I am a lay judge. I cannot vote for what I do not understand.

No spreading. Please be respectful to your opponents.

Tab but lean policy maker - who's got the best plan to put forth / best to implement in squo (BUT IM STILL OPEN FOR ALL ARGUMENTS)

I do have a HIGH threshold for Ks, CPs however

Need you to tell me WHY I need to vote for you; give me impact calc or some easy mechanism to weigh the round

Want good clash in round, otherwise I'll tend to vote for the person who said the most impactful thing last

Speed is fine but need clear tags, I'm not going to do the work to follow along

Dylan Bennett

NSDA Diamond Coach

My vote will go to the team with the best argument. I like to see unique arguments with realistic impacts. I do not like hypothetical arguments. Any arguments mentioned need to have credible warrant.

DO NOT SPREAD! I can't judge arguments that I do not hear.

Offense and defense are equally important.

Be clear with the citation of your evidence

Affirmative always holds the burden of proof. If the affirmative can not prove their point to be true the negation must pick up the ballot.

Most importantly remember you are debating each other but you are proving your points to the judge.

I love seeing the results of hardwork and the love of speech.

I am a relatively flow judge. I value weighing, and extension of case that you want to be judged off of. I expect most delinks or turns to be addressed.

Debate:

No two rounds are the same, so depending on the round, I can vote on framework, clash, structure, analytics, or impacts because those are all crucial to a good debate. Persuade me why I should care and vote for you.

Ensure every argument is sound, but I could easily go for outlandish arguments as long as they’re done right.

I’m good with speed, and progressive arguments are fine, don’t go overboard to where you do so much that you can't keep up with your arguments and structure.

I have a background in both traditional and progressive LD and PF. If I am in a CX round, then something has gone terribly wrong.

If you are rude, condescending, abusive, etc., in the round, you WILL be called out and possibly ranked down because of it. This is supposed to be a healthy, educational environment, and I don't condone people acting like they are better than any other competitor just because of how many rounds they have won.

Congress:

I should put this in all caps, but if you behave unprofessionally in the chamber, I will completely dock you. Nothing is worse than complete disrespect for the round, competitors, and judges.

Also, I don't automatically vote you up just for being PO. Don't run for PO if you don't have your Parli procedures down; I know them.

Content is key to winning in congress and being active in the chamber. Ask questions that make you stand out for the RIGHT reasons, not because you made someone laugh.

IEs:

I have multiple state titles and have competed in numerous national out rounds on the high school and college circuit, so I don't just go by "who has the best story." Characterization and development are important, as well as clean delivery. No topics are off-limits, and follow the parameters of the event.

If you have any questions, please feel free to email me at ashlyntrokey@gmail.com.

CX Debate

I consider myself to be a Tab judge, but I also have more of a traditional background. I'm comfortable evaluating the style of argumentation presented in the round. However, I don't have as much experience evaluating policy debate rounds this year as I typically would because of the online format. That means I'm not as familiar with the literature, so be mindful of that. I recommend that you explain to me how there's a path to vote for you in the rebuttals. Tell me how you think arguments should be weighed in the round.

Speech

In interp, I look for a clear storyline and development of characters. I expect to see a teaser and an intro that justifies the selection/tells me why the performance matters.

In platform and limited prep, I listen for effective speech construction, meaningful content, and smooth yet conversational delivery. I like the use of humor and other elements to add personality to the speech.

I'm a Tabula Rasa judge so I rely on the debaters and the flow to set both the validity of arguments and the role of the ballot. That means that I'll accept any argument until the other side contests it with argumentation or theory and puts it into play. I really enjoying seeing the rebuttals is weighing of impacts and holistic evaluation that inform my ballot. Evidence is important, but every argument should also have analysis. It is important that you have a very clear link chain throughout the debate. It is also important that you clearly weigh and impact your arguments (the earlier in the debate the better). BE COMPARATIVE. Do not make me have to choose which impact I think might be more important than another. Don't just tell me what your impacts are. Weigh and tell me why they matter, and comparatively weigh against your opponents. I will evaluate whatever arguments you present in round.

Make it easy for me to vote, weigh the round at the end.

Style/Delivery Preference:

Spreading is fine

You must be clear and articulate.

Slow down/emphasize on your taglines.

Signpost!!

Be respectful and nice to your partner and opponents.

Have Fun :)

For congress: refutation, Crystal, if speaking first or second add/neg, have clear and strong arguments well presented. Speaker style is of key, role play is important,

PF: establish clear flow, use crossx wisely, flow based round wins.

Speaking events: has good piece, good dramatization, should evoke emotions.

Last Updated 12/5/2021

Ishmael Kissinger
Experience: 3.5 yrs for The University of Central Oklahoma 02-05 (Nov/JV & Open)
14 yrs as Coach @ Moore High School, OK
Policy Rounds Judged: Local ~10
Policy National/Toc - 2
LD Rounds Judged Local: 0
LD National/TOC - 0

PFD - Local = 0

PFD Nat Circuit - 0

Email Chain: PLEASE ASK IN ROUND - I cannot access my personal email at school.

*Note: I do not follow along with the word doc. I just want to be on the chain so that I can see the evidence at the end of the round if necessary. I will only flow what I hear.

LD -

Just because I am primarily a policy judge does not mean that I think LD should be like 1 person policy. Small rant: I am tired of us making new debate events and then having them turn into policy... If you are constructing your case to be "Life & Util" and then a bunch of Dis-Ads you probably don't want me as your judge. If you are going for an RVI on T in the 1AR you probably don't want me as a judge. I don't think that LD affs should have plan texts. If I were to put this in policy terms: "You need to be (T)-Whole Res."

Affirmatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their Criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that affirm the whole resolution.

Negatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that negate the whole resolution.

CX

I tend to consider myself a flow oriented judge that tries to be as tab as any one person can be. Absent a framework argument made, I will default to a policy-maker/game-theorist judge. I view debate in an offense-defense paradigm, this means that even if you get a 100% risk of no solvency against the aff, but they are still able to win an advantage (or a turned DA) then you are probably going to lose. You MUST have offense to weight against case.

Generic Information:

Speed is not a problem *Edit for the digital age: Sometimes really fast debaters are harder for me to understand on these cheap computer speakers.

T & Theory need to be impacted with in round abuse. As the debate season goes on I tend to err more toward reasonability than I do at the beginning of the year. This is usually because as the debate year goes on I expect Negative teams to be more prepared for less topical arguments. This is generally how much judges operate, they just don't say it. I typically don't vote on potential abuse, you should couch your impacts on potential abuse in very real-world examples.

Please make impact calculus earlier in the debate rather than just making it in the 2nr/2ar

Kritiks are not a problem, but I am not really deep into any one literature base. This may put you at a disadvantage if you assume I know/understand the nuances between two similar (from my point of view) authors. **If you are going for a K or an Alt in the 2NR but are unsure if the aff is going to win the Perm debate and you want me to "kick the alt" and just have me vote on some epistemic turn you're only explaining in the overview of the 2NR you are not going to enjoy the RFD. If you think it's good enough to win the debate on with only a :30 explanation in the overview, you should probably just make the decision to go for it in the 2nr and kick the alt yourself.

When addressing a kritikal aff/neg I will hold you to a higher threshold than just Util & Cede the political, I'll expect you to have specific literature that engages the K. If this is your strategy to answering K teams I am probably not your "1."

I don't have a problem with multiple conditional arguments, although I am more sympathetic to condo bad in a really close theory debate.

CPs are legit. Just like judges prefer specific links on a Dis-Ads I also prefer specific Counter-Plans. But I will evaluate generic states/int'l actor CPs as well.

Dispo = Means you can kick out of it unless you straight turn it, defensive arguments include Perms and theory. (My interp, but if you define it differently in a speech and they don't argue it, then your interp stands)

DAs are cool - the more specific the link the better, but I will still evaluate generic links.

Case args are sweet, especially on this year's (2019) topic.



Personal Preferences:

Really I have only one personal pref. If you are in a debate round - never be a jerk to the opposing team &/or your partner. I believe that our community has suffered enough at the hands of debating for the "win," and although I don't mind that in context of the argumentation you make in the round, I do not believe that it is necessary to demean or belittle your opponent. If you are in the position to be facing someone drastically less experienced than yourself; keep in mind that it should be a learning process for them, even if it is not one for you. It will NOT earn you speaker points to crush them into little pieces and destroy their experience in this activity. If you want to demonstrate to me that you are the "better debater(s)," and receive that glorious 29 or maybe even 30 it will most likely necessitate you: slowing down (a little), thoroughly explaining your impact calc, clearly extending a position, then sitting down without repeating yourself in 5 different ways. If you opt to crush them you will prob. win the round, but not many speaker points (or pol cap) with me.

Debate Paradigm:

I am a supporter of traditional purposeful debate

I am not a fan of:

-plans/counterplans in debates

-disclosing before the debate starts

-excessive speed

-data dump over debate

-aggressive/demeaning towards opponent

I prefer:

-a slower more methodical debate

-actual discussion on the topic/resolution

Hello I am new to judging so I request that you not speak too fast.

Thank you

Speech Paradigm:

I admire an articulate, poised speaking delivery. I respect content knowledge, but not the spontaneous manufacturing of facts just to bolster a case while not understanding the topic. Note cards are acceptable to use as reminders. It's okay to be nervous, and that energy will need direction, but unnecessary pacing should be limited.

LD Paradigm:

Judged LD for 5yrs, taught LD for 2. I prefer a normal conversational speed (not a fan of spreading) but will not dock points for speed. The evidence and connections, rebuttal answers should be clear and will be a factor in my judging who wins the rounds. Name calling and rude comments will not be tolerated at any time--if you don't like your opponent, beat them.

Typically the biggest issue I face as a judge is teams refuse to actually respond to or weigh arguments/impacts. Other than basic things like topicality, etc. I'm likely to vote for whichever team is able to resolve conflicting arguments related to links or impacts by addressing and dismantling or outweighing their opponent's (rather than simply re-reading evidence/extending through the ink)

Welcome to my paradigm! If you have any questions over this or have questions about things I did not mention, feel free to ask me and I will try my best to give useful and concise answers.

Overall: Speech and debate is an incredible activity and easily one of the most important activities in terms of preparing you for a successful post-high school life. With that in mind, I would prefer rounds are educational to some extent. This means that there is clash, CX/crossfire periods are productive and respectful, and there is critical thinking put into summarizing arguments and painting a picture of the round that easily shows you won.

Speed: I have no personal problem with speed. My biggest thing is that any word/name/date/title that you plan to use for extensions or other references is spoken clearly in the speech. If you are going to say "Smith 07" for extensions, then you need to make sure that citation was clear when it is first brought up. This same idea applies to any other content that you want to use frequently. For example, a key statistic within a paragraph that you want to use should be clear when introducing that information. I do not plan to say "clear" if you are not clear; the expectation is that you know how you are presenting (know ya self, know ya worth...ya know?).

Argument Types: Any argument type is fine for me in LD/CX. All that I ask is that you try and keep the round educational and respectful (watching a 3 minute crossfire where the AFF just asked the NEG what their counterplan is, when the NEG didn't know what that was, will never be an experience I want to repeat). In PF, I do not see the purpose of using more critical argumentation. I will evaluate the round regardless of the type of arguments made, but know that there is less room to adequately present and back-up critical arguments in an effective manner within PF time restraints.

Speaker Points: I do not do decimal speaker points (something I might change over time). For a 30, you need to be organized, have solid and well structured arguments, and overall show that you deserve to get the highest possible speaking evaluation. For a 28-29, you may be stellar in one or two areas, but you have room to improve in other areas of speaking. For example, you may have incredible arguments and speak without skipping a beat, but if you are jumping around the flow and not signposting properly, that would be a 28-29. A 26-27 is gained when there are more areas of improvement than stellar speaking qualities. Since decent argument formulation and coherent speaking are transferrable skills out of high school, I see the presentation side of a debate as important. I still value arguments>>>presentation, but having not-so-great organization may ruin the argument-side of things.....So...to get a 25...you most likely did something discriminatory or blatantly disrespectful in the round. This includes being racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, and/or being condescending to your opponent, judge, or both. I'd most likely talk to tournament staff if you received a 25. At the same time though, I have yet to give out a 25, so I've got confidence anyone reading this will keep that streak going!

I am not a fan of spreading...if I can't understand you how can I make an informed decision on your position? If you are for or against the status quo then state that and be convincing and compelling. Don't forget the importance of definitions but just because the other side concedes to your definitions don't assume that is enough to win the round.

Arguments need to have a claim, warrant, and an impact.

Tell me what you want me to vote on...give me a road map and sign post along the way. I am a fan of impacts and if you see a turn...go for it with all you have.

PF- has the feel of a "town" meeting so your argument should be kept simple..not to the point of being insulting. In this case...be sure you are factual/truthful with "commonly" known information. I am an educated, tax paying, home owning person.

I dont need a trigger warning but I will warn you that any moral repugnance ie RACISM (which has been way too prevalent of late), SEXISM, HOMOPHOBIA (you get the gist) I have a zero tolerance policy for...let's not test me on this issue please...I'd like to keep my hopes that we will continue to evolve into a society that is tolerant of how everyone wants to live their lives.

Congress: I am looking for full participation in the round. I am watching to see how active you are in questioning. I want to hear you give your argument for or against that is compelling and not a rehash of what's already been said throughout the round. I do not like watching speaks being given for the sake of giving a speech when we've already heard the same point stated in 3 previous speeches. Be clever and when you give your speech...I am stoked when you point out something said by the opposing side previously stated.

Westwood, ATX 2015-2019

Extensive local and national circuit experience

Competed mostly in Extemp but I am familiar with other speech events, PF, and Congress.

Extemp

- Answer the question - Make sure you are explaining everything that's in your question in each of your points. I'll rank you down for not doing it it's that important. - This is the best way to get my vote. If you answer the q sufficiently, then I will look for other qualities of your speech to rank you in the round as seen below.

- Time management is critical - If you are a competitor who has the ability to get the timing of your intro, 3 points, and conclusion within a 5 second margin then you'll easily be top 3

- Substrucuture should be easy to follow. If not, well .....

- Humor and a conversational tone are always welcomed. Your job is to make the audience comfortable.

- In elim rounds, I expect you to give me unique sources for your evidence.

- The point of cross is to point out the short comings of your opponent's speech, not to ruin their day. Your performance in cross ex can help you in my ranking of your speech.

Congress

- Analysis is one of the most important parts of Congress, show me what you know

- I'm not really a stickler for time in Congress but if you can be done with your speech at the 3 minute mark, that's impressive to me.

- Rhetoric/Humor/Presence should always be there

- Be polite and aware of your words

PF

- Plz put me on the email chain: maxswolf20@gmail.com

- Speaking fast doesn't make you a better debater. If I don't know what you're saying, then I won't be able to vote on whatever I couldn't hear.

- No real preference on arg types. Just do your thing and I'll do my best to follow where you are going with it.

- Do not miconstrue evidence, i.e don't paraphrase. Plz frontline in 2nd rebuttal.

- Do not give me prewritten reasons that say that your impact is wider in "scope" compared to your opponent's impact. Show me that you actually care about what your talking about by telling me why your link into the impact is specifically stronger than any other links/turns your opponents go for. This should be done clearly.

- Don't be mean or discriminatory. Y'all should know the rules.

I am a parent judge. Relatively new to judging PF. Be considerate of my experience levels.

I value logic and evidence. Being respectful to opponents matters too.

For email chain, please use: ly2005@gmail.com