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Topicality is an outdated mode of thought with tries to put up fences in our brain about what we can and can not talk about.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!

6 Years of policy debate at Union High School in Oklahoma.

2 years at Baylor University.

gerbrandt.eve@gmail.com

I am often tempted to leave my paradigm blank but that is because I consider myself largely agnostic on most issues. I’ve read and gone for every genre of argument, So I am not inclined to reject, or even really cringe at anything on face. I believe the default role of the judge is always to be an educator, but the way I think I’m supposed to do that is by fairly evaluating every argument made, and making decisions based on the quality (and sometimes quantity) of those arguments. Don’t worry if you don’t know the big fancy debate words, an argument is an argument even if you don’t know the proper buzz word for it.

My default is that judge kicking CPs is okay but not alternatives, but that can be debated.

Typically speaks will be decided on how well you know your stuff but if you are a jerk (making debate a space not safe for other people) it will take a HUGE hit on your speaks and make me raise your threshold to win the round overall.

*For both policy and LD* When no one extends a framework for the debate (or it is a total wash) I always default to offense-defense.

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.

Cross-posted from the judging wiki:

[Not to be a pain in the ass but you might also see Nikol, Nik, Nikole, etc. or possible var. Kinu on the postings/ballot and honestly I do not care what you call me that is 100% inconsequential seriously]

Four years of policy in high school at Broken Arrow HS in Oklahoma ('02-'06 / mental health care - detain/search). A mix of judging and coaching on and off following graduation to the present, with consistent judging experience over the past two years (you can check tabroom.com for this year + I judged about halfway through elims at nationals last year). Minor LD judging/coaching experience as well (mostly right after high school).

From the back of the room, the most enjoyable debates tend to be the ones in which both parties are thoroughly engaged in the round. Debaters should strive to provide higher level analysis contextually appropriate for the round; run arguments you understand, not what you think will appeal to me. Clash is necessary. Think about your strategy in terms of how to approach the other team, not how to curry my favor. It's your debate, not mine.

I don't like to call for evidence; it feels interventionist, but I will if it legitimately becomes an issue. In keeping a non-interventionist approach, I also tend to glaze over when I hear partisan rhetoric, to either side. I'm pretty tab/flow (I really like/prefer being able to clearly refer back to the flow, I also don't like having to do the legwork for your arguments on it so.... be cautious with blippy extensions).

I'm comfortable adjudicating based on the frameworks that are presented to me, which often includes deviations from the standard policymaking view, and those are extremely enjoyable to me even though my competitive background was more grounded in that style of policy.

[Some lines are drawn though- ie don't think you can get away with stuff like justifying racism. I take systems of oppression and the material conditions that follow as matter-of-fact, more of than not.]

So, to the specific stuff:

T, procedurals, theory, etc: I have variable levels of ambivalence. Fonder of theory (and T, which I tend to view more as a theory argument) than most of the rest of policy/procedural stuff, but I will definitely vote wherever the flow is compelling. For procedurals, there is definitely a pretty even split between good/bad debates and arguments, and my overall judging experience has been that this category tends to end up as filler arguments most of the time. So, do what you need, just give me a substantive debate out of it if you go this route.

Last blip here- especially on theory, buzzwords/jargon are not replacements for warrants and analysis. I have to understand and care about voting here if this is the story you want to spin. In particular, theory gets messy so it requires more work: if you've got some great analysis then you really want to make sure that I catch it all - remember that I'm not reading your computer! It's up to you to make that work and give me a clean story out of everything.

Disads: Obviously a specific one tends to be better than generic, but sometimes you have to work with what you've got. If you decide to go for it though, obviously make it relevant, contextualize it, etc... explain why I'm voting, why/where you link, why you outweigh, etc.

Counterplans: Just don't screw it up*. I don't hate them. I just like K's better. [*OK I have to explain this I guess: Net Benefits. Solvency. Functional competitiveness??? The last probably explains why I tend to just say 'I liked the K better.']

Kritiks: I love 'em. The exception: when it's bad, because a bad kritik debate is a BAD round. This is why I am explicit above about not pandering to me for the ballot. Running a K just because you think I will like it or just because you know it will confuse your opponents is annoying (and that tactic usually reveals itself really quickly with the first bits of terminology or unfamiliar author name). I like actual advocacy behind them. Running one solely for specific strategic placement has lent to a tendency to bite back into ones own K. So watch that maybe. Despite my long involvement with policy I am outside the academy/self-taught so maybe don't rely so heavily on offhand references to external source material by your authors, but instead on connecting your thesis in round. Don't, like, BS me though. By the end of the round I want to be seeing links, alt solvency + I like hearing about a post-alt world, why do the implications outweigh, etc. This usually means getting creative + really understanding your evidence but I give a lot of weight on the flow if the round goes there.

It's encouraged to ask specific questions over any of these areas (including just my general paradigm) if you have any!

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!

Tulsa-Union '17

Michigan State '21

*updated for West OK districts '21*

The Big Picture: I did policy for about 10 years through high school and college, I've been out of the game for about a year to focus on my journalism/history degree and operating MSU's independent student media organization. Topic jargon may need a little more explanation for me.

I have the most experience with policy arguments but don't let that deter you from reading your best strategy.

One big update: My preference/bias/ideological sway toward policy arguments & T-USFG/Framework has become considerably weaker in the year I've been out.

For T/FW: Show me the impacts and why your interpretation solves them.

The bottom line: Specificity, context and explanation are crucial. Don't just prove your argument true but show how it interacts with the flow at large.

*updated for '17 Glenbrooks*

Top level

My preferences exist, but I’ll attempt to be as objective as possible.

I'm best for a CP+DA strategy but would prefer you do what you do best.

Warranted evidence comparison is the most important thing regardless of strategy.

Debate is a game, don't make the game a harmful place for someone else.

T-USFG & Planless

My ideological sway is toward T-USFG but I will do my best to not let that get in the way.

Topical versions of the aff are persuasive and helpful.

Sometimes these debates mistake the forest for the individual trees. Having the best impact comparison is the key.

Topicality w/ plan

I love a good T debate.

My default is competing interps and how the evidence interacts. Reasonability is not a question of the aff being reasonable it's if the counter interp is reasonable.

To win T there needs to be a clear distinction between the kind of topic each interpretation creates.

In round abuse is more persuasive than potential abuse, but if impacted out that changes

Disadvantages

The more specific the better

A lot of DA scenarios are preposterous but we discuss them normally. Smart arguments that poke holes in the internal link chains can reduce DA risk quite a bit

Zero risk is hard, not impossible, super small risk of DA can be written off indistinguishable from zero

Turns case arguments are persuasive when well explained (preferably carded), they typically depend on the link being accessed

The link is generally more important than uniqueness can be persuaded the other way on this question

Bring back line by line

Counterplans

Same as DA, the more specific the better

Not going to judge kick for you

If it basically does the aff CP theory becomes a bit more persuasive (plan plus, consult, processes)

If there is textual and functional competitiveness then CP theory is not as persuasive, but am not ideologically positioned against it

Kritiks

I’m down – high theory stuff needs a bit more explanation because I don’t usually know what’s going on.

Please no conceptual 3 minute overview

Please no excessive buzzwords in place of explanation

9 times out of 10 it IS your Baudrillard.

If I don’t know what the alternative is doing the chances of it winning the round are very low.

Roll of the Ballot arguments tend to be self-serving or just a sentence that identifies the controversy of the round. I don’t think they get either side anywhere.

I could vote on an impacted out perf con argument.

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.

Experience: 2yrs HS debater for Cherokee HS.  4yrs Collegient debater for NOC-Tonkawa and Ferris State University.  This is my 6th year to coach HS debate: 5yrs at Cherokee, 1yr at Trinity Academy Wichita KS.

Judging Paradigm: Have no problem with speed reading, although I do use audience presentation to evaluate speaker points/ranks (not necessarily argument effectiveness and/or creativity).  Generally, I use stock issues, specifically harms, solvency and of course, topicality to make a policy-maker decision in most rounds.  I am not opposed to K AFFs so long as the alternative is a policy that could be deployed in the real world (or even a hypothetical world).  I'm somewhat more lenient on NEG K alt's, although I dislike generic alt's like "reject the aff" or "anything but X".  I'd prefer alt's that lend to solvency clash compared to these generic alt's.  I'll listen to T, but dislike it being run as a time-suck.  I'll listen to generic DAs.  I'll listen to CPs:  I'd prefer non-T CPs but T CPs are okay as long as they solve for AFF harms and are competitive.  I'll listen to framework and theory arguments.

If further questions exist of how I evalute rounds, beyond this paradigm, ask me!  I like to think I'm approachable, and I enjoy discussing policy debate.

Updated 4/3/22 for OK State

TLDR: Debate is great, have fun. I haven't read your authors, but I understand debate

Debating: My name is Tristan Loveless, I debated for four years at Skiatook High School in East Oklahoma. I debated 200-300 rounds over my four years between tournaments and camps. I attended Georgetown and Northwestern for camps. I did not debate in college.

Coaching: I am currently working for the Tulsa Urban Debate League as their Data Manager.

2 year as a program coordinator for the TDL (OK)

6 years coaching/assistant coaching Urban Debate (OK)

1 year assistant coaching Skiatook High School (OK)

Judging (Water topic):I have judged very few rounds this topic

Topics I've debated/coached: Space, Transportation infrastructure, Cuba/Mexico/Venezuela, Oceans, Surveillance, China, Education, Immigration, Arm Sales, Police Reform, Water Protections

Simply put I’ll evaluate everything. Do what you do best.

Authors I've read: Agamben, Foucault, Marx, Freud, Giroux, Camus, Heidegger, Hegel, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. feel free to ask me if I've read X author before the round.

Policy Affirmative Case- If it’s a traditional policy aff I can follow it no problem.

Kritikal Aff- Defend something. Try to be related to the topic in some way please. I prolly haven’t read your philosophy so make it clear, I personally ran Kritikal Affirmatives my Junior and Senior year, so I’m pretty cool with this. Try to give me a clear picture of what my ballot is/does and what exactly I am voting for especially in the 2AR

DA- I’m cool with whatever

CP- On the theory debate Impact it out. The negative should have a specific solvency advocate, I'll still listen to it if it doesn't but I'm likely to buy that it doesn't actually solve if the aff makes that argument.

Theory/T- Impact the voters, tell me what the T/Theory Interp provides us in the real world. T “substantial” or T “its” aren’t super compelling arguments, and they are less so if you don’t give me voter analysis. Education isn’t an Impact, Advocacy Skills and Decision making are. Education is only an Internal Link to a real impact

Kritiks

General - K's are fine. Just a few notes on how I view K's: The alternative is an advocacy, so prove that the alternative is better than the affirmative. When going for the perm be sure to explain how the perm is able to solve the Impact/Link level of the flow- if the perm still links and causes the impact of the K then I'm not gonna vote for the perm. I default that the aff gets to weigh the 1AC, but if the negative wins on the flow that they don't get to weigh it then I won't weigh it.

Impact Turns- I've noticed a lot of K debaters have trouble answering Heg/Cap good in response to their K's. These are real arguments that you need to be able to answer.

In round Discourse links: If the link is in round discourse then you HAVE to explain how the perm overcomes the in round link & Impact otherwise you probably lose the perm debate.

Impact framing: I've seen a few teams going for the "future bad" framing, be sure to extend this throughout the round and cover it in your final speech- and if you're debating against these kind of arguments be sure to answer them. In short, be sure you extend and explain impact framing throughout the round and if you're the opposing team be sure to answer these kinds of arguments

Note: In the past few years I've seen negatives read K's that the rest of their strategy links too. I'm not a fan of this and am likely to vote a team down for doing this. If you don't know what I mean here are the examples from rounds I've judged:

Example 1: Negative team reads Set Col and argues that native erasure is the biggest impact, and then kicks the K in the 2NR.

Example 2: Negative team reads Fem K w/ USFG link and a counterplan that uses the USFG.

Misc:

Speed is cool, be clear. I like Impact Analysis. Be creative.

Timing Stuff- prep ends when jump drive is in the opponents hand, Cross Ex starts immediately when the speech ends. For online debate prep ends when email is sent.

Feel free to ask me questions before the round!

Affiliation:

Four years at Charles Page high school, currently debating at the University of Central Oklahoma.

General:

Have fun, debate is game. I will no doubt forget stuff, so feel free to talk to me before/after rounds, or email me at cameronmeeker12@gmail.com.

Topicality/framework:

-          I have very limited reading on this topic, so keep that in mind.

These arguments are fine, if they are read well. A very well-constructed T argument is always a fun debate to judge/have. Actually explain the impacts to T, which means go beyond saying  “kids will quit debate.”

Counterplans:

The more specific the better. Don’t be a cheater and read consult/delay, or other nonsensical counterplans.

Disadvantages:

These are cool if they are well-structured and you can explain them. If your framing a disadvantage as a net benefit to a counterplan, take time and explain how it functions as such.

Critiques:

I am more than okay with you reading a K in front of me. I read them for the better part of my high school career, as well as consistently read them in college. That being said, I won’t let you just use buzzwords to explain your K, because that isn’t explaining it.

Theory:

It will be hard to get me to vote on theory unless a 1NC contradicts in a bunch of areas. Conditionality is probably fine.

Other stuff:

-          Don’t be assholes.

-          Prep stops either when the flash drive  leaves your computer or the email is sent.

-          If you say racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist etc. it will be reflected in the speaks I give you.

-          I am fine with speed, but make a clear distinction between evidence/tags/analytics etc. Your analytics on T should not be read at the same speed as an actual card.

-          I will say clear three times, but after that I will stop flowing.

Noah Schrick
Experience: 5 years of high school debate at Tulsa-Union (OK), volunteer for UDL in Tulsa (TDL).
Email: nschrick98@gmail.com

Paradigm –
Game-playing.

Policy/Traditional Affs –
No objection to these. I think these can be some of the most developed and strategic affs. That being said, shady or loose internal links is a pretty easy way for me to vote neg on presump.

Topicality –
All for it. 5 minutes of T in the 2NR is a very fun, legitimate strat. If you do go for T, be sure to impact your standards out. In addition, don't just make blanket, generic impact claims such as, "this is bad for education." I think that education and fairness are impacts, but also internal links to external issues. Why is education important? Why should we care about fairness? Be sure to explain these for extra speaks and a better T debate.
Refer to speed section.

Theory –
Also all for it. I’ll vote for any theory argument as long as you can fully explain why I should vote for it. Granted, I'll have a higher threshold for a crazy, off the wall arg, however I will still vote for it if it is explained well enough and impacted out.
I default to reject the arg unless there is substantial work done to explain why I should go otherwise, or there is a prejudice made by a team that is interfering with the debate.
Refer to speed section.

Framework –
Will gladly vote on it. I do think RoBs are arbitrary, and I'm hard-pressed to believe that it can win an argument, but I guess I'm open to it if you can convince me why a drop is game-changing. Both teams usually present them in a way to exclude the other. Majority of the time, no real clash occurs from these.
Refer to speed section.

K Affs/Non-Traditional –
Go for it. Would prefer it was germane to the topic, but it's not a necessity.
Disclaimer: I am not completely up-to-date with identity args and authors. Just make sure that rather than giving author names, read out their claims and warrants to me. I'm not lay, but do explain the world of the aff and explain what the args mean. You can usually tell pretty easily if I'm following or not.

CP –
All CPs are fine. With that in mind, if you read a rider, delay, or any other similar counterplan, be ready to defend theory since I'll have a higher threshold. CPs must also be competitive and have a net benefit. It will take a lot of work to convince me to vote for a CP just because it has good solvency with no additional benefits.
Aff: if you read theory on a CP, be sure to explain why the CP in question is bad, not just the type of CP (Example: I'll vote on Intl' CP Fiat Bad, but I will be much more likely to buy China/Russia/Japan Fiat Bad)

DA –
Specifics over generic. I will vote for generic DA’s/links, but it will be much easier to sway me to not vote for them if it is generic. No link args made by aff will be harder to overcome for generics.

K –
Reading the same K shell every round won’t cut it. Whether you have cards specific for the aff case or not, you need to apply the K in terms of the aff. If you can read back 1AC/2AC cards or quotes and link it back to the K, it will go a long way for your link analysis. I really don’t like to vote on link of omissions, but I will if you can convince me why I should. Expect to put in time to convince me to vote on those; a couple sentences won’t get the job done. Don’t just repeat alt taglines at me, contextualize it in terms of the aff/round/world/whatever.
Refer to K aff section in regards to identity.

Speed –
Don’t shotgun theory/t/fw args. If you read 5 blippy analytical arguments that you believe are all key reasons why I should vote for your args, but you read them all in rapid succession without stopping for a breath and you still expect me to catch and flow every single one, I won’t. If I don’t catch it, I won’t flow it. Clarity comes before speed. Taglines should be presented with a change in pitch or volume.
Debaters tend to spread paragraphs of analytical args and expect me to flow every word. If you do have these paragraphs, slow down a tad so that I can write it. You don't need to talk in a normal speaking voice, but at least slow down a little.
That being said, I am okay with speed, despite what you might interpret from that. Don’t be afraid to read quickly in front of me. If you think you could flow it, then I will probably be able to as well.

Misc-

-Overflows > Underflows. But also, I just don't like underflows in general.
-Prep ends when the drive leaves the computer or when the email is sent.

-I love Clever technical tricks/kicks/cross-applications. This will get a major boost in speaks from me.

-CX is binding.
-Don’t clip cards. This should be obvious and applies to every round.
-If you’re kicking an advocacy such as a CP or an alt, be sure to say so.
-If there’s an email chain, go ahead and put me in it.
-Cross-Ex: Be aggressive, not rude.
-Don’t mock or be distracting during someone else’s speech. I will dock speaker points if I deem it necessary

Speaker points –
30: Probably the best speaker at the tournament
29.5+: Getting a speaker award
29+: Has a few mistakes, but is still a fantastic speaker
28.5+: More mistakes, but still above average
28+: About average, could’ve handled some things differently or improved on speaking quality
27.5+: Many mistakes
27+: Many larger mistakes
26: Made huge errors that affected the outcome of my decision
Below a 26: Behavior, actions, or words that are harmful or hateful towards a people or a person directly. Also given for those that don’t fully participate.

Colton Smith 

5 Years of High School Debate @ Tulsa Union HS 

Freshman NDT debater @ Missouri State University (Mo State SW)

Version 1.0 - Last edited 10-16-17

The closest thing that you can pin me to is tabula rasa. I have experience going for a cheating CP's with small net benefit to reading various K's sometimes all in the same 1NC. I was a 2N in high school if this helps at all. My favorite kinds of debates are ones where there is a small truthful policy aff with either the 2NR being a super specific DA (with or without a CP - doesn't matter to me) or a K with spec link lit. CAUTION - I like some K's but have a really high threshold for others. For example, I have read and debated Identity/structural K's frequently, but I do not have any experience with Baudrillard, Bataille, or whatever pomo person you have in mind. This can all be resolved with sufficient explanation so PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THE HECK YOUR JARGON MEANS. That being said, I don't want the way I view debate to constrain what your strat is. If you think this is your A strat, then rep it and I'll be there to decide :). 

TLDR: I am good with about anything that you want to read in front of me, but you have to justify it words that I will be able to understand. Truth v Tech is a false dichotomy - a good argument should be able to have both. Speed is fine as long as you place clarity above speed. Prep ends when you say it does - do NOT abuse this privilege as it get annoying to wait three minutes to flash a speech doc. DO NOT STEAL PREP FOR THE LOVE OF gOD. The easiest way to my ballot is to sum up the debate for me. If you do an email chain, then you should put me on it at mc2turnt@gmail.com

Just a few random things that you might want to look into when debating with me in the back 

- evidence comparison - Debates frequently get out of hand and both sides win their own argument and it starts to look like two ships passing in the night. If you are doing comparative analysis with your evidence - PROPS! This makes for better debates and you might get a smile out of me if you do so. 

- Cross Ex - It is okay to be assertive, but rude it should never be. I think that people underestimate the value of CX in policy debate, and if you can use it effectively with me in the back it may result in better speaks. Sometimes the best thing that you can do is to be really nice in cross ex

- Marking Cards - I know that sometimes in a debate you have really long cards, but if I hear you marking every card in your 1NC, then there is a massive problem. One of the things that really can get under my skin is when you mark a lot of cards and try to extend them without reading that warrant. It's usually just a good idea to read the beautiful ev you have presented me. 

Onto the more specific things in life...

T/FW - I do not have many predispositions to this in any way. I am down for you to go 1 off fw if that's your planless aff strat. I will default to comp interps in a FW debate, but could be persuaded to default to reasonability if you warrant it well enough. I think for the negative to win these debates in regards to FW, you need to find a way to hedge back against their impact turns. This is possible and if I am in the back with this debate I could go either way, but I do appreciate teams that try to hold the line effectively. If the aff is policy and you want to go for T, then I think it might be the smartest to have a nuanced T violation. I didn't go for T very many times in my high school career, but I like to see them happen. For me to pick you up as the negative, you need to win why your interp/violation specifically generates abuse, and yes I can be persuaded that potential abuse is abuse. Also remember impacts are pretty important here too :) Do Not think that this is an invitation to only read FW in front of me. I like FW but I am not a hack for it. I like other nuanced and comprehensive strategies too and probably even more so.  

K - the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik.

Do as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible - I am not the person that you want to read a 6 minute overview in the back of the room. You could be the best debater at the tournament, but if you drop long overviews - it will be hard to win the debate and your speaks will reflect that. 

you must find a way to weigh the aff and must have some defense to your method so that you have some justification for the 1AC. Think of the 1AC as a research project and you have to defend that research process. A good defense of your process specifically can be pretty devastating.

 I can be persuaded by extinction 1st and weigh the aff or just alt offense that is contextual to their research base, but the most important thing that the aff can do against K's is create 1 win condition and win it in the 2AR. A lot of teams get shook up trying to learn what the K means instead of creating a coherent strategy for the 2AR. 

I am an OK judge to do your K tricks with in the back, but you will need to explain their implications to the round itself. 

I am good with some K's but not all - if I look confused in the back, take a step back and explain what the argument means in my world. 

All in all K debates r fun ! 

CP - 

I like a good CP debate against an aff - I am the judge that will be down to hear topic generic CP's or super nuanced ones. Just win that the CP is theoretically justified, solves the entirety of the aff, and has a risk of a NB. 

I am okay with most CP's but you have to have a justification for the CP. 

I am a fan of most CP's. There are cheating CP's out there and a lot of them, but if you don't tell me why the CP is illegit then Ill let them run with it. 

The more spec the research is the better. 

YOU BEST HAVE A SOLVENCY ADVOCATE FOR THE CP TOO - unless its an adv cp and you tell me why there is not one that's needed VERY WELL. 

DA's - 

Yes Please

If you have a super unique DA that is spec to the topic and people haven't done their UQ updates then you as the neg have the right to exploit this. 
NEW DA's will be rewarded on level of prep 

I REALLY REALLY LIKE A GOOD DA DEBATE - but Zero risk is possible but difficult to prove by the aff. 

PLEASE justify your internal links very well - I think this is typically one of the weaker points of da's in general. 

I also like generic topic DA's that have a unique flavor to them.

if you go for a DA in the 2NR please do a lot of COMPARATIVE IMPACT CALCULUS. This is something that I think is fun to watch and can be a wonderful point for clash. Also, your DA turns case analysis should turn the im pacts of the 1AC as well as the solvency mechanism of the aff - these args if developed well enough will make me want to vote for you. 

Theory - Cool with it - gotta have an interp that generates offense for you though.

Case - I am a sucker for good case arguments and impact turns. I like to see a good impact turn debate, but I also like a strat where you decimate the case page. I feel like case debate is extremely underutilized and needs to be revitalized. 

If you have any questions or are just confused about what I have just told you, then you can drop me an email at mc2turnt@gmail.com 

My name is Sararh Smith, I debated for four years at Skiatook High School in East Oklahoma. I debated 200-300 rounds over my four years between tournaments and camps. Simply put I’ll evaluate everything.

Affirmative Case- A traditional policy affirmative should have plan text and follow the topic. I like impacts, make sure you actually have internal links and answer the negative. If it’s a traditional policy aff I can follow it. 

Kritikal Aff- Defend something. If you defend something super small, but defend something that's fine just make sure you explain why its still of value to me as a judge. Try to be related to the topic in some way please. I prolly haven’t read your philosophy so make it clear, but that doesn’t mean I don’t understand K’s. I personally ran Kritikal Affirmatives my for a large portion of my hugh school career.

DA- Link to the affirmative, be unique, have an impact. Plain and simple.

CP- If you want me to evaluate a shift in presumption, tell me to. I know how presumption shifts, but I’m not gonna hold anyone to only the CP or only the Perm unless you tell me why. On the theory debate Impact it out. The negative should have a specific solvency advocate. I don’t really lean anywhere on theory so If you go for theory impact it out

Theory/T- Impact the voters, tell me what the T/Theory Interp provides us in the real world. T “The” or T “its” aren’t super compelling arguments, and they are less so if you don’t give me voter analysis. Education isn’t an Impact, Advocacy Skills and Decision making are.

Kritiks- Love them. Won many rounds on them. I ran cap k. Turn the aff case, solve it if you can. Attack them on every level. I vote neg if the aff drops epistemology, ontology, or similar framing arg on the K. Be sure these are answered.
Speed is cool, be clear. I like Impact Analysis. Be creative.
 

Make sure any arguement you plan on using in your rebuttles is carried through the round not just said once and randomly brought backat the end.

Feel free to ask me questions before the round

I was a policy debater for four years at Charles Page HS ('02-'06) and one year in college while attending the University of Oklahoma.

As a judge I value education first and foremost; I want to see teams choosing arguments that encourage interaction on the flow. I don’t like to see teams run poorly executed filler arguments just for the sake of confusing the opposing team or overwhelming them on the line-by-line. Clash needs to be a priority for both teams. I’m open to a wide variety of arguments as long as they are well warranted. Speed is not an issue. I’m willing to evaluate the round in whatever framework teams choose, but be prepared to defend your position wholeheartedly. If framework is not an issue I will resort to evaluating the round based on what I’ve got on the flow.

As for distinct types of arguments:

Topicality–When it comes to voting on T my threshold isn’t particularly high, but in order to vote on topicality I need to hear good, contextual analysis as to why the violation legitimately hurts clash and education in the round. Plenty of people run T and procedurals as a tactic for consuming time in the constructives, which I understand, but if you want this to be a voting issue end-game then I expect a convincing justification.

Case – I’m totally willing to vote on case under the right conditions. For the negative I expect to hear good turns in order to invalidate an aff’s advantages or solvency. I like to hear affirmative teams extend case throughout the round, whether the neg is engaging them on the case flow or not. Don’t forget what you’re advocating!

Disads- I’ll listen to just about any disad, but I’m particularly fond of DAs that are case specific or have excellent internal link evidence. I love a good brink too.

Counterplans- I’m down with counterplans, but I expect there to be some really good competition with the affirmative. CPs shouldn’t be contradictory with other arguments you’re running.

Framework/K Debates- I evaluate framework much like I do topicality and theory arguments. I’m comfortable with adjudicating a round solely on the framework level, but in order for that to happen I want to hear a narrative as to why your ontological and ethical praxis is best. This bleeds into my feelings on kritiks in general; I enjoy listening to them and will vote on them, but I want a defense of the position that is both genuine and comprehensive. Links need to be compelling and impact analysis is essential. I expect you to do the work of conceptualizing how the alternative functions and why your advocacy is where I should look first when making my decision.

Finally: I frown heavily on shadow extensions. You need to be able to explain key evidence succinctly while still giving me warrants. Also be very clear about any technical terms or acronyms used in your evidence. Clearly state what these terms mean. Don’t presume that your judge or opponents have the same familiarity with the literature base that you do.

If you have any questions just ask!

I vote for the team that debates the best. That's my paradigm.

If forced to pick a point of view I would call myself a policy maker. I debated for 8 years in high school and college (NDT style) and am open to just about any argument so long as it is debated well. This includes critical arguments, performance, theory, etc.

Other points that may help you adapt to me:

Speed. You can go as fast as you can read, but be clear. Most debaters try to sound fast without actually being fast. Be clear. You get more points if I can understand you, less if I don't. Did I mention to be clear?

Make arguments: Provide a claim, warrant and evidence for each argument. Number them. Explain why I should prefer yours to theirs. Help me evaluate competing claims, show me how they interrelate and how your version of the world is preferred over theirs. Help me write my ballot.

Show me you understand the chess match: Explain cross applications, contradictions, interrelationships, etc. Indict evidence and explain why yours is preferred. ARGUE THE INTERNAL LINKS. Kick out arguments you are losing to spend time on arguments you are winning (and know the difference). Grant arguments that help you. Be strategic.

Evaluate scenarios and explain how yours is more probable, happens first, or has a bigger impact than theirs. Explain the thesis of your critical or policy scenarios, and why they force a choice for you. If you are running a critical argument be able to clearly explain the philosophy and why this is a reason to reject your opponent's worldview. I consider this activity policy debate, so even if you are making a critical argument it is best to explain its impact as if I am a policy maker.

CX: Be nice. I'm OK with open CX, but I get annoyed when the two debaters who aren't supposed to be doing the CX are the only ones talking. Let your partner try to answer before you jump in. A solid CX can get you better speaker points and earns credibility, especially if it is used strategically to set up your upcoming arguments.

T: It is a voting issue and I like good T debates. Most of them are not good. If you plan to go for T on the negative you have to commit. Explain why your interpretation is better (abuse is not a reason unless you can show how they are actually abusing in this round). I like to hear examples of cases that meet/don't meet or examples of how the interpretation impacts limits specifically.

CP: I guess I'm a dinosaur but I believe a CP needs to be a reason to reject the topic and not just the plan (i.e. it should be non-topical and competitive). I could be convinced otherwise if argued well, but that's where I start. You also better have a solvency advocate if you want me to take the CP seriously.

Theory: If you are just reading a brief don't waste your time. If you want me to vote on theory you need to explain why the other team's abuse is a reason to reject. I probably won't vote on this unless you really commit and explain why the abuse in this round justifies voting on the theory argument.