LD Paradigm

The No, No's

I am open to any argument that does not enter ethical repugnancy- ae Kill the Poor, Hitler was right, Racism doesn't exist.

Pronouns will be respected, blantant intolerance will unilaterally lose you the ballot. Someone's gender indentity is not up for debate period.

Do not authenticity test, the debate round is not a place to question someone's sexual, or racial identity.

If you lie about a piece of evidence, with malicous intent, YOu will get 0 speaks, and if egregious you will lose the round, and I could possibly talk to tab about disqualification.

Please do,

Test the boundaries. I am open to any argumentation, and implore debaters to not only challenge their own ideas, but the norms of debate, in its ideology and practice.

Include trigger warnings on anything talking about, or detailing sexual assault, or any other form of interpersonal violence.

Ask me to read a piece of evidence, if it comes into contention about its content.

Feel free to ask questions during my RFD, though remember you will not change the outcome of the debate.

Specific Debate Philosophy

I will vote on Counter plans (as long as they are mutually exclusive with the AFF), Kritiks, Performance affs/negs, and god forbid, even well debated and FULLY IMPACTED, RVI's. 

Value Debate-

I find that value debate often defaults to the generality that good things are good, so I don't often find much offense to vote Aff or Neg. But I could possibly if there is significant clash.

Criterion Debate- I am bit of a romantic when it comes to old school criterions, such as Locke Social Contract, or other distinct philosophies such as Taoism. I believe these forms of broad philosophical frameworks make LD unique, and offer interesting clash and education. I think with these forms of framework allow one to win the debate, with just the criterion debate, if you win that your framework is mutually exclusive with that of your opponents framework, and that your opponents case, or points clashes with that philosophical framework or starting point. And this applies to all forms of offensive framework, and I will follow that winning framework in how I evaluate impacts and there in, so if you win the framework that protecting rights comes before anything else, I will, in the realm of decency, follow you in that, and weigh points in the debate accordingly. I find this philosophy not necessarily inline with the current tropes and trends, as it seems, the trend is to have criterions that are a more strict measurement of contention success, such as "maximizing welfare", or "decreasing income inequality". I often find it hard to get distinct offense, because, hardly ever, is any opponent's framework strictly antithetical to these ideas. But don't you worry, you do you boo, I will go with whatever you want to do, and you can win with any criterion, just debate it well.

Contention- I Love Evidence, I Love Speed, I Flow. But mostly, I Love debaters doing what they are comfortable with, and debating arguments that they care about. I will judge any style. I am not opposed to reading evidence, and will do so if the legitimacy or the interpretation of evidence comes into question.

Cross Ex

1) Is binding

2) Direct and malicious lie=0 speaks, and maybe losing the round.

3) You don't always have to disagree with your opponents.

4) I don't flow cross ex, but I will hold you to your answers.

5) I put a lot of weight in cross ex when it comes to speaker points, and I just want to say that each debater should be respectful, but that doesn't mean be a pushover, just be willing to let the other talk, and if your opponent starts rambling, you can say thank you and move on, but let them attempt to answer.

6) The "yes or no" trick is kind of silly, most questions cant be answered strictly with a yes or no.

Final thoughts,

I think debate is a unique and wonderful opportunity for diversity in ideas, and beliefs. It represents a wonderful part of my life, and hope competitors use it to grow.

I have 4 years of debate experience at Edmond Santa Fe High School competing in LD and PFD and one year at UCO in policy.

LD:

I only have a traditional LD debate background. However, I am open to any argumentation; please give good explantion. Analysis is key to any argument. I will try as hard as I can to keep up but if it isn't on my flow then you didn't say it. I do not like theory or dense frameworks. I want to see a good relevant framework debate while still seeing clear argumentation for why one side won over another. Stay topical and stay realistic.

PFD:

I believe public forum debate exists to persuade. I don't like seeing so much evidence and definition debate that we forget the topic. I'm pretty open to any sort of argumentation as long as the pro affirms the resolution and the con disagrees with the pro. I like the use of observations when used correctly, I think they keep the debate unique and interesting. Keep the debate fun and persuade me to vote for you.

Overall debate is suppose to be fun, don't get mad and don't yell. Be respectful and good luck!

I am a former high school competitor with ten years experience coaching LD, PF, and extemp. I don't like speed. Debate is a communication activity, and if normal people cannot comprehend you, you are not actually communicating.

In general, I am reluctant to offer paradigms because the argumentation of each individual debater is much more important to me than any pre-set notion of what should happen in a round. As a classic LD debater, I tend to weigh value and criteria fairly heavily in the round -- but if you win the framework but debate everything else horribly, I will still vote against you. Ultimately, I will vote based on your voting issues. Convince me that the issues you've won are the most important in the round, and that's what I'll write on my RFD -- whether that's evidence, framework, or contention-level arguments.

You should know that I have zero background in policy debate and zero patience for people trying to transform LD into a one-person version of CX. I do not admire debaters who attempt to win by putting so many blippy arguments on the flow that your opponent cannot possibly answer them all. In general, please treat your opponent with courtesy and respect, or don't expect to get speaker points.

In the intent of judging LD debate, I have a strong preference for policy-centric argumentation. I have never participated in  LD and I obviously have no preconceived notions on certain philosphies, but arguments framed/contextualized in terms of competing policy options or the status quo will be the easiest for me to understand. That said, there is nothing I will refuse to evaluate so long as it is compelling and well-warranted.

I competed in LD for 4 years at Bartlesville, Oklahoma. I competed at the NSDA national tournament three years, and placed third my final year. This was the only tournament outside of Oklahoma that I competed in. As a result, I'm pretty traditional with how I debated and judged.

Some general things I'd advise against: K's, Counterplans, Theory*, Disads, Spreading

I won't automatically vote you down for this, it's just that I'm very unlikely to fully understand the arguments you make when you run this. So if you're going to do it, just explain it very well. If I have stopped typing, then I'm not flowing. 

General things that are good:

Framework debate and clash are my two biggest things that I will vote on. First, I decide which framework to use, then whichever arguments remain, are the ones I can vote on. Weighing impacts and evidence is also a plus.

Finally, if I make weird facial expressions while you debate, don't worry, I'm probably just thinking about what you said. It's not necessarily bad.

*OU has the most national merit scholars of any public or private institution.

Rachel Mauchline

Durham Academy, Assistant Director of Speech and Debate

Previously the Director of Forensics and Debate for Cabot

she/her pronouns

TL;DR

Put me on the email chain @ rachelmauchline@gmail.com

speed is fine (but online lag is a thing)

tech over truth

Policy

I typically get preferred for more policy-oriented debate. I gravitated to more plan focused affirmatives and t/cp/da debate. I would consider myself overall to be a more technically driven and line by line organized debater. My ideal round would be a policy affirmative with a plan text and three-seven off. Take that as you wish though.

Lincoln Douglas

I've judged a variety of traditional and progressive debates. I prefer more progressive debate. But you do you... I am happy to judge anything as long as you defend the position well. Refer to my specific preferences below about progressive arguments. In regards to traditional debates, it's important to clearly articulate framework.

Public Forum

weighing.... weighing.... weighing.

I like rebuttals to have clear line by line with numbered responses. 2nd rebuttal should frontline responses in rebuttal. Summary should extend terminal defense and offense OR really anything that you want in final focus. Final focus should have substantial weighing and a clear way for me to write my ballot. It's important to have legitimate evidence... don't completely skew the evidence.

Here are my specific preferences on specific arguments if you have more than 5 mins to read this paradigm...

Topicality

I enjoy a well-articulated t debate. In fact, a good t debate is my favorite type of debate to judge. Both sides need to have a clear interpretation. Make sure it’s clearly impacted out. Be clear to how you want me to evaluate and consider arguments like the tva, switch side debate, procedural fairness, limits, etc.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

This was my fav strat in high school. I’m a big fan of case-specific disadvantages but also absolutely love judging politics debates- be sure to have up to date uniqueness evidence in these debates though. It’s critical that the disad have some form of weighing by either the affirmative or negative in the context of the affirmative. Counterplans need to be functionally or textually competitive and also should have a net benefit. Slow down for CP texts and permutations- y’all be racing thru six technical perms in 10 seconds. Affirmative teams need to utilize the permutation more in order to test the competition of the counterplan. I don’t have any bias against any specific type of counterplans like consult or delay, but also I’m just waiting for that theory debate to happen.

Case

I believe that case debate is under-covered in many debates by both teams. I love watching a case debate with turns and defense instead of the aff being untouched for the entire debate until last ditch move by the 2AR. The affirmative needs to continue to weigh the aff against the negative strat. Don't assume the 1AC will be carried across for you throughout the round. You need to be doing that work on the o/v and the line by line. It confuses me when the negative strat is a CP and then there are no arguments on the case; that guarantees aff 100% chance of solvency which makes the negative take the path of most resistance to prove the CP solves best.

Kritiks

I’ll vote for the k. From my observations, I think teams end up just reading their prewritten blocks instead of directly engaging with the k specific to the affirmative. Be sure you understand what you are reading and not just read a backfile or an argument that you don’t understand. The negative needs to be sure to explain what the alt actually is and more importantly how the alt engages with the affirmative. I judge more K rounds than I expect to, but if you are reading a specific author that isn’t super well known in the community, but sure to do a little more work on the analysis

Theory

I’ll vote for whatever theory; I don’t usually intervene much in theory debates but I do think it’s important to flesh out clear impacts instead of reading short blips in order to get a ballot. Saying “pics bad” and then moving on without any articulation of in round/post fiat impacts isn’t going to give you much leverage on the impact level. You can c/a a lot of the analysis above on T to this section. It’s important that you have a clear interp/counter interp- that you meet- on a theory debate.

I don't have a lot of experience with progressive LD, not as much as much as most circuit judges that you will run into, but as long as you articulate and explain your argument well enough, I should be able to understand it. I am somewhat conflicted with spreading in LD, so I am a bit susceptible to arguments against it in general but if both debaters are fine with it then feel free to go all out. I will say clear 2 times before i stop flowing you all together. I usually am pretty kind when it comes to speaker points, as long as a debater does not say something racist, homophobic, transphobic, or sexist. I do not want to see any attempts to exclude your opponent from the debate space. Develop clear, concise arguments, provide evidence for those arguments, signpost and apply your arguments and have fun.

I prefer K debate, I like high theory, and I know how to flow T.  Policy, in its most traditionally understood form, is not my cup of tea, but it is the majority of what I judge so go figure. I will vote on the team that wins the round- framing is just as important to me as impact calculus.  There is not an argument I wont vote on- except for distinctly new arguments in the rebuttals. Spreading is great, just don't get mad if I yell speed- I rarely have to and when I do I HAVE to.

More about me:

My pronouns are they/them- I will give bonus points and maybe candy to teams that ask everyone's pronouns before the round :)

I debated for four years in high school and a little over one in college. I only did LD in HS, and I mostly did K debate once I joined collegiate debate. For the past three summers I've worked at UTNIF- and the majority of my judging experience happened there.

I'm studying Latin American Studies, and LGBTQ studies at the University of Oklahoma.  I have a decent understanding of Global economics, current events, and Political Policy in general.

Andrea Sisti

I have teams that participate in Lincoln Douglas, Policy Debate, Public Forum Debate and Congressional Debate.

Public Forum Paradigm:

I enjoy a clearly organized debate. Organization is key to maintain clash throughout the round.

SPEED: From my experience, debaters that card-dump and speed through speeches sacrifice a great deal of clarity and persuasiveness that is the fundamental in nature of Public Forum debate. Typically, the amount of evidence added to the case when spreading through speeches is not worth the sacrifice. I would rather hear fewer contentions and quality arguments over quantity.

Read arguments that have a clear link to the resolution. Also, be sure to provide clear warrants for your impacts. I appreciate big impacts, but it is critical that you flesh out your impacts with strong internal links. Explain and extend and make sure that you emphasize what is most important in the round. Provide clear voters in those final speeches.

Don't be abusive with time. When the timer goes off, I stop flowing. Plan your speeches accordingly. Keep track of your own time as well as your opponent's. You and your opponent are responsible for keeping track of times, including prep.

Make sure that your cards tell the same story as what you are saying. If cards come into question and it's fundamentally important in my decision, I will call for them at the end of the debate. I do value the quality of evidence highly in the round. 1 quality card outweighs 5 poor pieces of evidence.

If you have any questions, please ask me prior to the round.

Avoid arguments that are homophobic, sexist, racist, or offensive in anyway. Be respectful to your opponent and judge.

Overall, this is your debate so have fun with it and get creative. Best of luck.

Congressional Debate Paradigm:

As a Congressional Debate coach, I enjoy rounds with a lot of clash, creative speech structures, fiery speaking, and thoughtful questions. In terms of delivery and argumentation breakdown, I value speeches as a 50/50 split in importance. Delivery and content are equally important in my mind.

I understand you may be hesitant to give speeches early on in the session for lack of clash, but I won't take that into account when ranking. However, as the session progresses, there should always be direct refutation.

Please be passionate in your speeches, but remember decorum and professionalism. Respect your opponents.

I don't have a lot of experience with progressive LD, not as much as much as most circuit judges that you will run into, but as long as you articulate and explain your argument well enough, I should be able to understand it. I am somewhat conflicted with spreading in LD, so I am a bit susceptible to arguments against it in general but if both debaters are fine with it then feel free to go all out. I will say clear 2 times before i stop flowing you all together. I usually am pretty kind when it comes to speaker points, as long as a debater does not say something racist, homophobic, transphobic, or sexist. I do not want to see any attempts to exclude your opponent from the debate space. Develop clear, concise arguments, provide evidence for those arguments, signpost and apply your arguments and have fun.

 I participated in LD debate for four years in high school for Metro Christian Academy and the last year and a half in Parlimentary debate for the University of Oklahoma. My high school years made me into a very traditional debater as I debated on typically traditional circuits, but my experience in college has exposed me to some more progressive arguments like Ks, Counterplans, and theory; however, I am still more likely to fully understand and therefore vote on more traditional arguments.

I'm not a big fan of a lot of speed though I have been exposed to it. I lend more credence to the debater that better presents their arguments. I like to vote off framework and clashing arguments.

Essentially, I decide what framework to use then who gained the most ground on their side with arguments under that framework. 

If there's anything I left out, feel free to ask.