Bixby Green Corn Classic 2024
2024
—
Bixby,
OK/US
Speech Paradigm List
All Paradigms:
Show
Hide
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).
Caleb Baumgardner
Glenpool High School
None
Becky Braswell
Sapulpa High School
None
Meagan Caldwell
Bixby High School
None
Andrea Campfield
Charles Page High School
Last changed on
Tue February 20, 2024 at 9:26 AM CDT
Andrea Campfield
I did not debate in high school, so my experience judging is rooted within my 2 years coaching policy debate. Not sure if this qualifies as a paradigm, but this is what I find I look for in judging a round:
1. I am focused on the policy topic at hand as I judge. I am listening for reasonable arguments for or against adopting the policy in question. While I am open to good kritik strategy, I find way out there theory argument is a distraction to the task of quality civil debate and begins to sound like conspiracies on facebook. If you go off case, stay in bounds.
2. I also have found that habitually calling out abuse or lack of educational integrity and hoping it sticks or confuses is also a distraction. Definitely do so if there is merit, but if you have to try to win on calling foul all the time, what does that say about the strength of your own research and prepped case? Proving or disproving the validity of the topic is the debater’s job, and for me, the best job wins.
3. I also like an organized, respectful debate with clarity in speaking and questioning. Quality is better than quantity, so if a spread is merely to befuddle the opposing team, it will not serve well if I cannot understand your words. I don’t want to be befuddled.
4. I am also looking for your personal investment in the topic. Although we have to get through case cards, I am more interested in the debater’s response to the material.
5. And finally, I find that how both teams use cross X comes into my decision making, as well as the aff’s response to a solidly built neg block. Final rebuttals are key.
Again, not sure that’s a “paradigm”, but it’s honest. I am a work in progress, and I learn new things each time I judge. I hope you teach me a new trick!
Alicia Christopher
Union HS
None
Erin Clark
Bishop Kelley High School
None
Rebekah Clowers
Broken Bow High School
None
Grey Davison
Union HS
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.
Victoria Engledow
Bishop Kelley High School
None
Linda Fisher
Jenks High School
None
Shelley Founds
Bixby High School
None
Joshua Gibson
Claremore High School
None
Dallas Green
Oologah High School
None
Ty Hamilton
Putnam City North High School
None
Aspen Jackson
Glenpool 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.
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.
Cassy Lynch
Bishop Kelley High School
None
Grace Mangrum
Poteau High School
None
Niccolas Manning
Putnam City North High School
None
Mary Marche
Glenpool 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.
Jadyn McKelvey
Bixby High School
None
Cassie Mitchell
Bixby High School
None
Laci Moore
Broken Bow High School
None
Napayshni-Ohitekah Morales
Charles Page High School
Last changed on
Fri April 5, 2024 at 2:19 AM CDT
Put me on the email chain tekahmorales03@gmail.com
Charles Page High School 22’ - OU 27’
Conflicts: Charles Page High School, Sand Springs - Will Rogers High School, Tulsa
I don't care what you run, just have fun and explain it well for me
I will flow on paper (if I have it) so make sure your speaking is well enunciated, this being said speed doesn't matter as long as you're clear on tags and postings.
I’m absolutely terrible with making sure I fill out the comments and RFD fully, I tend to forget since I give oral feedback and my RFD’s aloud - if you’d like for me to type some stuff out in the comment let me know and I will make sure to write feedback ballots
Linda Outhier
Enid High School
None
Phil Outhier
Enid High School
None
Toni Ross
Bixby 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.
Barbara Tinervia
Union HS
None
Sarah Tirrell
Tulsa School of Arts and Sciences
None
Meagan Todd
McAlester High School
None
Jake Vanhooser
Putnam City North High School
None
Grace Wall
Sapulpa High School
None
Juddie Williams
Tulsa School of Arts and Sciences
None