I did debate and oratory events all through high school and I graduated last year. As far as LD goes, give me good framework clash and don't talk too fast and you'll be fine with me. I prefer traditional style arguments, but a well done K or Plan can win too.

I mostly judge Lincoln Douglas, but I have coached all events offered by the NSDA and the OSSAA. I was the coach at Cascia Hall from 2007-2021 and have worked at the Tulsa Debate League since 2023.

I am more comfortable with a more traditional style of debate, but will make my best effort to judge the round in front of me, even if it isn't stylistically what I am most comfortable with. That being said, no matter what style you prefer, debate is pretty much the same. Tell me how to make an evaluation and then tell me why you win under that evaluation.

If you have more specific questions, I'm happy to answer them before the round begins if all competitors are present.

I prefer speechdrop but here is my email for document sharing/evidence chains if you need it:betty.stanton@jenksps.org

I'm the head coach of a successful team, and have been coaching for 18 years. I did CX in high school so long ago that Ks were new, and I competed in college.

LD: I'm a very traditional judge. I like values and criteria and analysis and clash. I want framework debate to actually mean something.

PF: I’m a very traditional judge. If the round becomes a very short CX round instead of a PF round, we have a problem. I want evidence and actual analysis of that evidence, and I want actual clash.

CX: I can handle your spread and I will vote where I'm persuasively told to with the following exceptions: 1) I have never voted on T. I think it's a non-starter unless a case is so blatantly non-topical that you can't even see the resolution from it. That's not to say it isn't a perfectly legitimate argument, it's just to say that I will probably buy the aff's 'we meet's and you might have better uses for your time than camping here. 2) If you run a K, you should firmly and continuously advocate for that K. 3) I, again, will always prefer actual clash in the round over unlinked theory arguments.

General Things ~

Don't claim something is abusive unless it is.

Don't claim an argument was dropped unless it was.

Don't advocate for atrocities.

Don't be a jerk to your opponents (This will get you the lowest speaker points possible. Yes, even if you win.)

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.