Hello,

I am a student at the University of Oklahoma. Prior to college, I competed in speech and debate events for 8 years. My main events were LD, PF, DEX (a little FEX), PO, PR, SO and I went to nationals for world schools debate.

What I look for in debate rounds:

Civility. If you can not be civil in the round, you are not truly debating. It is okay to be passionate, but it is not okay to be rude.

Clarity. I do not want to struggle to understand you, your point, or what you are referring to.

What I look for in speech events:

Emotion. I want to feel something. If it's a humorous piece, I want to laugh. If it is dramatic, I want to feel the sorrow.

Quality selection. If you are doing a piece or a topic I have heard a million times, chances are you are not the best rendition I've ever heard. If you are doing a piece and someone else in the room is doing a similar one you will automatically be pitted against each other, so be wary of using common pieces/authors.

Overall, have fun. If you care about what you are doing, I promise it will show.

Best of luck.

Debate is fundamentally a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized – speaking effectively to persuade or influence the judge.

As such, please do not speak at a pace that is not understandable to the average person or read arguments that are detached from the resolution in question.

It is your job as a debater to persuade me, meaning you also carry the responsibility to explain all the arguments presented.

I request that you maintain a healthy relationship with evidence - if you are going to make a claim, support it with evidence. Alternatively, if your opponent states something that is within the canon of common knowledge, please do not demand that they cite it. (i.e. do not demand evidence for the claim that Paris is the capital of France.)

Provide clear voters and an explanation of why you should win the round.

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

A little about me :)

Marcus Repsher

I have done PF for 5 years among other speech/debate events

Student at Bixby highschool

What I consider interventionist on the judges part and I will not do

I will not call for evidence unless told to by your team

I will not decide if a teams argument is factually based on my own knowledge of the topic that is up for you to prove to me

I will not ask clarifying questions after the round

my job as the judge is to simply observe all information presented to me and the way you want me to interpret it so please tell me how

Debate stuff

I will evaluate literally any k, shell, or random theory (within reason...) just make your interp clear, if you decide you want to change the norms of debate and turn this into a theory round I'm 100% behind you if you can make your line of reasoning sound and explain violations etc.

style- I am not a progressive debater in the sense of ks and non-topical arguments but i will go along with most things but that doesn't mean I enjoy hearing shoe theory or the like.

Flow/tech judge

Tech > Truth almost 100% of the time

Debate is not a game and is to be considered much more than just that rudimentary definition. Remember the topics you discuss often have real-world impacts that affect others and or your opponents, debate isn't always about the ballot.

TW/CONTENT WARNING/Misgendering

I am a firm believer in TW theory and the violence that can be caused by debaters not reading content warnings before potentially triggering topics. I ask that you read your case before the round and consider with each contention if it needs a CW, if there is even a question about the contention needing one please include it before the content is read. If your plan is to read a case that includes potential triggering content as most topics have, please include some format of an anonymous opt-out system and a backup case/contention. If in the event these standards are not met I am fully prepared to drop the debater or tank their speaks. If you have any questions about this/your case please speak to me before the round or coin flip. I will fight tab about dropping the debater who violates this before I allow debate to become an exclusionary event.

TKO
At any time you can Invoke a TKO (Technical knock out) and I will end the debate there with a win to your team and award you 30 speaks, however if not your speaks will be set at 20. This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you’ve solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate BUT only do this if you believe that your opponent has absolutely no route to the ballot.

Some other stuffs

Run whatever you want, I will do my best to follow. Judge adaption is a sorry excuse for lay judges to be lazy and not actually learn debate.

You may read your cases as fast as you would like, but if you would like me to flow key cards or points please slow down on them or send me your speech doc.

If you plan on running very long link chains please explain them to a full extent or include me on an email chain- marcus.repsher@gmail.com

if evidence is asked for at the end of a round please make sure the entire card is at least an 8 point font or I assume you don't want me to read it.

If in Lincoln Douglas, the same goes for card font also if your running unique Criteria or Value please explain them to the full extent if you wish for them to be flowed.

I usually value tech over the truth but I do not think in a strict offense/defense paradigm. Terminal defense, presumption, and negligible risk are possible.

post rounding is acceptable if you have nice things to say or questions for me or your opponent, post rounding is not the time nor the place to argue my RFD, if you absolutely disagree with my RFD please take it to your coach or a tournament director arguing with me in round will get you nowhere.

PUBLIC FORUM

Public Forum is an evidence-based debate.

Do not rant during speeches, be absolutely clear and precise.

The basics of every round and the way I am going to judge, the AFF must prove a net gain, the NEG must prove a net loss, unless offered a framework or observation this is how i will judge your round.

I do not mind sitting during grand cross, during 1st speaker and 2nd speaker cross i do prefer you stand.

There is a difference between being assertive and rude.

I will assume you to be well versed in the rules in public forum, understand I will mark it on your ballot if you do not follow them.

I will assume if you drop an argument or contention whether it be offense or defense you agree with it and will flow it to your opponent's side unless they don't mention the drop then ill just pretend like I was hallucinating.

If you would like me to understand exactly what your doing, please give some format of an off time road map before each speech after case reading. basically PLEASE SIGNPOST

If you don't offer a framework of what you need to prove to win or the opponent needs to prove, i will hold your opponents framework in the round (technically you should just adopt their framework but you get the idea), If neither of the teams offer one I will decide the round over the weighing that has been offered to me.

Crossfire- unlike many flow judges I do flow cross x as i believe it holds value to the debate or you wouldn't be doing it.

Impacts- Do not give me anything scalar without explaining why it matters.

Weighting- If you have dropped the arg or lost access to it don't use it as a weighing mechanism. weighting is an action not a word to be used for fill.

drops/concedes- I am a flow judge i promise i caught the drop/conceded arg, so if your going to tell me that something was dropped or conceded tell me why its important rather than "this went cold conceded!!!"

style- I am not a progressive debater in the sense of ks and non-topical arguments but i will go along with most things but that doesn't mean i enjoy hearing debate is always bad K's

Lincoln Douglas

Do not rant during speeches, be absolutely clear and precise.

The basics of every round and the way I am going to judge, the AFF must prove a net gain, the NEG must prove a net loss. Of course other factors will be taken into consideration but this is the very basics.

I will assume if you drop an argument or contention whether it be offense or defense you agree with it and will flow it to your opponent's side unless they don't mention the drop then ill just pretend like I was hallucinating.

If you would like me to understand exactly what your doing, please give some format of an off time road map before each speech after case reading. basically PLEASE SIGNPOST

There is a difference between being assertive and rude, please understand the difference.

You can stand or sit during cross, doesn't matter much to me.

I will assume you understand the rules of Lincoln Douglas debate, understand I will mark it on your ballot if you do not follow them.

Please understand these are the absolute basics of how I will judge your round. Of course other factors will influence my decision, but that is tailored to each round.

Crossfire- unlike many flow judges i do flow cross x as i believe it holds value to the debate or you wouldn't be doing it.

Impacts- Do not give me anything scalar without explaining why it matters.

Weighting- If you have dropped the arg or lost access to it don't use it as a weighing mechanism. weighting is an action not a word to be used for fill.

drops/concedes- I am a flow judge i promise i caught the drop/conceded arg, so if your going to tell me that something was dropped or conceded tell me why its important rather then "this went cold conceded!!!"

style- I am not a progressive debater in the sense of ks and non-topical arguments but i will go along with most things but that doesn't mean i enjoy hearing debate is always bad K's

General rules

I do not tolerate mansplaining

I'm not an interventionist judge in any sense I weigh the round how you tell me to, I will, however, become interventionist when you become homophobic, racist, transphobic, or any other form of bigotry.

If you are going to spread, please ask all parties involved before the round starts (aka case reading).

If you ask me to disclose after round, I will but only if asked.

Do not trap your opponents into some terrible tunnel vision of a framework. (I know this doesnt translate to everyone so if you have a question about this ask me before round)

Please keep cross as professional as possible, I understand the want to prove a point, this does not mean you can be rude to your opponent.

Please take any critique that I give you to heart, I am in no way a snobby judge who will get mad if you move your hands too much, I really wish for you to do better.

Of course all of this goes deeper and if I listed all rules I think debaters should follow we would be here all day. The most important rule is for you to go to a tournament and enjoy yourself, debate is in no way meant to be a exclusive rude community.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ASK BEFORE THE ROUND STARTS

TLDR:

I'm flow/tech until you are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. I can handle spreading, just send a speech doc that includes anything you read so I don’t accidentally miss something, I'd hate to vote someone down because audio cut out or my hearing failed me. If you're gonna read primarily analytics or logic include bullet points.

If you want more details read below. If you want the most up to date info, ask me in round.

Important Note: I will not look at any evidence unless it is asked of me to do so in round, once you ask me to examine the evidence I assume you give me full discretion to read the entire article or study and make judgements based on its contents.

Experience:

I have 4 years of experience in PF, Congress, and LD. I have no exposure to Ks, but I do have experience with and enjoy judging theory debate. I am currently studying economics at Tufts University and have familiarity with urbanization and healthcare. This will not affect decision making, but I believe in the spirit of fairness I should disclose my familiarities with related subjects.

Speaker Point System:
Here's a rudimentary point system

24: You broke a rule or were racist
27: Worst you can get normally, your speeches were messy and impossible to understand.
28: Mediocre, you gave your speech monotone or had several issues with clarity
28.5: Average
29: Good, you gave your speeches clearly most of the time and had few issues during cross.
30: Great, you didn't have any noticeable issues

This is what will lose you points
1. Interrupting during crossfire or trying to turn it into another speech instead of asking a question
2. Not speaking clearly(I give a lot of leeway on this)
3. Lying
4. Being rude or disrespectful

How I judge debate:

I vote almost solely on what happens in the round with framework being the first thing I consider and speaking and strategy being the last. So if you impact to only economic downfall but forget to attack the framework that says we should focus on saving lives then that’s an L for you.

While I am a flow/tech judge, if you run blatantly untrue or abusive arguments I will step in because then I see you as just being an awful human being. This hasn't ever happened, but I want it to be known that I reserve the right to intervene in order to be transparent as a judge. This shouldn't ever happen unless you run "racism is good" like that one kid in Oklahoma.

If you hold your opponents to a standard in round you must meet that standard too.

What I like:

1. Thorough and well done weighing

2. Collapsing of arguments

3. Clearing extensions through till final focus

4. Clear and quantified impacts

5. Well written theory

How to annoy me:

Here are a few ways you can annoy me in the round: lying, not giving your opponents the evidence they call for in a timely manner, defining every word in the resolution, acting arrogant, expecting me to weigh for you, running arguments that are immature and demeaning such as racism good or that sexism doesn't exist.

Debate is meant to be inclusive and any attempts to undermine that will lose you speaker points very quickly.

Extra notes:

Occasionally I will have suggestions for evidence, cases, or arguments that I do not have the materials on standby for, if you ever want to follow up on an RFD and ask for a clarification you can email me at tait.milo.smith@gmail.com.

How I judge extemp:

To me, extemp is just as much about being a charismatic speaker as it is having good arguments. If I’m not interested in what you’re telling them you’re not doing a great job. There are several ways to get my attention including being humorous or having a good introduction. I’ve had people win rounds despite having weaker arguments because it actually became painful to listen to the other speakers' monotone performances. Your speaking abilities makes up half your ranking.