year. A mixture of K and Policy my junior year and mainly policy stuff my senior year.

Education topic: I have judged very few debates on this topic. Do not expect me to know your acronyms or the “obvious” links.

Prep stops when the flash leaves the computer/email is sent/pocketbox uploaded.

Speed: I debated fast against fast people. That being said I don’t judge often and it’s been a while since I debated. So slow down at the beginning to let me get used to your voice. Trust that I am doing my best to flow, but I am not perfect. I will yell clear twice for each team if I feel like you are being unclear or too fast for me. Otherwise you shouldn’t be surprised if I can’t get your arguments on the flow.

General: Do what you do best because most of the times you will be worse if you do otherwise. I try to be as unbiased as possible, but I am imperfect. Don’t make me do work you should be doing. Don’t be hostile. It annoys me and drives people away from the activity I love. As far as post-rounds, I post-rounded too hard after my rounds so I am probably hypocritical on this, but I ask you be civil. I respect the schedule because I have been in tabrooms before and so that will be the primary reason for me to end a post-round. I do believe the judge should be able to confidently defend their decision. I may withhold some things for the sake of time. I’ll try to put them on the ballot. Feel free to ask me about them.

Evidence: I won’t call for much and will only do so if it is disputed or if no one explains it well.

Also do not clip. I love passive-aggressive questions like “do you mind sending me the highlighted version of your evidence?” If I am very confident you are clipping I will vote against you and tank your speaker points. I do this because the activity already suffers from poor representations of evidence and clipping is one of the worst forms of that. I will listen to recordings for proof.

DA/CP: Have good links. Get technical and explain evidence.

Case debates: Spend more time on them and make them good.

FW: I’ve been on both sides of this issue. They tend to get repetitive so try to not make them so. I like generic theoretical arguments as well as state pedagogy ones.

Theory: You need to impact these arguments out for these to be convincing. Be technical and list examples. I usually agree with “reject the argument and not the team,” but feel free to convince me otherwise. 

Random note: Disclosing makes debates better so please do it or have a really good reason not to.

Cross-X: Utilize this effectively. Don’t make me feel like you are struggling to make up questions. Have some planned out. Follow lines of questioning to make a point. Don’t be a bully. I will know when the person being cross X’d is losing a point and you don’t need to keep rubbing it in.

Topicality: Most of theory applies here. I don’t think you need to win in round abuse if you win competing interpretations. Being unfamiliar with this topic means you are going to have to do more work here. I don’t know the cliché T card that people read every round. I personally think definition origins is not debated enough, this effects predictability. 

Kritiks: I read many of these but I only occasionally ventured beyond the 5 or 6 most popular arguments so keep that in mind. Don’t assume I know the literature behind all of your work. Explain the alternative. I personally don’t find the permutation double bind argument convincing (alt should be strong enough to overcome the instance of the aff.) You can make it but don’t plan on this being your round winner. Explain your jargon as you use it. Have good links and explain them. Don’t assume because they have an econ advantage that you don’t have to explain the link to your cap K or your Anti-blackness K. Even if they don’t try to link turn the K, the Links are how you access the impact to your K, so it is still super important to explain them.

If you have any questions or concerns: mlugibihl@ou.edu

I vote for the team that debates the best. That's my paradigm.

If forced to pick a point of view I would call myself a policy maker. I debated for 8 years in high school and college (NDT style) and am open to just about any argument so long as it is debated well. This includes critical arguments, performance, theory, etc.

Other points that may help you adapt to me:

Speed. You can go as fast as you can read, but be clear. Most debaters try to sound fast without actually being fast. Be clear. You get more points if I can understand you, less if I don't. Did I mention to be clear?

Make arguments: Provide a claim, warrant and evidence for each argument. Number them. Explain why I should prefer yours to theirs. Help me evaluate competing claims, show me how they interrelate and how your version of the world is preferred over theirs. Help me write my ballot.

Show me you understand the chess match: Explain cross applications, contradictions, interrelationships, etc. Indict evidence and explain why yours is preferred. ARGUE THE INTERNAL LINKS. Kick out arguments you are losing to spend time on arguments you are winning (and know the difference). Grant arguments that help you. Be strategic.

Evaluate scenarios and explain how yours is more probable, happens first, or has a bigger impact than theirs. Explain the thesis of your critical or policy scenarios, and why they force a choice for you. If you are running a critical argument be able to clearly explain the philosophy and why this is a reason to reject your opponent's worldview. I consider this activity policy debate, so even if you are making a critical argument it is best to explain its impact as if I am a policy maker.

CX: Be nice. I'm OK with open CX, but I get annoyed when the two debaters who aren't supposed to be doing the CX are the only ones talking. Let your partner try to answer before you jump in. A solid CX can get you better speaker points and earns credibility, especially if it is used strategically to set up your upcoming arguments.

T: It is a voting issue and I like good T debates. Most of them are not good. If you plan to go for T on the negative you have to commit. Explain why your interpretation is better (abuse is not a reason unless you can show how they are actually abusing in this round). I like to hear examples of cases that meet/don't meet or examples of how the interpretation impacts limits specifically.

CP: I guess I'm a dinosaur but I believe a CP needs to be a reason to reject the topic and not just the plan (i.e. it should be non-topical and competitive). I could be convinced otherwise if argued well, but that's where I start. You also better have a solvency advocate if you want me to take the CP seriously.

Theory: If you are just reading a brief don't waste your time. If you want me to vote on theory you need to explain why the other team's abuse is a reason to reject. I probably won't vote on this unless you really commit and explain why the abuse in this round justifies voting on the theory argument.