I'm a parent judge but I have experience in competitive speech events. Good Luck!

Hello!

I'm currently a co-coach at Norman North High School. My main focus is IEs, so forgive me as I continue to learn the ins and outs of LD and PF.

If you are going to spread please have a copy of your transcript for me.

Please be respectful to all fellow competitors in and out of rounds.

My personal pronouns are she/her.

So I guess I'll start off by letting you know that I did PF and I am studying to be a coach now! Woo, yay-sies.

That being said, onto my actual paradigms:

First of all: I will almost always vote based on impact weighing; this means at the end of the round I will use any empirics to make my final decision(usually this ends up being numbers unless it is a debate where numbers are not a possibility on one or both sides). To follow impact weighing, I cannot weigh your arguments if they don't have proper links so pls and thx have links and make them obvious!

Secondly: If you are doing a speech event I will make sure you have all parts of a speech(intro, body, conclusion, sources- I have things I look for in each section) and then I will go off of speaking ability, pretty straightforward.

As a note for debates! I promise I keep track of time! I stop flowing arguments when time is up but if I let someone go a little long it's because I'm giving them just a second to figure it out!

You got this girly-pops!

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

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

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

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

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

I hate spreading. I will never flow during cross examination, so if it's important, bring it back up. Please keep argumentation topical and respectful. The only thing you have to convince me of is that your framework is the strongest way to uphold the resolution.

I am a parent judge. I judge a handful of tournaments a year of varying difficulty. I will try to flow the round if you move too quickly through a point, I may miss your point. I need you to speak at a conversational rate with clarity. Signposting does help me follow your argument. Talking louder does not create emphasis, it is very distracting to me as a judge, slow down or create eye contact to make your point.

I may not be aware of all the debate jargon or even jargon within the topic. Clear and concise weighing will be key to getting the ballot, MAKE SURE you give clear reasons to prefer your case, and don’t go all in for turns. Address the topic given, I am not in favor of alternative types of cases being presented. Speaker points will be decided upon by respectful dialogue and a knowledgeable presentation of the argument.

I’m cool with whatever. Run your case however you think it’ll be best.

I’ll vote for who I think wins.

Open to squirrelly cases

More likely to judge on clear and evident lines of logic

Prefer clear voters

If you don’t say it, it doesn’t count

Ask for email

Judge Paradigm For Policy:
I enjoy progressive debate. Feel free to run theory or any Ks you want. I accept spreading in policy, but make sure your links, impacts, etc. are clearly labeled and signposted when you present your case. (I'm not the best at flowing, so helping me flow is to your best interest).

.... for Public Forum
I consider PF to be a middle ground between LD and Policy. Try something new, and have fun! I try my best to match my RDF to the flow of the debate, so work well with your partner to rebut opponent's case and extend your own arguments. (Look below for more general information on my paradigm).

...for LD Debate

Philosophical Approach: I approach LD debate as an opportunity to engage with the complex issues of ethics, values, and moral reasoning. I value clarity, logic, and ethical considerations in the arguments presented. I do not have preconceived biases or preferences for any particular moral framework or side of the resolution. My role is to fairly evaluate the debaters' arguments based on the principles of sound reasoning, ethical consistency, and persuasive communication.

Role of the Judge: My primary role is to objectively evaluate the arguments presented in the round. I will assess the clarity, relevance, and strength of the debaters' contentions, and I will prioritize well-structured and logically sound arguments. I will not intervene in the debate but rather base my decision solely on what is presented in the round. Debating the role of the judge, or the role of the ballot, or the purpose of debate is fair game.

Argumentation and Framework: I believe that both debaters have an equal burden to present and defend a consistent framework that applies to the resolution. I encourage debaters to engage in value clash and address the criterion effectively. If a debater chooses to run a value or criterion, they should explain how it directly links to the resolution and the ethical implications of their framework.

Evidence and Warranting: I value the use of relevant and credible evidence to support arguments. Evidence should be clearly cited, and debaters should provide warranted explanations to connect their evidence to their arguments. I will not evaluate unsupported claims or arguments without proper reasoning.

Clarity and Communication: Clear communication is essential. Debaters should enunciate their arguments, speak at a moderate pace, and avoid jargon or overly technical language. I encourage debaters to use signposting and roadmaps to guide me through the flow of the debate. If I cannot not understand you, I can't flow your case, so be careful when spreading.

Rebuttal and Clash: I expect debaters to engage in substantive clash. Effective rebuttals should address the main points made by their opponents, demonstrating where arguments are impacted or fall short. I appreciate when debaters extend key arguments and explain why they should be prioritized in the round.

Time Management: I will closely follow the time limits set in the round and expect debaters to do the same. Effective time management is crucial for a well-structured and organized debate.

Etiquette and Respect: Debaters should treat each other, the resolution, and the judge with respect. I will not tolerate any disrespectful or offensive language or behavior. Constructive engagement is key to a productive debate.

Flexibility: While I appreciate clarity and structure, I am open to evaluating unconventional arguments or styles of debate, as long as they adhere to the fundamental principles of ethical reasoning and argumentation.

Final Thoughts: I am here to facilitate a fair and educational debate. My decision will be based on the quality of arguments presented, not personal preferences or biases. I encourage debaters to approach this round with a commitment to ethical reasoning and persuasive communication.

Remember that different judges may have slightly different paradigms, so it's a good practice to adapt your approach to fit the preferences of the judge in each specific round.

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.

Hello, my name is Bri :).

If you have questions please email me: briannalemaster1120@gmail.com

About me

I competed at Westmoore High School for 4 years where I was a 4x national qualifier and in multiple state final rounds. I also currently coach multiple events including all the debate events and some specific IE events. I also beat Taylor Rafferty in a debate round once.

TLDR: General Debate Things

1. Tech>Truth. This obviously excludes racist, homophobic, and other hateful sentiments.

2. You should be crystalizing and summarizing your best arguments in your last rebuttal speech going for everything is not in your best interest.

3. Clash is the most important thing for me in debate if you don't do it or are just avoiding it the round will probably not go well for you.

4. SIGN POST PLEASE. If you don't your speaker points just like your signposting won't exist.

Trad LD

1. Framework is pretty important to me especially when im looking at what arguments to prioritize in the round.

2. Since progressive debate is becoming more common among the local circuit I'm fine with speed and counter plans etc.... All I ask is that if you're gonna do it please format it correctly and just call it a counter plan or a "K" or whatever don't try to hide it as a contention.

3. If you signpost, extend your arguments, try not to drop stuff, and give an offensive reason why I should vote for you as opposed to a defensive one, you'll be in very good shape. (Offense = why I'm winning, Defense = why I'm not losing).

4. Your framework and your case should be able to match properly I don't want to see a Kant framework and then a bunch of extinction arguments I might sob internally.

PFD

1. FILL YOUR SPEECH TIMES. You already don't have a lot of time use it wisely!

2. Please don't make Grand Cross a big disaster please be civil and nice.

3. Make sure to carry your arguments all the way through final focus if they are not carried through I won't use it in my decision.

4. Public Forum Debate is called Public Forum for a reason it is supposed to be as accessible to a general audience as possible there shouldn't be a high use of progressive argumentation or debate lingo.

5. Don't be one of those teams that paraphrases evidence you will instantly lose all credibility.

Request: contenders could also keep their time.

A bit of background:
I debated policy 4 years at the University of Oklahoma and 4 years at Edmond Santa Fe High School. I've judged policy/LD/PF debate since then.

Yes put me on the email chain:
parkerstephennelson@gmail.com

POLICY:

I believe that debate is a game that fosters a multitude of positive things: critical thinking, problem solving, logical decision-making, communication skills, and exposure to an abundance of topics that no other activity provides. Because of this, I try to give back to this community and support it in every way I can. There is no wrong way to debate, and bringing your own flavor/style is encouraged. I have an extensive amount of experience with critical arguments but I can get down to a good policy debate too. The best judges I had were the ones willing to listen to positions from every possible angle, and that's what I strive to emulate.
Thus, I try to outline my general preferences in technical terms:
-- Each argument must have a claim, warrant, and be properly impacted out. The other team dropping the argument doesn't mean putting a 30 second blurb at the end of the 2NR/2AR, expecting my unequivocal vote.
-- Coherence is a must, and your evidence should say what you claim it says. Don't under-highlight to put out incoherent arguments. Evidence quality wins more debates.
-- I'm a big advocate for framing arguments, which make my evaluation of the round easier.
-- My argument preference in my past debates/decisions won't grant you any type of benefit in the next round.
-- Understand and adequately explain how your argument interacts with the specific nuances of the opposing teams. So many debaters get bogged down in jargon instead of properly explaining how these concepts should shape my decision.
-- There is a significant difference in being strategic and being squirrely; the latter is incredibly annoying.

LD:

The Value/Criterion debate is what I default to mostly in my evaluation of LD debates, if given no meaningful clash by the debaters on Framework. Making arguments surrounding each Framework and how they interact/should be evaluated/prioritized with regards to contention-level claims will make the end of the debate infinitely easier to decide.
If you didn't read the policy portion -- I LOVE LINE-BY-LINE DEBATE.
I am good with all means of jargon -- cross applications, turns, links, etc. these are encouraged and allow for sprinkling offense across the flows, so feel free to use them as long as they're coherent.
I am fine with progressive argumentation, but I'm not the judge to pref for one-off, throw-away theory shells -- if the argument is warranted and impacted out properly, I will evaluate it, but prefer meaningful topical engagement from both teams.

PF:
Framing/Impact calculus is probably the most important aspect of PF debate for me nowadays. The easiest way to my ballot is to do the weighing for me and tell me exactly how I'm supposed to evaluate each impact/how they interact with regards to each other within the debate space. Impact prioritization based on criteria, formalized Framework/theory arguments, etc. are encouraged.
I am fine with progressive argumentation, but I'm not the judge to pref for one-off, throw-away theory shells -- if the argument is warranted and impacted out properly, I will evaluate it, but prefer meaningful topical engagement from both teams.
Voters in Final Focus are extremely helpful, even more so if they're presented during Summary, but not required.
If you didn't read the policy portion -- I LOVE LINE-BY-LINE DEBATE.
I am good with all means of jargon -- cross applications, turns, links, etc. these are encouraged and allow for sprinkling offense across the flows, so feel free to use them as long as they're coherent.

The Specifics:
Framework/Topicality:
You NEED evidence/definitions for what portion of the resolution is being debated.
Ideally, the affirmative defends a position that is controversial, with plenty of literature granting ground on both sides and predictable elements to it. I probably have a reputation as a fairness/limits voter, but that's because it's the debate I hear the most. I also enjoy "clash" debates, but the biggest issue I run into is one side not engaging with how the other side portrays the debate, and instead hyper-focuses on turning every offensive standard without providing the over-arching context.
Topical versions of the Aff aren't required to solve all the world's problems. The 1AC is 9 minutes.
Impact framing on the Topicality flow is just as important as anywhere else.

Kritiks:
***You need a link to the Plan itself--or at least to the representations of the Aff. One of the biggest reasons I vote Aff in Policy Aff vs K debates is that either:
a) Not enough work was put into establishing a specific link to the Aff or
b) work is put into establishing a link to the status quo, which the negative assumes automatically links to the Affirmative. That isn't the case.***
Using direct quotations from the Affirmative evidence in your link claims will get you leaps further than you think.
Permutation defense is just as important as link offense -- voting on links of omission aren't super compelling.
Expect me to allow the affirmative to weigh the advantages of the Aff unless there is an overwhelmingly explicit reason not to, aka violent representations of the plan, flawed epistemologies, etc.
No separate sheet of paper for overviews.
No underviews; please god.
Note: "Perm do the alt" is not a perm.
While I'm here, overview debates are exhausting. Spilling a prewritten 5 minute word-salad about your K, and expecting it to answer literally everything on the line-by-line is a meme and is bad debating. Debate the line-by-line.
You need an alternative. A coherent alternative. I keep using the coherence word, because discussions need to be had on how the alternative interacts with both the status quo, and advantages of the affirmative plan. It also must solve your links.

I'm most familiar with: Nietzsche, Capitalism, Heidegger, Reps, Fem IR, Anthro, Security, Anti-Blackness, SetCol and various flavors of such. I'm not your Deleuze/Baudrillard aficionado.


K Affs:
You do not have to have a plan, but you need to answer the question of advocacy. Why am I voting for whatever it is you're doing? Why is it good? If I'm left in the dark, typically it's due to teams thinking that obscurity is advantageous. It isn't.
I am persuaded by good presumption arguments made by the negative. Engaging with these is paramount to success with critical affirmatives. Ignoring them is a great recipe to lose.
Your advocacy--at minimum--needs to have a critical element that is tangential to the resolution, and a mechanism for achieving/overcoming/resolving this element.


CPs:
Counterplans? Yes.
Advantage Counterplans? Yes.
Plan Inclusive Counterplans? Ehhh, but acceptable, given proper justification/solvency advocates.
In all cases, the negative needs to win a few things:
1) The counterplan is competitive (textual and functional to be safe)
2) There is a uniquely accessed net benefit
3) Complete solvency of the affirmative harms WITH a solvency advocate (unless you weigh other things against the remaining portions of the Aff).
I will vote for permutations -- use your net benefits as offense.

DAs:
Love them. I absolutely adore specific link stories, or better yet case-specific disadvantages, but I will still take all of your generic links.
I find Affs hole-punching their way through weak link-chains to be the easiest way to dismantle a DA. Point out logical leaps in internal links.
Read the cards, especially the un-underlined portions. Point out cards having no warrant in your speeches.
I believe 0% risk is possible, but it's not always probable, so don't rely on only uniqueness take-outs or link defense.
Specificity of Uniqueness > stacks of cards that all have two sentences highlighted. The under-highlighting is proliferant and teams getting away with it is insane to me.
Please. Do. Impact. Calculus.

Theory:
I am a believer in theory interpretation debate and it's a hill I'll die on. It's also, coincidentally enough, a great way to defend/persuade your judge by having a basis for evaluation.
I probably lean more towards condo/multiple-worlds good, assuming the negative isn't trying to run away from the debate/spread people out of the round.
Going for the theory in the 2NR/2AR is a bold move, and I will vote on it, assuming you impact the debate well and answer back defense overwhelmingly, preferably with some in round-abuses tied to a violation of some sort by the opposing team.
This does not mean running incoherent, superfluous theory arguments and expecting a W.

MISC:
Clipping: I request a copy of all speech docs due to how egregiously offensive I find this to be. You will not pass GO. You will lose the round. You will receive 0 speaks.
I *will* vote against you without the other team claiming you are clipping.
I *will* give you minimum possible speaks if you have the un-underlined/highlighted portions of your evidence at a 1 point font. STOP.
Have a copy of your evidence for your opponent. This can be physical or digital.
Do not be rude to each other in Cross-Ex. Be engaging, but not overly aggressive.
I have no issues with speed -- I do have issues with people who think they're fast, but aren't clear. I only flow what I hear, and if I have to yell clear more than twice, I'd suggest slowing down and checking if my pen has stopped moving.
Please respect preferred pronouns. Mine are he/him.

I am a blank slate judge. Pretty much any argument goes as long as I cannot deduce it is fake, like purple dinosaurs are taking over the world or something. I have done PFD for four years. I have dabbled in all types of debate. I've done some speech as well. I am laid back, take with that what you will, just respect each other and the round. Will not flow CX (unless something crazy happens), carry the points into your speeches. CX is for the debaters to get information from their opponents and the judge is a spectator at that point.

I am a flow heavy judge so make sure to emphasize the important stuff and tell me what to weigh in the round. I usually try to narrow down the debate to three different main arguments (most clash) or one linear path, if the debate is one sided. I don't want to do the debating for you and that would be a disservice if I just looked at the flow sheet and decided that way, VOTER ISSUES ARE IMPORTANT :)