East Oklahoma District Tournament
2023
—
OK/US
Speech (IE, Debate) Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
Victoria Aary
Miami High School
None
Madison Adam
Jenks High School
None
George Alaback
Bishop Kelley High School
None
Emily Alberty
Oologah High School
Last changed on
Sat April 6, 2024 at 4:00 AM CDT
Hello! I am an undergraduate philosophy student at Oklahoma State University in my junior year and currently compete with the ethics team. I debated throughout high school and qualified for Nationals in Public Forum in 2021.
Debate: The #1 fastest way to lose a round that I am judging is to disrespect your opponent.
I love a clean flow, so please be conscious that your arguments are well organized.
All argumentation styles are welcome but know that I am only familiar with traditional styles and may struggle with a poorly explained progressive argument. In essence, logic > uniqueness.
LD: Ensure that there is a strong link between your value and your contentions! I also like to see a good understanding of whatever your criterion is and how it applies to the viewpoint you are defending. For LD, I primarily vote based on coverage (not dropping arguments that ought not to be dropped, thoroughly analyzing your opponent's case, and adding to your defense where needed).
PF: Speak as fast as you are comfortable with. However, I can't flow what I don't hear, so make sure you are enunciating if you choose to talk quickly. I vote on evidence (statistics, empirical impacts) and coverage (see LD for description).
Naomi Andrews
Edison Preparatory High School
Last changed on
Wed February 28, 2024 at 2:22 PM CDT
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.
Jenna Barnett
Bixby High School
None
Jody Batie
Haskell High School
None
Abbi Bertrem
Tulsa Washington
Last changed on
Thu April 11, 2024 at 3:53 PM EDT
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
Catherine Blair
Mannford High School
None
Elizabeth Brannon
Fort Gibson High School
None
Lilliana Branson
Bixby High School
None
Melanie Briggs
Ada High School
None
John Brown
Tulsa Washington
None
Kaslin Burchardt
Glenpool High School
None
Amy Campbell
Broken Arrow High School
None
Teron Casey
Ada High School
None
Mona Chamberlin
Oologah High School
None
Alicia Christopher
Union HS
None
Lonnell Crocker
Okmulgee High School
None
Jake Daniel
Fort Gibson High School
None
Jennifer Denslow
Oologah High School
None
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 8:55 AM EDT
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!
Allison Dodge
Owasso High School
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:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Thomas Donathan
Oologah High School
Last changed on
Fri February 16, 2024 at 6:23 PM CDT
I don't really have general paradigm for judging so I just created a tentative list of things I like and dislike.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Talented, brilliant, incredible, amazing, show-stopping, spectacular, never the same, totally unique, completely not ever been done before, unafraid to reference or not reference...:
1. Strong value and criteria that are tied into your contentions
2. Weighing impacts between both sides (Maybe your opponent has a lot of good points, but if they mean nothing in comparison to your one good point impact-wise, I could still be convinced to vote for you.)
3. Addressing all of each sides case meaningfully
4. Sign posting what you are attacking/defending as you move down the flow of your/your opponents case.
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Harmful, dangerous, gross, disgusting, and should never be promoted...:
1. Having a consequentialist framework but having contentions with 0 impact
2. Underhanded shenanigans (i.e. trying to gaslight me into thinking your opponent said something they didn't, trying to say your opponent can only answer yes or no in CX, etc.)
3. 12,000 subpoints that are only 2 sentences long
4. Saying statistics are the ONLYYYY type of evidence that can prove anything ever and then having non-statistic evidence in your own case.
Harper Doss
Tulsa School of Arts and Sciences
None
Arena Foddis
Jenks High School
None
Jessica Frizzell
Bristow High School
Last changed on
Sat January 6, 2024 at 9:31 AM CDT
I do not mind off-time road maps. A clear outline of each point and subpoint during construction is imperative. Linking each point to your value and criterion helps flow the case for judges and opponents. Definitions can make or break a case. Be confident in your definitions. Speak rapidly ONLY if you can also speak clearly. I like to see passion.
Riley Fry
Mannford High School
None
David Galoob
Charles Page High School
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 5:10 AM CDT
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.
Spencer Gardner
Jenks High School
None
Matthew Gilman
Bixby High School
Last changed on
Fri February 2, 2024 at 7:30 AM CDT
LD Debate Paradigm
You are not here to personally convince me that your side is correct. I have my own opinion on the topic and you will probably not change my mind about it as I have been keeping track of philosophy and politics for about 30+ years now.
I am here to measure:
- The skill at which you argue your case.
- The ability to speak clearly and get your points across.
- The ability to listen to your opponent and counter their points.
I'm like a boxing judge measuring which blows land and which blows are countered.
What I like:
- Convincing and proving that your value is higher than your opponents is good.
- Tie your impacts back to your value. What's the use of a morality debate when the impacts of your contentions don't apply to your value and you don't remind me of it?
- Don't tell me that your opponent's evidence is bad. Tell me why it's bad and why your evidence is better. I usually disregard any attacks against evidence without a good reason why.
- Voter Issues. Tell me why. Don't just say, "I win this issue." Tell me why you win this issue.
Tiffany Glass
Mannford High School
None
Makayla Goode
Union HS
None
Madison Gray
Mannford High School
None
Jennifer Hallum
Muldrow High School
None
Mark Hallum
Muldrow High School
None
David Hamby
Tulsa Washington
None
Darrel Harbaugh
Bishop Kelley High School
Last changed on
Sun February 25, 2024 at 5:47 AM CDT
I retired from Coffeyville, KS - Field Kindley Memorial HS in 2012 after coaching debate and forensics for 36 years. I continue to judge when possible. I consider myself a policy maker and prefer to weigh the impacts of the disads and advantages. Obviously, topicality and solvency will be considered, but without a reasonable and compelling DA the negative has to work harder. Additionally, I expect the Aff. to meet its prima facia burdens. I expect both sides to provide clash. Not a fan of Kritiks, but I will listen to most any argument that is relevant to the debate and expect rebuttals to narrow down to the most compelling arguments. I prefer that the round not be fast and incoherent. Clarity is key. If debaters are not clear and arguments do not link to the opponent's positions, then you leave the decision totally in my hands and I have to search for reasons to justify my decision. Not a wise choice. I have not coached for 12 years and will be out of the loop with "new debate practices". In other words, I'm old school. I can flow a round, but if a so-called argument gets by me, it won't impact my decision. Basically, "don't be stupid" and we will have fun.
As for LD and PF, I have coached both. Each have their own purpose, LD debates should establish a value. While both sides will present real world examples that support their value positions, this is not a policy debate. LD is value debate and the decision will be made for whomever wins the value debate. PF was originally intended to debate current events. Not sure that’s the case anymore, but as I rarely hear PF debates, I expect each team to present evidence and arguments that support their side best. Both LD and PFD were developed as an answer to bad, fast, incoherent policy debates. I expect LD and PF to be slow, conversational and persuasive.
Zachary Haskins
Riverfield Country Day School
Last changed on
Wed January 10, 2024 at 6:26 AM CDT
Pretty much tab, I'll vote for practically anything if you explain it well and it's not racist/sexist/bigoted etc. Because of this, framework occupies an essential role in the round as it defines the debate space. Also, the cleaner you allow my flow to be, generally the easier time I'll have voting for you. Feel free to ask any specific paradigm questions.
Steven Heinen
Oologah High School
None
Martin Hill
Ada High School
None
Bethany Hoskins
Union HS
None
Stormy Howell
Okmulgee High School
None
Kendal Hurley-Smith
Bristow High School
None
Kaylea Hutson-Miller
Miami High School
None
Joy Jensen
Verdigris High School
None
Michelle Johnson
Bartlesville High School
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 8:10 AM CDT
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.
Christian Jones
Bartlesville High School
Last changed on
Thu February 29, 2024 at 4:28 AM CDT
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.
Lakshmi Karande
Union HS
None
Susan Kilpatrick
Fort Gibson High School
None
Will Lacy
Owasso High School
None
Chris Larcade
Muldrow High School
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 3:39 AM CDT
Email : chris.larcade@staff.muldrowps.org
BASIC NEED TO KNOW:
Spreading: Need taglines to be clear. If I can't flow it, I can't use it to vote for you
Argumentation | Rhetoric: I look for debate speaking. I love to see debate falsies being used to disprove arguments.
Topicality: I will vote on it if I feel the NEG proved it to be abusive.
K Arguments- I will vote on "K" if you break it down to an understandable level. The LINK must be clear and offset the impacts of the AFF.
Inherency: If the NEG proves it is already being done, I will vote on it
Things I DON'T like
- Framework: I am not a fan of heavy framework arguments. Your impact should provide the voters for me to make my decision.
- Abuse Arguments: I have heard a lot of these arguments this season. I can determine what is and is not abuse for myself throughout a round. If your entire case is based on abuse, it appears that your case is not solid on its own merit.
- Ignoring your opponent's argument just to extend your own arguments and hope that their argument goes away.
Things I DO like
- Confidence: Don't give me a reason to vote you down. If you show me that you lost an argument with your non-verbals, then you will lose the argument.
- CLASH: I love it! Especially in cross-examination.
- TAGLINES: Once again, if I can't flow it then I will not vote for it.
- Sportsmanship: Don't make personal attacks, be professional and HAVE FUN.
Erin Larcade
Muldrow High School
None
Wayne Larkin
Tulsa School of Arts and Sciences
Last changed on
Wed February 28, 2024 at 8:11 AM CDT
I am most engaged and convinced when an individual speaks with confidence. This includes content knowledge and eye contact.
Suzanne Lauritsen
Bartlesville High School
None
Misti Lettenmaier
Broken Arrow High School
Last changed on
Fri January 12, 2024 at 9:57 AM CDT
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.
GEORGE LOWRY
Bixby High School
None
Cassy Lynch
Bishop Kelley High School
None
Beth Mason
Bixby High School
None
Kelly McCracken
Tulsa Washington
Last changed on
Wed January 3, 2024 at 2:27 AM CDT
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.
Maggie McCracken
Tulsa Washington
None
Ember McCurdy
Ada High School
None
Amber McDaniel
Broken Arrow High School
None
Isaac McDaniel
Broken Arrow High School
None
Emma Mirkes
Jenks High School
None
Cassie Mitchell
Bixby High School
None
Krystal Moore
Muldrow High School
None
Victoria Moore
Haskell High School
None
Layla Mortadha
Tulsa Washington
None
Luke Ontman
Broken Arrow High School
None
Tyler Page
Muldrow High School
None
Merrie Palmer
Ada High School
None
Jonah Panther
Tulsa School of Arts and Sciences
None
Nikki Prock
Oologah High School
None
Olivia Rahal
Jenks High School
None
Inez Ramirez
Miami High School
Last changed on
Tue February 20, 2024 at 2:58 AM CDT
simplify your arguments: please don't force me to think.
speak slow: i'm alright with speed, but I'll stop flowing when it sounds like you're wheezing and maybe call for help if you actually are. in other words, speak slowly and clearly if you want to be certain that i'm flowing what you're saying.
make it make sense: one of the most notable traits of mastery is the ability to teach your subject in various (and effective) ways. make sure to explain the logic or coherency of your argument in different ways just in case it doesn't translate well the first time. not only will you avoid sounding like a broken rambling record, but you can also use it to reinforce and emphasize your arg.
weigh: love to see it. don't just tell me that your argument or impact outweighs your opponents. explain how through different mechanisms (scope, time-frame, reversibility, probability, magnitude, etc) and if do it well, you'll incorporate more than one.
N. Georgeann Roye
Miami High School
None
Jesse Schumann
Tulsa Washington
None
Alysia Shepard
Bixby High School
None
Erin Shepherd
Jenks High School
Last changed on
Sat February 10, 2024 at 8:08 AM CDT
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.
Jacob Shepherd
Jenks High School
None
Ricinda Spatz
Union HS
None
Brogan Spears
Broken Arrow High School
None
Rani Spindle
Tulsa School of Arts and Sciences
Last updated: September 28, 2023
Betty Stanton
Jenks High School
Last changed on
Mon April 22, 2024 at 11:04 AM CDT
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.)
Last changed on
Wed March 27, 2024 at 4:14 AM CDT
I do flow, but only what I hear.
I do time, but that's addressed later in the paradigm.
I am ready before each speech so just debate like I'm not there.
I WILL VOTE ON THE FRAMEWORK MOST OF THE TIME.
My LD paradigm is super simple. I'm okay with all types of arguments as long you can prove a strong value/criterion link. I'm a traditional LD Judge, I won't knock progressive but I do ask that you are clear in your argumentation. I flow and I expect arguments to not be dropped and extended throughout the round. Besides that, I enjoy a fun round so don't be rude but don't be passive. Again I'm open to whatever just make sure that your arguments are clear, logical, and have a strong Value/Criterion Link. Please don't say your card names, say the argument. I do not flow card names if you say "refer to my john 3:16 card" I will have no clue what you're talking about, but if you say "refer to x argument" I'll be on board. As a traditional judge, I like hearing some philosophy. I am not a philosophy expert but I do know the major points of the more used arguments and I wont count it as part of the RFD unless your opponent calls it out. If they don't then run with it I guess.
PF is very similar, hit me with your creative arguments. I generally vote for winners based on which team can either give me the bigger impacts or who can give me a good amount of strong arguments. IF YOU SPREAD IN PUBLIC FORUM I WILL NOT FLOW. I AM A PF PURIST. DO NOT SPREAD I WILL TRULY LOOK AT YOU AND MAYBE WRITE ONE THING. IF YOU ARE A PFER AND SAY USE A PHILOSOPHY FRAMEWORK I WILL NOT APPRECIATE IT. PF IS FOR THE LAY JUDGE. TREAT ME LIKE A LAY JUDGE.
Also if you are reading this, just an FYI please TIME yourselves so I don't have to interrupt you. Again I'm super laid back so just make sure that arguments are very clear and logical.
CX is not my favorite so I have no real paradigm for it. Just tell me why your arguments are good. I like Ks but I hate nukes(extinction).
As you can tell by this paradigm that I'm somewhat lazy. So if you have any specific questions feel free to ask before the round AND do not be afraid to ask me what you can improve AFTER (LIKE IN THE HALLWAYS) the round or for advice.
If you try to post-round or debate me because of the results of the ballot, I will shut it down immediately but feel free to ask for critiques.
Kenna Stimson
Glenpool High School
None
Matthew Strait
Bixby High School
None
Caitlin Sutton
Broken Arrow High School
None
Sydney Thompson
Union HS
None
Kensington Walker
Oologah High School
Last changed on
Thu April 11, 2024 at 3:43 PM CDT
Hey y’all! My name is Kensington Walker. I was a speech kid in HS (OO, HI, POE, DEX, etc.) and am a NDT qualifying debater at UCO (Roll ‘Cho’s)! I ❤️ speech and debate and am so excited to have the opportunity to give back! I have shadow judged quite a bit so don’t let my lack of record scare y’all lol.
I would like to be included on all email chains: kensingtonwalkerdebate@gmail.com
CX
Argument Preference: I advise you to always read whatever arguments you know best. I do not have any strong feelings for or against argument types, so just read what you can explain best! I will vote on pretty much anything: Ks, T, and theory args included (I like debates about debate), literally just whatever is explained the best. I am most familiar with K v K debates (SetCol) but vibe with CP/DA/T. Also, I am down for funky flows (procedurals, parametrics , etc.) but they should be debated with the same attention that any other argument is given. I tend to have a low threshold for posture counterarguments and think that, as debaters, we sign up for our arguments to be critiqued, regardless of how personal the argument is.
Speed/Flowing: Speed in evidence blocks is fine but slowing down for tags/analytics is important because that’s what’s going to end up on my flow. I will give lots of nonverbal cues if I am unable to understand what you’re saying (not flowing, looking confused, etc.) I generally don’t like to give a verbal “clear” because I find that it throws people off and I hate intervening in debates so just be cognizant of my reactions (I’m pretty expressive so if you pay even a little attention you’ll know if I’m not picking up what you’re putting down) Also — please tell me how many sheets I need before the 1NC and give off time orders throughout the debate (idk why this isn’t the norm for some debaters but please do it). Content > Style always, although both is swag + will prob get you high speaks.
PF/LD: I’m very much so down for whatevs y’all want to read. Evidence is probably good and will definitely make your arguments stronger, but evidence should not be your arguments. More cards ≠ better debating. Progressive and traditional rounds are cool with me. Judges are lazy so tell us what to do (aka do the impact calc/FW debating) so I don’t have to draw those conclusions. Content > Style always, although both is swag + will prob get you high speaks. If both teams are down with spreading then so am I but I understand it’s not the norm so everyone needs to be on the same page.
Generally, don’t be hateful to novices/less experienced debaters (I’ve been there and it sucks — no one has fun in an 7-off round when a team is just trying to stay afloat). Even if I think the third plank of your 5th CP means your impacts outweighs, I’ll probably give low speaks because that is superrrrrr lame and is the spot that I will acknowledge judge bias. Be smart with arguments. Do cool stuff. Win big debates. Good luck!
Robert Walters
Broken Arrow High School
None
Jackson Wells
Oologah High School
Last changed on
Sat February 3, 2024 at 3:24 AM CDT
In the short and sweet of it, be the better debater and convince me that your side should be supported. Now into the nitty gritty, I will want to be convinced that your side is superior to your opponent both in your case and how well you provide and defend it. I will want you to at least act like you fully understand the topic and give me an argument about a resolution that I will more likely have little to no knowledge of besides the information you provide me. Please be kind and respectful, though this isn’t saying don’t be competitive (you are trying to win) so no personal attacks on me or your opponent as this will make me vote in opposition even if you make the better argument. Well-written and informational speeches are the cornerstone of any good debater, I would prefer you are prepared case-wise and have information to attack your opponent and defend your own. For a little about myself, I’ve competed for four years in LD, MO, HD, and DEX where I was state-qualified in LD, MO, and DEX. I feel that I’m pretty well versed in NSDA so you may be able to spread to a degree where it is understood what you are saying. I hope if you’re reading this that you have a good round with me judging and don’t be afraid or nervous about the judge, I swear I’m not evil.
If you are in an acting event, make me cry either happy or sad tears. I will want to see a performance that stands out both in acting ability, blocking, and piece quality (don’t do Doctor Seuss pieces). I want to be absorbed into your piece and sit back and enjoy the effort you put into your piece. I will rank you upon your perceived ability during your speeches or performances. If you are DEX/FEX or other speaking events, please use a clear voice and be well-informed (or at least convince me you are ;). I will want engaging yet informative speeches that will give me a perspective on an issue that is being addressed within your speech. So, try adding tasteful and relevant jokes to your speeches about current events! One quirk of mine is I’m very squeamish and if you make me sick to my stomach or near fainting in your DI/DD, I will perceive that you or your partner are good actors and have a higher ability than your peers. So good luck to actors and debaters whose coaches forced them to do DEX/FEX, I hope to see you in round!
Melanie Wicks
Fort Gibson High School
None
Jamie Williams
Miami High School
None
David Wright
Riverfield Country Day School
Last changed on
Tue January 16, 2024 at 1:51 AM EDT
As for CX, I lean in the traditional direction of favoring well-researched and crafted AFFs that link to the topic, solve genuine harms and produce plausible advantages. NEGs need to produce offense and defense arguments, looking for clear on-case attax and Off-case flows with specific links and significant impacts and CPs that are competitive. T args are usually a waste of time with me unless NEG can prove serious abuse of the topic. I'll vote on the K if I can buy the Alt. I ask to see cards on regularly. As for speed, if it is clear, I can flow it, and if I can flow it I can weigh/judge it. I'll yell "Clear" once, and after that, if the speaker is unintelligible, I put down my G2.
In LD, I flow everything--even CX. I look for good Framework clash/comparison and weighing which V/C will carry the round. Contentions must clearly link to the FW, backed up by solid evidence. I'm looking for debaters who can cover both flows thoroughly and offer a clear, concise pathway to getting my ballot. Try to stay steady and organized. Present good voters and weigh them against your opponent. I will listen to progressive strategies if they make sense to me.
With PF, I flow it all, but I in all honesty, I am looking for the team that can articulate the best scenario, back it up with stellar evidence, speak with authority and avoid making CX a barking fest.
Last changed on
Thu January 4, 2024 at 5:23 AM CDT
Hi, I'm Julia, but you can call me Jules or Jae. I use any/all pronouns so knock yourself out.
I've done debate for six going on seven years. I'm mainly an LD debater but have done PF and CX in the past. I started out as a traditional debater, so that's something I am well versed in, but Larp is what I'm the most comfortable with. With that being said, here are my preferences.
1) Larp/Theory
2) Trad.
3) Non-traditional K's/Trix/Phil
Speaks: I'm pretty laid back when it comes to speaks. I grade on the (25-30) scale. If you spread and/or run any sort of progressive content without my or your opponent's permission you will get an automatic 25, no questions asked. Same thing with any kind of sexist, racist, or homophobic slur or anything of that nature. I'm fine with cursing, as long as it's in your card. Cursing at either me or your opponent will result in an automatic 25. If you manage to make a Taylor Swift reference sometime in round, I'll give you at least 28 speaks.
Spreading: Spreading is fine, just please send me a speech doc if you plan to do so.
My email is juliayangfb@gmail.com
Other notes: Tech>Truth. Don't just tell me I should vote for you because you won a specific thing. Tell me how and why you won it. Extensions are incredibly important, but please don't try to bring up already dropped arguments for me to extend, I won't count them. In other news, I like clash. Clash is good and I will vote off of it. But please don't try to be purposefully aggressive to create clash. Don't try to defend your whole case throughout the entire round. Collapsing to only one or two arguments is perfectly fine. I will not vote off the framework debate alone. Please impact weigh!!!!! Finally, please be mindful of who your opponent is. You forfeit your right to complain about a loss the minute you spread or run progressive on a novice.
My discord is acreamcolouredteacup#5631 if you need to contact me or have any other questions.
With all of that said, good luck and may the odds forever be in your favor.