I have been judging regularly for about 15 years; and I am in my seventh year coaching Harding Charter Prep HS in Oklahoma City. I love every single event offered for competition. They are all valid. Memes hating on particular events are lame. Follow @hcpspeechdebate on Instagram and Twitter.

LD/PFD: I prefer quality of information and sources as well as clarity and presence of speakers over speed and quantity of information and sources. The more you can tell me about the qualifications of a source, the better I can weigh them. If you give a simple (Last Name/Year) tag, you can assume I know nothing about the author. I like to see your personality as a debater and jokes/lighthearted moments are welcome as long as they are within the scope of the topic. I dislike plans and policy-style approaches to Lincoln-Douglas debate; if you want to do Policy, there's a debate for that. I believe that the heart of Public Forum debate is that it should assume any judge is a lay judge and is more informal and free of debate jargon. Limit pre-case observations and don't place impossible burdens on your opponent. Be civil and professional during cross-examination or your speaker points are toast. Use cross-examination time to ask questions, not make another speech. Use your speech time and prep time! Your constructive speeches should be as close to memorized as possible. I want to see you speaking/debating, not just reading. Cases on paper vs on a laptop gain an automatic advantage. Have fun!

Big Questions: Please, please, please read the Format Manual. Then read it again. Use the Format Manual as evidence in round if you need to. Please let this thing have a chance to become its own thing before we drown it in the other debate sauces.

Policy: If I am judging round round, I apologize in advance. Something has gone awry at this tournament and I am a kind-hearted person with a semi-functioning brain that has been put in to prevent the round starting hours late. We'll make it through this together. I'm probably not gonna disclose unless tab forces me to.

Congress: Don't read word-for-word pre-written speeches. You should have an outline. Pay attention to the whole of the round, not just sitting there prepping for when you are going to talk. Keep questions concise.

World Schools: Requests for POIs should rise/raise as often as needed but don't be a pest about it. You are at the discretion of the speaker. Avoid debate jargon. Rely on reason and logic. Appeal persuasively. Prop arguments should do their best to prove the resolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. Opposition arguments should be about broad rejection of the resolution, not just finding an outlier to say that one example is representative of all.

Final Thoughts: This activity is for education. Winning and excellence should always be celebrated, but not the only goal. Remember that Words Matter and Words have Power. Respect the purpose of the Pronouns and name pronunciation options in Tabroom. The NSDA has worked hard to be inclusive. Don't abuse that. #NotGarbagePeople

I debated for four years at Moore High School in OK and debated at the University of Central OK until 2017.

She/they

I think debate should be an accessible and educational activity. With that in mind I am open to basically any argument as long as it isn't racist, sexist, homophobic, offensive, etc.
In high school I read a lot of arguments about indigenous epistemology (like Byrd and Deloria) and in college a range of arguments anywhere from indigenous arguments to feminist arguments to security ks to traditional policy strats like T, DA, CP, K, Case. Do not change your strategy to what you think I like, debate should be about you, not me, so do what you do best and I'll evaluate it.

Here's how I evaluate most arguments:

T - I haven't judged a lot of rounds on this topic yet so I'm not as familiar with the literature. To win a T debate in front of me you have to impact out your reasons for why being T is good, however I am very susceptible to impact turns. That being said, if you win instrumental implementation is a good thing then I'll vote on it. I like arguments about why things like clash and education are good. I also think it helps to give examples of affs that couldn't be read under the aff interp. I don't lean one way or another on competing interps vs reasonability.

FW vs a K Aff - Not my favorite argument. I would rather you read a specific T and have some FW type standards. However if it isn't answered properly I will vote on it. I evaluate it similarly to T, it needs impacted out analysis. However, I am very susceptible to FW if the aff DOES NOT defend a change from the status quo.

FW vs a K - I think the aff should be able to weigh their impacts and that Ks should be allowed in debate. You won't win that a K should be excluded in front of me unless the other team severly mishandles your FW.

DA - Go for it. I prefer that they have specific links to the plan. I also think they're a good way to prove abuse on T.

CP - Again, go for it. I can tell a cheaty CP when I see one so reading theory is always a good idea.

K - This is probably my favorite type of debate to judge. I'm down for anything from identity debates to high theory, however I am not as versed in high theory as I am in other forms of kritikal literature. Make sure you explain a clear link and impact and give warranted analysis instead of using just buzz words. I also am not likely to vote on links of omission unless they are legitimately dropped.

Theory - I think conditionality is a good thing as long as it isn't being abused by the negative. However, I will vote on warranted analysis of why contradicting condo or conditional ethics are bad.

Kritikal/Performance Affs - I enjoy judging these debates as well. However, I think affs should defend some change from the status quo. You can't just defend some "capital T" Truth in the 1ac and say vote aff, provide a strategy or method of changing it.

Other - Don't be rude during the round. Debate is supposed to be educational and people can't get that if you're constantly being rude. That includes to your partner and the other team. I will dock your speaker points if you are unneccesarily rude or aggressive.
Prep time stops when the flash drive leaves the computer.
Also, I have been told I make faces during the round. These are just my "thinking faces" so you shouldn't worry about them.

If you have any questions about my philosophy or decisions feel free to email me at gabiglide2@gmail.com

General:

• Be respectful, but don't waste your time asking your opponents for permission for things like the first question.
• This means treading the fine line of being aggressive and respectful.
• I like to see crystal clear clash on the flow. Please when framing rebuttals go in order down the flow. Do not bounce around.

Value/Criterion

• Provide clear links between your value and criterion and the rest of your case.
• At the end of the day your value and criterion are most important to me in LD. I want to see clear links and evidence upholding those.

ABSOLUTLEY NO SPREADING.

I would like to be on the email chain: dsavill@snu.edu

Director of Debate for Southern Nazarene University since 2021 and former coach of Crossings Christian School from 2011 to 2023.

Things you need to know for prefs:

Kritiks: Very familiar with kritiks and non-topical affs. I like kritiks and K affs and can vote for them.

Policy: I am familiar with policy debates and can judge those. My squad is designed to be flex so I am good with either.

Speed: I can handle any kind of speed as long as you are clear.

Theory/FW/T: I am not a fan of FW-only debates so if you are neg and hit a non-topical aff I will entertain FW but that shouldn't be your only off-case. Contesting theory of power is a good strat for me.

Performance/non-traditional debate: Despite what some would think coming from a Christian school, I actually like these kinds of debates and have voted up many teams.

I try to be a tab judge but I know I tend to vote on more technical prowess. I believe debate should be a fun and respectful activity and I try to have a good time judging the round. I think debaters are among the smartest students in the nation and I always find it a privilege to judge a round and give feedback.

(there's always a chance I forgot to update here, so check the date on the wiki to make sure this paradigm is current)

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Thompson%2C+Nathan

Nathan Thompson
Norman HS 14
University of Oklahoma 18
Updated 15 September 2018 sitting in the cafeteria before Greenhill round 1

Background

I debated for Norman High School (OK) for four years, graduating in 2014. I qualified to NSDA Nationals my junior and senior year, breaking twice and placing 24th my junior year. I primarily debated in Oklahoma and did not have the resources to travel. I have worked at the UTNIF LD camp as an instructor in 2015, 2017, and 2018. I like email chains - nltpeasley@gmail.com

Preferences

Speaking Preferences

• Speed is fine. I will clear you twice if I cannot understand you.
• THAT SAID, please do not fly through analytics or theory. I am decent at flowing but hardly amazing; if you hit the jets while reading a bunch of blipping theory args, I am going to get lost and miss stuff on the flow.
• I only vote on stuff I've successfully flowed.
• Indicate where your cards and arguments begin and end and slow down for authors and tags.

Framework

• Value and criterion are not necessary so long as you give me a way to decide the ballot.
• Label your framework arguments as what they are - I don't like tricky preempts or prestandards that become more than what they were in the constructive.

Theory/T

• I default to competing interps, although I find I've gotten friendlier to reasonability args over the years.
• I am probably not the judge to read a half-dozen theory shells in front of - you can do it if you think it's strategic or (obviously) to check abuse, but know that I might not like it if you overdo it.
• You must have absolute clarity on what your interpretation is, especially if the text that you give your opponent is different than the one you read in round.
• I will listen to potential abuse as an argument.
• I do not know what Nebel T is and am not about to learn now. If you read anything like that, don't expect me to know any overly-specific jargon.

RVIs

• I will evaluate RVIs like anything else.
• I will evaluate 2AR RVIs in response to new 2NR theory.
• The RVI needs offense back to a counter-interp.

CX

• CX checks abuse!
• CX checks abuse!
• CX checks abuse!
• That said, I'm not flowing CX, so don't lie about what's happening there after the fact...
• Don't lie or intentionally obscure your answers.
• I don't care whether you sit or stand, but be engaged.
• Flex prep is fine as long as it's agreed to by both debaters.

Kritiks

• I am not opposed to Ks, but I'm not super well-read on the literature base; make sure you're clearly explaining what your K means and does. Remember that there are scholars who study some of these K authors for literal decades to understand them properly; you can at least give a simplified explanation here. None of us are experts.
• Make sure your alt doesn't suck. I am not enthusiastic about voting on vague K alts that you can't explain to any level of detail.
• Have clear tags.
• Your K should still link to an ethical framework.

Extension Evidence

• New evidence should only respond directly to an objection to the original argument - do not post-date the original card and do not read new offense.

Weighing

• Weighing is the difference between bad debate and decent debate. Please do it early and often. Explain your clash and interactions with their arguments.
• Give overviews in 2NR and 2AR that frame the round.

How to Get Good Speaks

• Weigh early and often through the round. Demonstrate how your arguments interact with others on the flow.
• Demonstrate a clear strategy and understanding of the importance of arguments on the flow. Don't just go for everything or straight down the flow.
• Collapse in the 2NR/2AR! It is not worth either of our time for you to go for everything every round.
• Be clear in CX. Good strategies needn't be disguised.
• Don't argue with me about my decision. I will dock you speaks.

If you are clear, I will probably give between a 28 (borderline) and 30 (perfect, you've done something laudable, or I learned something). If you are not clear, I will probably give you between a 26 and a 27.5. Any points lower than 26 will be for punitive reasons (overt aggression or rudeness, problematic, etc).

Closing

I think debate has a lot of potential for good, but it's going to take effort from both of us to ensure that it's reached. Ask me questions after round if you want. Just don't argue about the decision.

Below, you will find my paradigm (as copied from the judge philosophies wiki). A couple addendums for the Heritage Hall tournament:

1. I have judged approximately 20 rounds on this topic.

2. I find myself voting for kritiks with much more regularity than my below paradigm would seem to indicate; further, I would like to think that my competence in evaluating such kritiks has improved exponentially since first writing this paradigm.

The below information was copied from <http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Thompson%2C+Will>

High School: Debated 4 Years for Charles Page High School in Oklahoma

College: Current Sophomore at the University of Oklahoma, 1 Year of College Debate Thus Far


Overview
I view debate through an offense-defense paradigm. I am fine with spreading. I am very familiar with "circuit" style debate. I try to intervene as little as possible, and thus refer to myself as "Tabula Rasa." Nevertheless, it's impossible for me to abandon all my biases, and so the below information is an attempt to let you know what those biases are.

Topicality/Theory/Framework
I am very comfortable voting on topicality. I don't have a default preference for either competing interpretations or reasonability - I have no preference as to whether or not there has to be "actual abuse" in order to vote on topicality. It's up to you to determine my views on that subject in each round (this is the one exception to the default "offense-defense" paradigm outlined above; a team that wins reasonability can, in my mind, thereafter win the topicality debate merely with decisive defense against the other team's standards). You can be extremely untopical and win topicality, or extremely topical and lose on topicality. Theory is rarely a reason to reject the team, unless strong arguments to the contrary are made in the constructive speeches. Don't be annoying and say that perms are severence when they aren't. Competing interpretations and reasonability can also apply during theory arguments. I will be happy to listen to affs that completely ignore the topic, and I will also be happy to listen to framework arguments that force every aff to defend USFG implementation. If the negative wants to win framework against non-topical affs, they need to quantify the magnitude of the link to their standards, and also frame their offense in terms of the other team's offense (i.e., I have no idea how to compare education and striated space without your instruction). I will vote on framework against negative kritiks, but teams rarely make such framework arguments compellingly.

Disadvantages
I love them, and went for them all the time throughout high school. If anything, this probably means I'll hold you to a higher standard when you run them - this is especially true of the politics DA. You should have carded answers to common 2ac args if you want to be able to take a given DA into the block. Do impact calculus and make "turns case" args - it's really important.

Counterplans
Generally fine. Theory is underutilized by affirmative teams, since a large number of CP's are cheating. Affs need to put a substantial 2ar/1ar time investment into theory on CP's if they want to win it, though. Simply saying "perm" does not constitute an extension of a permutation - there must be a warrant as to why the perm solves. I prefer fewer, well-warranted perms to larger numbers of blippy perms.

Kritiks
I didn't go for them much, but I feel comfortable evaluating debates that involve them. Compare your offense to the other team's offense (i.e., how does the hyperreal interact with the lack) and you should be good. Explain how your alternative functions and PLEASE don't be jargon-y; even if I AM familiar with some of the jargon, it's better to make your arguments clear in the first place. If the other team doesn't understand what's going on, it's a safe bet that I don't, either. I don't find links of omission to be compelling.

Perms
The phrase "perm do both" does not constitute a reason for me to vote aff, even if the perm is dropped by the negative team. A perm MUST be accompanied by an explanation of its net-beneficiality in order for me to evaluate it in the first place. Absent such explanation, the "perm" does not rise to the standard of an "argument."

Other Stuff
I keep a close flow of the round, and I expect you to as well. I will dock you an average of one speaker point if you don't seem to flow.

I rarely, if ever, call for cards after the round. It is not my job to read your evidence, but rather your job to explain it to me. I don't care how good your evidence is if you haven't analyzed and applied it well.

I rarely give speaker points lower than a 27 or higher than a 29. Points higher than 29 are reserved for especially phenomenal, final-round quality debaters. Points lower than 27 and higher than 26 are reserved for debaters who don't seem to either try or care about their performance. Points lower than 26 are reserved for the following cases: if you are excessively rude or mean, especially to young debaters; if you cheat (steal prep, clip cards); if you use blatantly racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, ableist, or adultist slurs (note that "slurs" are distinct from phrases like "you guys," and the metaphorical use of the word "see" - using this language is probably still bad, and the opposing team should argue as much, but I won't default to lowering your speaks in such scenarios); and if you argue with me about the decision. You can certainly ask questions about my decision, but if you choose to argue with me, I feel the need to set a precedent. Too many good judges have stopped judging the activity and/or been intimidated into voting for particularly outspoken teams because of such situations.