I judge based on how well you understand what you're saying, how clearly you communicate it, and how you control the energy of the room. I want students to strive for a balanced skillset. I will make decisions based on technicalities but I reward those who are learning how to master communication that is occurring between speaker and judge and audience.

I want to be informed, persuaded, and entertained. I will entertain every argument but I want it to have a purpose in the round. I also enjoy absurdist arguments if you can make them link. I don't enjoy watching an adult kick a toddler though-if you have clearly outmatched your opponent, you don't have to keep kicking them. I like competitors to be good sports and hate T as a time skew. The best debaters aren't afraid to actually engage their opponents.

I can follow spreading just fine but if you aren't articulate I'm likely going to zone out. I do not have a good poker face so you will be able to see exactly what I'm thinking.

All of that being said I have been either a competitor, coach, or consultant for speech and debate since 1997. I currently coach at Tulsa Community College, Edison Prep HS and Edison Prep MS and coach every event available in AFA, NFA, and PKD. I also have a student who has competed on the NDT circuit. I was hired by NSDA in 2023 to judge at nationals.

In college, I competed in limited prep policy (NPDA), IPDA (limited prep public forum), extemp, impromptu, POI, Poetry, Prose, and Dramatic Interp. I was a 5-time oklahoma state champion in college and 1st ranked seed at nationals in Team IPDA, a top speaker at IPDA nationals. I was also a national champion in DI.

In high school I competed in nearly everything. I won over 150 awards (competed in champs a lot) and was the first quad ruby from Mounds HS (the highest rank at the timeI graduated). I was also the first student in the 27 year history (at that time) of the Bethany Tournament to win top debater, top speaker, and top IE competitor. I was state champ in OO, 3rd in LD, and 3rd in DD in 2001 and 2nd in Monologe at state in 2000.

I love this activity and am willing to give feedback and advice to any student who wants it.

Don’t spread or I won’t flow

Don’t shake my hand after the round

Be respectful and considerate of the others in the round

Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Go fight win

Competitor 2009-2013

Judge 2013-

Paradigms are silly. Rules and guidelines exist for a reason.

LD - I'm a traditional LD judge. It's philosophy debate. Listen to what your opponent is saying, and tell me why their points are silly. I don't want to hear that they dropped your subpoint 1.a.x, I'm flowing the round, I know they did or didn't. I want to know why them dropping the point matters to me. Why should I care about that one point?

On time - I keep official time, but if I'm listening to you speak, flowing, and keeping notes, I'm not going to be good at giving you time signals. Please keep your time too.

Also, don't spread. It's like when you go to a restaurant and they have 3000 things on the menu -- I'm going to assume that none of those things are amazing, and they're all mid, they just have a lot of them to distract me. I'd rather you have 2 solid arguments you know well. If I can't keep up on flowing, you're doing too much.

PF -There's four of you. Stop yelling at me. Stop yelling at each other.

Speech - Your movements, voice, face, mannerisms matter. You don't get props so you are the prop. Use it. Also, negative emotions are shown by more characteristics than "Sad yelling" -- please. Please stop sad yelling and please explore more of the emotional options.

In general, I like to think I'm not a regular judge, I'm a cool judge. That is to say -- just don't be rude, and we're probably chill.

LD is Value Debate. Propositions of Value

CX is Policy Debate. Propositions of Policy

Schools/Affiliations: Program Manager - Tulsa Debate League, Coach - Will Rogers High School

I currently compete in NFA LD on the college circuit, I competed in policy debate in high school for 3 years, I was a finalist for NUDL debater of the year 2023

General Paradigm
Left to my own devices, I’d approach the round from a policymaking point of view, but I know that few rounds boil down to such a paradigm. In light of that, debate is a game of sorts and I’m willing to let the debaters decide how it should be played. I can’t see myself voting against an affirmative on a stock issue like inherency.

Speed
Clarity, of course, is key. If I can’t understand you, then I can’t flow you and I likely won’t be inclined to vote for you or the position(s) I don’t understand. Look for cues (not flowing, a blank look on my face).

Line by Line
I prefer line by line debate. I believe you need to flow and I don’t think a team is obligated to share analytical arguments in a flash/speech doc. If the debate becomes disorganized because of your inability to stay on the flow, that’ll likely cost you in some way. Debate, at its essence, is about a clash of ideas...therefore clash is an essential ingredient to a good debate round. A round between two teams who neither extend their own arguments, nor address the specific attacks made on these arguments, is not a debate round, and such a round begs for intervention on my part.

Decision Calculus
I am loathe to intervene in a round, but will do so if neither team presents a clear comparative analysis of the issues in the round. You need to tell my why I should vote for you and make that clear in the final rebuttals.

Framework
I’ll start with my paradigm, you tell me where to move to, and convince me of why I should do so, if you’d like to change the framework. Any framework should make it possible for both sides to win and shouldn’t be rooted in a rejection of debate as an activity (though it’s possible I could be convinced otherwise).

Topicality (or any other procedural/theory argument)

I will vote on topicality. I think the negative has to construct a fully formed argument to convince me I should do so, complete with a reason that the violation committed by the affirmative is worthy of giving them the loss. I’m not as inclined to be convinced by a reverse voter argument in t, but affirmatives can defend themselves by attacking one or all of the components of a typical T argument and win the issue. Other procedurals tend to get decided based on actual, rather than, potential abuse.

Kritiks

. Despite my knowledge about some of the authors and their positions, I’m usually able to discern when the student speaking knows as little or less than I do. I prefer that if you’re going to make the k an issue, that you know it inside and out, and be aware of the inherent dangers in speaking quickly to a judge who may know less than you do, and who you are trying to convince. Real world alts are pretty much a requirement.


Performance
Do what you will, I’ll listen. Prefer they be relevant to topic.

Counterplans
I am good with counterplans, conditional is fine, but don’t get too feisty in this regard. Deep counterplan and pic theory give me headaches, so slow down and talk me through it.

Multiple Worlds

No thanks...multiple conditional positions are fine, but not contradictory advocacy. Can’t be convinced otherwise on the matter so save your time.

If you can find out who my high school partner was and mention them in your speech, Ill give you an extra speaker point.

3NRs and My Decision
I will give an oral critique if time allows and reveal decision if permitted by tourney expectations, but I will not enter into an argument with either team about my decision. I can handle a question or two, but make sure it’s a question. Look, I am always going to do my best, but I’m sure I’ve gotten the decision wrong a time or two, and I hate it when I do. That being said, my usual answer when teams argue why they lost is: I’d feel the same way if I were you, but next time debate better. Then I mark their speaker points down for being rude. Live to fight another day, and be aware that you might see your judge again down the road.

Prep Time

i will be lenient as we learn the online format, but that being said, I’m losing patience with the time taken up by flashing files even during in-person debates. Be efficient.

Denslow, Keith Edit 0 3… Judging Philosophy
Keith Denslow,
Skiatook High School,
Skiatook, OK

I have taught academic debate for 32 years. I have coached both policy debate and value debate on the high school level plus NDT and CEDA for 2 years on the college level. I have coached regional, district, and state champions.

I give up. I embrace the absurdity which is post-modern debate. If you debate on a critical level, then it is your burden to understand and explain the philosophical position you are advocating and offer a rational alternative to the worldview.

Topicality is an outdated mode of thought with tries to put up fences in our brain about what we can and can not talk about. It harms education and the marketplace of ideas. As a negative, only run Topicality if the argument is 100% accurate not as a test of skill or response.

It is important that anyone arguing counterplans have an understanding of counterplan theory especially how a counterplan relates to presumption. DO NOT automatically permute a counterplan or critique without critically thinking about the impact to the theory of the debate.

Style issues: Civility is important. Open CX is okay. Clarity must accompany speed. Numbering your arguments is better than “next” signposting. Detailed roadmaps are better than “I have 5 off” and prep time doesn’t continue for 2 minutes after you say “stop prep” Flash evidence faster!

As a debate judge, my primary focus is on promoting a respectful and clear debating environment. Here are the key elements of my debate paradigm:

1. Respect and Decorum:

   • I place a high value on respect in debates. Competitors should treat each other with civility and refrain from personal attacks, derogatory language, or disrespectful behavior.
   • Maintain proper decorum throughout the debate, addressing your opponents and judges respectfully.

2. Clarity and Accessibility:

   • Clarity is essential. I must be able to understand your arguments to give you credit for them, so please enunciate clearly and avoid talking too fast.
   • If I cannot understand your argument, I cannot flow it.

3. Spreading:

   • If competitors choose to engage in spreading (rapid delivery of arguments), they must maintain clarity. Speed should not come at the expense of intelligibility.
   • Remember that spreading is not the only path to victory. Well-articulated, well-structured arguments can be more persuasive than sheer speed.

4. Use of Crossfires:

   • I do not consider crossfires as a time for rebuttals. Crossfires are meant for competitors to ask questions and clarify their opponent's arguments. I do not flow arguments made in crossfire.
   • Please use crossfires to seek clarification, challenge your opponent's arguments, and help me understand the debate better.

In summary, my judging philosophy is rooted in fostering a respectful and comprehensible debate environment. I believe that a respectful discourse is not only more constructive but also more persuasive. Clarity is essential, and I urge competitors to prioritize it, especially when spreading. Remember that crossfires are for questions, not rebuttals. Good luck, and let's have a productive and respectful debate!

A note about rule violations: I know the rules of debate. I am aware of both the OSSAA and NSDA rules and their various differences. I keep copies of the handbooks at the ready, so I can look up rules if I feel a rule was violated. That being said, I will weigh lies made in round in my judging decisions. Lies about cheating, evidence, drops, etc. are all weighed into my judging decision. Lying will not benefit you in my rounds. Debates should be about which team can make the best argument, not which team can trick the judge. If you need to lie to win, you did not win the round.

Notes for IEs:

I value genuine performance over screaming and fake crying every single time. Anyone can scream- few can act.

BIG NOTE: You NEED to implement trigger warnings if you have a selection with triggering content. You do not know what the experience of those in the rooms is- you could seriously hurt someone's performance by not giving a warning. You also do not know the lived experiences of your judges- they are a captive audience and you ought to give them a chance to prepare themselves. This is why dramatic pieces often get called Trauma Interpretations. That's not a compliment- it's a statement on how upsetting it is to see children acting out the most heinous trauma they possibly can in order to get reactions through shock value. If you are genuinely good- trigger warnings will not dull your performance- they will enhance it. If you rely on the shock of triggering people- consider if you are really a good actor. Trigger warnings DO NOT count against your speech time- there is literally no reason to give one.

I am open to most any type of argumentation. I love kritiks, theory shells, topicalities, and all things squirrelly. That said, I believe spreading is an unethical practice and if I can't understand you enough to flow, you didn't say it. I have voted on probably 80% of speed Ks I have heard.

Debate: I am not particularly picky on anything, but please be respectful to your opponent(s). Feel free to run progressive arguments, but beware that I may not get them if you aren't clear.

LD: Make sure to clarify how your criterion supports your contentions! Also, don’t drop all your contentions for the sake of the value debate. Do not make all of your arguments cross-applications of your own case unless there is a legitimate clash. I vote primarily on the quality of coverage.

PF: Any speaking speed is fine, just make sure you are coherent. A heated cross-examination is fine but please don’t spend the entire time yelling at each other. I vote on the quality of evidence and general coverage.

DEBATE:

First, a little bit about myself. Hi, my name's Joe and I've done LD all four years of high school and I love it a lot, that's why I'm judging right now. Above all else, good sportsmanship is key in any debate round. I've got plenty of experience under my belt so don't worry about going to fast for me to understand, but do make sure that your opponent can understand what you're saying as well (if you plan on policy-style spreading I'd prefer to have a copy of your case to read along because I can't flow that). I count dropped arguments very heavily—if you drop something your opponent has won that point, that's just how it works. I keep my own flow but if you want those dropped points to count you better point them out in the round, I will only judge exclusively based off of what is brought up in the round (don't leave anything open to interpretation. If you have any questions please ask them before the round! I'm happy to clear up any confusion! Have a good round!

SPEECH:

Just as LD, I've also competed in a variety of speech events throughout my time in high school. Judging for this is pretty much by the event, so there's nothing very specific adive I can give you other than keep your cool—you got this!

I am a 4-year LD debater and a 7-year debate coach. I have been the debate coach in Joplin and am now the assistant at Broken Arrow.

If you are doing LD/PF, you do not need an off-the-clock roadmap as I am actively flowing your round and know what you should be doing next.

LD - The debate should have a heavy focus on the V/VC - this is a values debate, not a policy debate. However, I would vote for a K if the debater is in fact better.

CX - I vote heavily on stock issues.

LD: I'm pretty traditional. I like values and criteria and evidence and clash. If you read a K or a bedtime narrative, I will stop flowing the round and take a nap. I have a speed threshold of "don't" and if you could please keep the jargon to a minimum, that would be great. Theory is cool, in theory, but it shouldn't be an entire framework. I like long walks on the beach, and a good tennis match. Also, don't shake my hand at the end of the round.

PF: Um....win more arguments than the other team. Go. Fight. Win.

In high school I was a member of Moore High Schools speech and debate team. There I competed in LD, PFD, OO and Extemp. I crossed over to policy in 2014 when I started debating for the University of Oklahoma’s policy debate team. I honestly do not care what you do in front of me. Debate is a game, a performance, I am the audience and attempt to judge as fair as possible. Persuade me. I am a black woman living in America in the year 2018 with Donald Trump as our President. That is the basic lens through which I evaluate things through.

If you are not clear I will not flow you and will not default to the speech doc.

I like framing and I like being persuaded. It makes my job easy.

Have a link to the case and not the squo. Makes it easier to vote for you.

Hello! I’m Morgan Russell and I am the head coach for Norman North High School in OK. We're relatively traditional style debaters, but part of my team does compete on the circuit 8 or so times a year. Before that, I competed in CX and PF in high school, assistant coached through college. So I’ve dabbled in it all.

Overall: My philosophy on debate whoever debates better should win. However, my personal opinion of arguments or strats shouldn't matter, so I default to weighing brought up by debaters whenever possible. I do believe Aff and Neg need to interact with each other's cases.

I’ll judge the round based off what you give me, and won't judge based off what I'd do, but what y'all did.

Add me to the email chain! morgannmrussell@gmail.com

LD: I think framework is important, but it’s not everything. You need evidence and solid analytics to back it up. I prefer we not spread, but I'm fine with some speed, if I can't understand I will say “clear” once or twice. From there, if it doesn’t make my flow, I can’t weigh it. I’m fine with Ks and Plans in LD.

PF: PF was made to be more accessible, so I don’t like when it gets too new wave. It’s not “mini-policy.” You can use debate jargon, but don’t just read cards the whole time. I need impact calc.

CX: It’s all fair game. As far as spreading, I’m okay but with Zoom it’s more difficult to understand. I will say “clear” once or twice if I can’t understand. From there, if it doesn’t make my flow, I can’t weigh it.

Simply put: The best argument will win.

My background is in Lincoln-Douglas and Student Congress in high school, and now a policy coach.

Speaking style: Slow it down a little. Show me that you understand the arguments, and the vocabulary by not tripping over your words.

Argumentation: Understand your cards. If you cannot show me you understand the card during CX or rebuttal, you will not win the round.

Clear, cohesive arguments that show me you understand the very basics of debate (claim, warrant, impact) will win my rounds.

Last updated: September 28, 2023

I prefer speechdrop but here is my email for document sharing/evidence chains if you need it:betty.stanton@jenksps.org

I'm the head coach of a successful team, and have been coaching for 18 years. I did CX in high school so long ago that Ks were new, and I competed in college.

LD: I'm a very traditional judge. I like values and criteria and analysis and clash. I want framework debate to actually mean something.

PF: I’m a very traditional judge. If the round becomes a very short CX round instead of a PF round, we have a problem. I want evidence and actual analysis of that evidence, and I want actual clash.

CX: I can handle your spread and I will vote where I'm persuasively told to with the following exceptions: 1) I have never voted on T. I think it's a non-starter unless a case is so blatantly non-topical that you can't even see the resolution from it. That's not to say it isn't a perfectly legitimate argument, it's just to say that I will probably buy the aff's 'we meet's and you might have better uses for your time than camping here. 2) If you run a K, you should firmly and continuously advocate for that K. 3) I, again, will always prefer actual clash in the round over unlinked theory arguments.

General Things ~

Don't claim something is abusive unless it is.

Don't claim an argument was dropped unless it was.

Don't advocate for atrocities.

Don't be a jerk to your opponents (This will get you the lowest speaker points possible. Yes, even if you win.)