Competed/ Graduated in Oklahoma under the GOAT and now NSDA Hall of Fame coach Michael Patterson

As far as policy and all debate goes I try to approach every round with tabula rasa so have fun and run whatever you normally run as long as it is not sexist, racist, homophobic, or anything hateful.

"racism....its bad kids...don't do it"- Michael Patterson

No spreading if possible your judges should still be able to understand almost every word and enunciate.

I don't think the debate should be a monologue of zombies, crack the occasional joke trust me I'll laugh even if I don't find it funny. All while still keeping decorum.

I'm primarily a policy judge, so I'm pretty tab and don't really have strong preferences. However, I don't expect nor want other forms of debate (LD, PF, BQ, WSD) to look like a policy round.

A) I tend to view myself as a judge that tries to be as tab as possible. I am willing to accept any framework argument made. If no framework is set up, I will view the round as a policy-maker. I view debate as a fishbowl. What I mean by this is that debate is a place to play with different theories and ideas to form the best possible scenario. I am willing to vote neg if the status/quo outweighs the aff, but I will not make that argument for you. If you just say that in some way the aff is bad, but don’t tell me the status quo is better and warrant it out you will probably lose. In a way, if not given a framework (that is warranted out), I will go with what I am told is good. I work very hard to not let my personal beliefs have a role in the round, but I am only human.

B) Speed is not a problem; however, you must be clear. Mumbling is not the same as spreading.

C) Topicality. and Theory need to be impacted with in round abuse. I refuse to vote on potential abuse, because that can lead to a what if can of worms. I also tend to be less sympathetic to weird definitions or word pics. I am glad to listen to them and way them in round if they are warranted, explained, and not just a ten second part of the round (let’s be honest-sometimes they are just time sucks). I love to see really good theory ran by people who understand it. It is an intriguing way to play the debate game.

D) Counter Plans are fine, but make sure you can actually, legally change out the actor, etc.

E) Disads are fine. I like them as a net benefit to CPs. It makes everything pretty.

F) Kritiks are fine with me, but please realize that I do not read all of the literature in my free time. If something I hear about sparks and interest, sure, I’ll read about it. This rarely happens. I think it is ridiculous how many debaters assume that I have read all that Zizek, Lacan, or whoever the newest guru is has written or spoken. Remember that your judges and coaches have lives outside of debate. I actually really like to hear Kritiks as they can offer great offense.

G) Now onto Perms. I will vote on them, but they must be explained and not just a cheap trick thrown at the aff.

H) Behavior: Remember that this is not a time to actively work to make people feel inferior (Read: Don’t be a jerk). We lose to many students who could have thrived in this activity due to them feeling horrid after a tournament. I want to see more debaters and actors. I want to see massive inclusion of all peoples. This is supposed to be fun and educational; help us work towards that. When you face those who are less experienced that you, help make it an awesome learning experience and don’t act like you should win by default.

I) Remember that you will probably encounter the same competitors and judges throughout the year; so make a good impression.

A bit of my background. I am a full professor of communication at Southeastern Oklahoma State University. I am also the Director of Forensics. The forensics team at Southeastern is a comprehensive speech and debate team competing in both individual speaking and both individual and team debate events. The types and formats of debate in college have different titles than those in high school, yet the goal is still the same – to have the judge vote in your favor. Note...I'm writing this paradigm for both audiences since I do volunteer judge throughout the year at Regional and State high school tournaments in Texas and Oklahoma. Back to my paradigm, debate provides a venue for hypothesis testing. In debate, a proposition or resolution is given provisional acceptance and through argumentation it is determined whether acceptance should continue or should be rejected after thorough reasoning. Whichever individual or team is successful in convincing the judge that its test of the proposition or resolution is accurate, “wins” the debate.

With that being said, in general, I consider myself a traditional judge. Let me explain...the more rhetorically agile debaters, more criterion-based arguments, and more acute rebuttals and refutations are the types of arguments that I seem to be most persuaded or convinced by. I believe all is fair in love and war, so I don't mind debaters using more progressive debate tactics. Yet, I suppose this should be for every debate round judge, but I know it is not. More technically speaking, though, I strongly believe in the fundamentals of “debate,” like I explain above. Thus, the affirmative has the burden of proof based on the stasis issues which are determined through the wording of the proposition or resolution. Like most decision-makers, the better you define and clearly articulate the stock issues and argue persuasively for them, the better and more organically a decision seems to materialize for me. I find it most helpful when a value criterion has been clearly defined and continually reinforced throughout the debate round. I often say, "make it stupid...simple," On the flip side, the negative has the burden of rejoinder. I believe it is crucial to the negative's case construction to refute all arguments offered by the affirmative from their constructive. Dropped arguments will be given to the opposition. In my experience, during a debate, the round crystalizes, and some arguments gain more traction than others, however if the negative has come to agree with a perspective advocated for by the affirmative, its better, in my mind, to acknowledge that has indeed happened and use it as an opportunity to employee the refutation strategies of minimizing or outweighing.

Lastly, I do seem to value counter plans introduced by the negative as well, when appropriate and well-argued, mainly because I'm of the opinion that a good offense always overtakes a good defense. I will flow the round, mainly because it helps me to stay engaged yet I do not consider myself a flow judge - I do not simply make decisions based on the flow.

So, in sum, I look strongly at the ethics of the case and the philosophy that is behind it, especially when it comes to the value structure. I DO NOT look highly upon spreading, most people cannot follow spreading, and debaters have a moral obligation to create an inviting space for educational dialogue. However, unlike some other traditional judges, I do enjoy counterplan arguments and kritik.

Debate:

I personally believe arguments should be made clear and understandable to viewers for the sake of accessibility. I am not a fan of jargon or the use of niche and specialized terms without at least a brief explanation that would be accessible to any viewer. Due to this, I do not perform judge intervention.

I am fairly easy going and while I do prefer professional attitudes, I'm much more concerned with the logistics and clarity of an argument than the fact that it was executed in a highly formal manner. So long as all participants are respectful, I prioritize skillful integration of factual knowledge and reasoning over presentation style.

Speech:

Pieces which are clearly products of much energy and effort are preferred. A high level of investment is appreciated, especially in the expression of physical, mental, and emotional engagement during performance. To me, pieces which show a clear dedication to embodiment and well-developed expression are very important. I will judge primarily based on level of perceived effortful piece development, energy/engagement during performance, as well as development of advanced elements such as physicality, character development, and execution of speech-specific skills.

I will adopt the debaters' paradigms and hear just about any type of argument as long as analytics are given to explain. I won't intervene by providing my own links or analysis if debaters just read cards at me.

Likewise, give me a framework and tell me how to weigh the round. In LD, I want this to be explicitly stated, even if it is a progressive framework. I'm fine with a non-traditional framework. Just explain it to me. In PF, the framework may or may not be explicitly stated, but I should be able to easily extrapolate a standard.

I like an LD 1AR/1NR or PF Rebuttal to be line-by-line, but feel free to tell me what you think is more important/has more weight in the round. I like LD 2AR/2NR to crystallize and give voters-not more line-by-line. Same with PF Summary and Final Focus.

It is imperative that debaters give voting issues and impact calculus linked back to the framework. If you don't, I'm stuck comparing argument to argument.

I am fine with both progressive debate and traditional debate. A bit of speed is fine, but I would prefer that it not rise to the rates in CX. I can follow you, but I'd prefer to have time to digest your arguments. Also, keep in mind that more isn't necessarily better. Be strategic. Introduce what you think you can reasonably handle. I'm fine with debaters kicking out of arguments. Funnel arguments down to what is really important and viable in the round.

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

Do better than your opponents.

Last Updated 12/5/2021

Ishmael Kissinger
Experience: 3.5 yrs for The University of Central Oklahoma 02-05 (Nov/JV & Open)
14 yrs as Coach @ Moore High School, OK
Policy Rounds Judged: Local ~10
Policy National/Toc - 2
LD Rounds Judged Local: 0
LD National/TOC - 0

PFD - Local = 0

PFD Nat Circuit - 0

Email Chain: PLEASE ASK IN ROUND - I cannot access my personal email at school.

*Note: I do not follow along with the word doc. I just want to be on the chain so that I can see the evidence at the end of the round if necessary. I will only flow what I hear.

LD -

Just because I am primarily a policy judge does not mean that I think LD should be like 1 person policy. Small rant: I am tired of us making new debate events and then having them turn into policy... If you are constructing your case to be "Life & Util" and then a bunch of Dis-Ads you probably don't want me as your judge. If you are going for an RVI on T in the 1AR you probably don't want me as a judge. I don't think that LD affs should have plan texts. If I were to put this in policy terms: "You need to be (T)-Whole Res."

Affirmatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their Criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that affirm the whole resolution.

Negatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that negate the whole resolution.

CX

I tend to consider myself a flow oriented judge that tries to be as tab as any one person can be. Absent a framework argument made, I will default to a policy-maker/game-theorist judge. I view debate in an offense-defense paradigm, this means that even if you get a 100% risk of no solvency against the aff, but they are still able to win an advantage (or a turned DA) then you are probably going to lose. You MUST have offense to weight against case.

Generic Information:

Speed is not a problem *Edit for the digital age: Sometimes really fast debaters are harder for me to understand on these cheap computer speakers.

T & Theory need to be impacted with in round abuse. As the debate season goes on I tend to err more toward reasonability than I do at the beginning of the year. This is usually because as the debate year goes on I expect Negative teams to be more prepared for less topical arguments. This is generally how much judges operate, they just don't say it. I typically don't vote on potential abuse, you should couch your impacts on potential abuse in very real-world examples.

Please make impact calculus earlier in the debate rather than just making it in the 2nr/2ar

Kritiks are not a problem, but I am not really deep into any one literature base. This may put you at a disadvantage if you assume I know/understand the nuances between two similar (from my point of view) authors. **If you are going for a K or an Alt in the 2NR but are unsure if the aff is going to win the Perm debate and you want me to "kick the alt" and just have me vote on some epistemic turn you're only explaining in the overview of the 2NR you are not going to enjoy the RFD. If you think it's good enough to win the debate on with only a :30 explanation in the overview, you should probably just make the decision to go for it in the 2nr and kick the alt yourself.

When addressing a kritikal aff/neg I will hold you to a higher threshold than just Util & Cede the political, I'll expect you to have specific literature that engages the K. If this is your strategy to answering K teams I am probably not your "1."

I don't have a problem with multiple conditional arguments, although I am more sympathetic to condo bad in a really close theory debate.

CPs are legit. Just like judges prefer specific links on a Dis-Ads I also prefer specific Counter-Plans. But I will evaluate generic states/int'l actor CPs as well.

Dispo = Means you can kick out of it unless you straight turn it, defensive arguments include Perms and theory. (My interp, but if you define it differently in a speech and they don't argue it, then your interp stands)

DAs are cool - the more specific the link the better, but I will still evaluate generic links.

Case args are sweet, especially on this year's (2019) topic.



Personal Preferences:

Really I have only one personal pref. If you are in a debate round - never be a jerk to the opposing team &/or your partner. I believe that our community has suffered enough at the hands of debating for the "win," and although I don't mind that in context of the argumentation you make in the round, I do not believe that it is necessary to demean or belittle your opponent. If you are in the position to be facing someone drastically less experienced than yourself; keep in mind that it should be a learning process for them, even if it is not one for you. It will NOT earn you speaker points to crush them into little pieces and destroy their experience in this activity. If you want to demonstrate to me that you are the "better debater(s)," and receive that glorious 29 or maybe even 30 it will most likely necessitate you: slowing down (a little), thoroughly explaining your impact calc, clearly extending a position, then sitting down without repeating yourself in 5 different ways. If you opt to crush them you will prob. win the round, but not many speaker points (or pol cap) with me.

PF debater for 2 years with a some experience in LD.

What I am okay with:

- Progressive debate (K’s, Theory, Tech, etc)

- Spreading (IF you flash me your files)

- Yes you can time yourself

- Off-case arguments

Framework is obviously always important, but I do heavily focus on the contention level debate. Tell me how to weigh the round or I'm going to go off of straight impact calculus. Keep things organized and easy to follow on the flow because I am a flow orientated judge. Also, MAKE SURE TO EXTEND.

---

EMAIL FOR SPEECH DOCS: leigha.debate@gmail.com

---

Policy Debater at Moore High School, Moore, OK: 2008-2011

Policy Debater at the University of Oklahoma: 2011-2015

Assistant Policy Debate Coach at Moore High School, Moore, OK: 2012 - 2015; 2018 - 2020

Assistant Coach at University of Central Oklahoma: Dec. 2019 - May 2021

Assistant Coach at Heritage Hall High School, Oklahoma City, OK: Current

---

Stylistic:

For virtual debates:

Give me pen-time between arguments - and a second to move from one flow to the next. As one of the last practitioners of paper-debate and as judge who flows on paper, the cleaner and more organized the debate can be on my end, the more satisfying a decision I can give both teams.

I'm okay with observers in debates I judge, if you have affirmative consent from the teams debating. If you observe while recording, I also need to affirmatively consent to you doing so. Just ask me in the chat, that works.

I'll try to record prep time in the chat, if you end up losing your time.

- When the flash drive exits the computer, prep time is over. If using an email chain, verbally announce when you're sending the speech document out, and prep stops.

- I am fine with spreading, but I do want to hear a tag, citation, and the internals of the card. I will yell "clear" if I need.

- Let me know if you're going to have a long overview and I'll flow it on another sheet. My threshold for what I consider a "long" overview is very low, so keep that in mind. Play it safe and tell me to get another sheet, if you're on the fence about if this applies to you.

Argument Execution:

- Analysis needs a claim, a warrant, and an impact. "Extend our argument" is not an extension to me.

- Extending a piece of evidence by name and giving shallow analysis - ie: "Ext. our [blank] card here - means we turn the aff," and moving on. Without some explanation of the how and why that's true within the context of the evidence and the argument it's answering, I'm more reluctant to put in that work for you.

- I value debates where arguments are made with descriptive consistency in warrant extensions and analysis. Being able to trace the development of an argument from its introduction in evidence to the 2NR or 2AR is important to me - keep the key thesis of your argument alive in the debate. The same applies to application of warrants from a piece of evidence.

- It's awesome to see arguments that challenge the aff on a substantive level using nuanced arguments. Specific links are great and encouraged. But, I also reward specific application and contextualization to the aff when using a more generic piece of evidence. Especially in critical debates.

- In rebuttals, especially in the 1AR and 2NR, cleaning up the debate and making larger explanations of strategic, technical decisions or concessions on the flow framing-level is rewarded by me. Consider this me asking you to "write my ballot for me" in the last stages of the debate. I value analysis that not only explains to me the thesis of your advantages, disad, counterplan, or kritik in terms of substance, but also what arguments you are winning and key questions on individual flows you're going for.

Specific Arguments:

I was a critical debater for most of my career but will vote on framework and policy arguments - do what makes you feel comfortable and I will do my best to evaluate the round. I'm just probably not hyper-knowledgable on the truth-claims of the literature for your hot, new Yuan devaluation scenario, so I'll read evidence for my own personal understanding of the debate when needed for a decision. A lot of my experience in debating and coaching critical arguments are in the literature areas of settler colonialism, critical race arguments, queer theory, IR Ks, and other method debates.

---

- For those of you in a debate running a critical argument in front of me, this means I have a higher threshold for clarity in explanation and smart, explicit application to either affirmative or negative responses to your argument. A lot of the creativity in critical debate comes from application of specific warrants from your authors to the other team's argument - this is especially true in debates where you may not have a super-specific link argument in the 1NC and in high-theory debates that can devolve into word-salad. This is a basic requirement in you doing work for me in explaining the interaction between your argument and the other team's argument. Speeches that attempt to ground your theory with more concrete examples are good.

Being intentionally opaque about your position in cross-examination makes me roll my eyes a little bit (unless it's fundamental to the theory of your argument, as in some opacity-style method debates). I certainly become a little more sympathetic to the other team's frustrations when there's a sense you might be evasive during the explanation of your argument

- Theory debates are not my favorite, as I feel a lot of debaters can be unclear in their explanation of and the developing a theory argument enough for me to give it much weight inside of the round. I prefer if you give me a heads up during your roadmap to grab an additional sheet for flowing, and give the order with the new sheet with whatever argument the theory concerns. (IE: "The order is T, the dis-ad, and the counterplan with a new sheet of paper.")

Theory shells are easy to bury in a flow by couching it among other arguments and spreading right through - which is a strategy! But, in my style of evaluation and for clarity's sake, I recommend clearly signposting when you're moving onto the theory argument, taking a breath so I can quickly get my clean flow, and then begin the argument. A cleaner flow for me gives you a better chance of winning your argument.

---

CX:

I am fine with open CX, to a certain degree. Being rude, mean, and continually speaking over your opponents can lose you speaker points.

Along the same line, speaking for your partner during most of their cross-examination time (whether asking or answering) reflects negatively for speaker points. I understand there is the desire to make sure that your argument is being explained correctly, but it is more persuasive to me if a team is able to have a consistent explanation of their argument between partners.

---

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to ask me before the round.

I have experience either competing or judging every event, so I am okay with anything being run in round (if you can argue it well).

Speed is fine. If you mumble through your speech, don't be surprised if I don't flow half of it.

Jacob Morrison

Standard Washed Up Ex-Competitor

morrisonjacob38@gmail.com

(He/Him/His)

Background: Recent college graduate, debated in college for 3 years (Mainly Parli, was 2019 national quarterfinalist) and high school for 4 years (Mainly LD, was 2016 state quarterfinalist). Former part-time private coach until I got too busy with life.

Paradigm: I'm not gonna have a line-item paradigm here. Debate is a game and I believe a player of every game should do anything within the rules to give themselves an edge. Judging 10 rounds a tournament sucks, tell me something I haven't heard. Run your standard value case, run your kritikal aff, run your Timecube, IDC.

General Remarks: TIME YOURSELF. It should be common sense. Debate is rooted in communication so I don't care how you talk as long as you're clear. Speaker points are stupid and arbitrary so I tend to run high(er) with them. Be nice to each other and have fun. Feel free to ask me anything beforehand.

If I had to choose between framework and case, I choose framework.

Otherwise, do your best! I recognize effort. :)

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 currently attend Oklahoma State University and serve on the Student Government Senate. I did Speech and Debate all 4 years at Guymon High School.

I am a very, genuinely unbiased judge. I have/will vote for and against any different politics and beliefs.

I believe the sport of debate should be who has the better argument substantially, as well as who explains and presents it better.

While yes I have plenty of debate experience, its far better for you to do the explanation work for me to better your chances of success.

Any argument is a valid argument in my book (policy, critical, framework, etc.) its again your job to make the case to me.

I will also emphasize that you emphasize your claim before you either read evidence or give your analytics/explanation (i.e emphasize your tag with a short tag). I'm good with speed for cards, etc. (I can keep up with Eminem).

Don't be afraid to question the other side's evidence and warrants. I feel today people just give the other side the full merit of cards; challenge their validity!

Sportsmanship is something I highly value!

Good luck and may the odds be ever in your favor!!