So, my paradigm. When I judge, I will be using two different frameworks.

Argumentation:

Firstly, looking at argumentation within the Lincoln-Douglas debate format, the debater should use the value-criterion framework as the ends of their argument, and he/she should use contentions as the means to reach the end of that value-criterion end. Since LD is a value debate, I do not want to only hear about the information concerning the topic at hand -- I need to know why that information is important to your value and criterion, which should uphold your side of the resolution.

I cannot stress enough the importance of your case fitting together in a logical and grammatical framework. If evidence is equally appealing on both sides of the debate and neither debater drops any arguments, I will immediate look to who upholds their value and criterion the best, which means one should tell me why this information is important. The debater appeals to me, so I should not have to make conclusions on my own, except whose case is better.

Speaking:

Secondly, your speaking, which may not reflect if you will win the round or not but can help after preliminary rounds, should be understandable: Do not spread or speak to fast. You should enunciate your words, especially for the online rounds.

The framework I will use to judge your speaking points is the first three liberal arts: grammar, logic, and rhetoric. If you do not know what those are, do not worry. Aristotle, and many others, say they are inherent in people, so focus on speaking well and persuasively. Remember, you are trying to convince me your case is what we OUGHT to do, so have some energy. I do not want to fall asleep. However, not too much energy. You should use your own judgement. If you are to fault on either side, fault on the side of too much.

Finally, this last paragraph goes along with argumentation too. So, when debating, do not attack you opponent or his/her person but their argument. The issues could be personal to you, but the debate should not involve Ad Hominem: attacking the person instead of their argument. That would be a waste of my time, your time, and your opponents. I will almost always give you a loss if you decide to attack your opponent.

If I am not looking at LD I would appeal greatest to the level or argumentation and logic that you uphold in your debate. Information is extremely important, but it cannot stand on its own, especially when you are debating something. Tell me why this information is important.

Thank you for reading, and I wish you the best.

PUBLIC FORUM/LINCOLN DOUGLASS DEBATE PARADIGMS:

- I expect a productive crossfire, if you launch into a tangent without answering your opponent's question, expect to receive low speaker points. 

- Do not spread, period. If I cannot understand you, I will up-vote the team or person that I do understand. I have no problem with someone speaking fast, but if I literally can't understand what you're saying, I will stop flowing your side of the debate; please speak at a conversational tone in all speeches if possible, slightly faster is acceptable. 

- Be respectful of your opponent at all times, do not act cocky or superior in regards to the debate that is happening. 

- Make eye contact with me, don't look at your opponent in crossfire. Gesturing toward your opponent is fine, just keep your eyes on me please. 

My paradigm

Do not spread LD, this is not Policy. By the same token, do not try to provide solvency.

1. Please stand and look out during cross fire.

2. Please don't spread during speeches if it is not policy.

3. Don't keep track of your opponents' prep time

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.

Debated 4 years at Troy high school on both the local and national circuits.

Will listen to any argument and do flow (framework, plans/CPs, DAs, Ks, performance, topicality, theory... etc.). If you run anything dense please explain it. If you can't explain it well I won't do the work for you and just won't evaluate your argument. Please please please do weighing. For LD and Parli (value/fact rounds) give me some sort of framing so I have something to evaluate the round with. If your opponent is being abusive, call them out for being abusive (I prefer a theory shell but do not require it).

Speed: If you are spreading it better be clear. I will follow the speech doc to make sure you're not clipping, but if you're unclear I'll just stop flowing.

Will drop for clipping or anything with harmful implications for the debate community. If you have any other questions feel free to email me (allenpau2000@gmail.com) or ask before the round. Most importantly, remember to 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.

My name is Robin Mitchell Stroud and I'm primarily an LD judge for Norman High School in Norman, Oklahoma.

I didn't compete in high school debate, however, have earned four degrees (BA, MHR, MEd, PhD) and am very comfortable with argumentation in a competitive setting across a breadth of subjects. Educational areas of concentration include:

* Bachelor of Arts (psychology)

* Master of Human Relations (international/intercultural relations)

* Master of Education (foundations of education)

* Graduate certificate (women’s and gender studies), and

* Doctor of philosophy (gender studies; religious studies and philosophies of education)

I am newer to judging in circuit/progressive tournaments, however, have experience and very much enjoy judging in traditional ones. See my preferences for each below.

TRADITIONAL TOURNAMENTS

PHILOSOPHY/FRAMEWORK: I enjoy philosophical/theoretical argumentation and value a strong and clear framework. Be explicit in how your contentions support your framing (when presenting your case and throughout the round).

ARGUMENTATION: Arguments shouldn't merely be repeated in rebuttals. Debaters who extend and develop them will do better in front of me as will debaters who clearly articulate and extend their warrants and impacts.

EVIDENCE: Please don't be repetitive with evidence. Repetitive evidence doesn’t equal more weight, and solid analytics can take out that kind of evidence. While evidence is good, please ensure that it's useful and efficient to your argumentation and soundly ties to your framing.

SPEAKER POINTS: Be respectful. Be confident. Engage with questions in CX. Signpost.

NOTE: If both debaters are okay with bringing circuit style argumentation and speed into a traditional round, I'm okay with it.

Aside from these, be sure to have fun!

CIRCUIT TOURNAMENTS

PHILOSOPHY: I like and am most experienced with philosophical/theoretical argumentation and enjoy it best in a round. I am accustomed to weighing arguments under dense philosophical frameworks and can understand it if you do the same.

FRAMEWORK: I appreciate strong and clearly communicated framing. If I don't understand how the framing and argumentation engage in a round, I won’t vote on them so please make sure they are clear. While I am most familiar with a traditional structure, I am comfortable judging others. If you can explain your framing and properly weigh with it, I'm open to just about anything.

EVIDENCE: Please don't be repetitive with evidence. Repetitive evidence doesn’t equal more weight, and solid analytics can take out that kind of evidence. While evidence is good, please ensure that it is useful and efficient to your argumentation and soundly ties to the framing.

KRITIKS: I like a debate that is grounded in critical argumentation. I’m well versed in certain kinds of critical, feminist, pragmatist and theo/alogical theories, and am pretty comfortable voting on other kinds of critical arguments if they are explained well in the round.

POLICY: I'm okay with policy style arguments.

SPEED: I like to flow rounds and am generally fine with speed. Just be sure to slow down for tag lines so I can capture them correctly. If you’re going to spread at a super-fast speed, you'll need to flash your case to me.

SPEAKER POINTS: Be respectful. Be confident. Engage with questions in cross examination. Signpost. And again, if you spread, make the taglines clear.

T/THEORY: If you're going to run a T argument, you'll need to do a very good job explaining it and its impact on the round.

If you’re sharing documents, please add me to the chain: robinmitchellstroud@gmail.com.

Aside from these, be sure to have fun!

Hi, I'm a political science major ( elections and campaigns emphasis), International Security Studies,and Journalism.

My pronouns are she/her, and I am a former LD, Congress and USX/IX competitor ( I also have some OO experience!).

Debate:

speak clearly when reading any pieces of evidence, otherwise I cannot ensure that I can weigh it in.

ESPECIALLY be clear about your framework, as this is one of the most important part of your case

be respectful to your opponent(s) and judge(s)

use the correct pronouns for your opponent(s) and judge(s).

I love theory, especially gender/social justice theory and constitutional theory.

CPs are great, just as long as you use them effectively

Ks are okay, just be effective as previously stated.

bigotry will not be tolerated in round.

I like to read evidence and cases for myself, so don't be surprised or alarmed if I ask to see them.

Self-timing is preferred.

If you chose to preform in a non-normative way (ie. music, rage, poetry, etc) explain why your discourse matters in terms of the debate space and why it creates a preferable or more accessible model of debate.

IE:

Dynamics are essential! If you are competing in IX/USX it can be hard to remember this, but it can really make or break your rank in round

Sources in IX/USX must be made clear or points will be taken off

I know when you're making up false or incorrect facts about policy so don't do that.

Speeches that are narrative and metaphorical are always the most fun to listen to!!