PF Debater for 4 years

I am very framework and evidence-oriented. Show me how your case supports your framework and why your evidence is relevant. Strong evidence is important, and I won't give a lot of weight to flimsy arguments. PLEASE EXTEND. Extend your arguments so I can give them the weight they deserve when deciding rounds.

Please keep things organized and go down the flow instead of jumping around. I can handle speed but I need to be able to keep up and flow everything. (Spreading won't get you very far with me) The easier I can read my flow, the easier I can understand you and your arguments. A roadmap before the speech is nice.

Although I did PF in high school, my knowledge and experience of Ks are limited, so you will need to thoroughly explain your arguments, but if properly fleshed out I can definitely understand.

Aggressiveness in a debate is expected and I don't mind it, just please be respectful of your opponents. Of course, discrimination or flat-out disrespect is unacceptable, so please be courteous.

General debate:

- I value respect of each other above all else. Keep it fun, no need to get *too* saucy with one another. There's a difference between aggressiveness and meanness.

- It's fine to keep your own time; I can keep track of prep time if you need me to (assume I am anyway).

- No spreading. I'm a flow judge. If I can't keep up with you, I can't flow. If I can't flow your arguments, I can't weigh them.

- I appreciate nuance if it makes sense. Don't try to throw nuanced arguments at me just for the sake of it. Show me how it works in the round.

- Evidence - I like it. I like substantiated evidence. Don't card dump on me, but provide me with adequate proof of your claims. I don't care how many sources you were able to find. I care about quality and relevance of those sources.

- Signposting is much appreciated. :) (goes back to that whole flow judge thing)

- Be confident. I have a speech/drama background as well so I value a solid public speaker who carries themself well. Confidence goes a long way.

PF:

- I enjoy a framework debate, but if you aren't going to provide framework - (a) be willing to weigh your side to your opponents' or (b) provide enough of an impact calculus to convince me you have the stronger case without framework.

- Pretend I don't know anything about your topic. Prove to me you do. That's kind of the fun part about public forum. It's supposed to be geared toward a "general audience."

LD:

- I'm pretty simple when it comes to LD - convince me your value/criterion are superior. Please link your arguments to your value, and remind me often. If you can't convince me there's a link, there's no case.

Overall just have fun with it. At the end of the day that's what debate is supposed to be. You'll find I'm pretty chill so just keep it clean, convince me you've got the better arguments, and we'll have a good time.

cameronmdecker10@gmail.com

TLDR: run whatever you want, i can handle progressive args and speed, im voting on the flow. dont be problematic.

PF: i did pf for four years so i would say i’m pretty experienced and can handle most arguments.

be respectful in round, i don’t really care if you get aggressive because i know it happens, just make sure your aggression doesn’t come off as disrespect to your opponents. if you do/say anything problematic (ie being racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.) in round you’ll get dropped.

Framework: i'll vote on your framework as long as you extend it through every speech and actually use it to tie your impacts. if you just say our framework is x at the beginning of every speech im more likely to just judge the debate as if framework didnt exist. essentially, tell me why youre winning under your framework with each impact you extend throughout the ff and summary. also, if your framework just says "if we prove x and y then we win this debate" and x and y are literally just your first and second contention, then im just gonna drop the framework and default to either your opponents, or if they dont offer one then cost benefit analysis. its abusive to say that the only path to the ballot is through whatever your specific arguments are.

last thing on fw: if you do not clash with your opponents fw and just say "we're winning under my fw" or "our fw is better" im either going to default to the opponents framework or default to cost benefit analysis because at that point youre not debating youre just being repetitive.

Argumentation: i really dont care if you wanna run progressive arguments such as counterplans or kritiks, but im only gonna vote for you if you actually know what youre talking about and not just using it to catch your opponents off guard. that being said, my experience with Ks is somewhat limited, so if you run one, just explain it thoroughly

another note on Ks and CPs: if youre only attack against them is that "they arent allowed in pf" then youre gonna lose the round. just debate the argument.

besides that im open to any argument really.

Weighing: teams that quantify impacts are gonna win my ballot 99.9% of the time vs teams that dont quantify anything. quantifying is by far the easiest way to weigh impacts against each other. if no quantifiable impacts are brought in the round its basically impossible for me as a judge to pick a winner if its a close debate because at that point youre making me choose which argument i think sounds better.

besides quantifying, i really like impact calc. if you tell me that youre impacts have more probability, bigger magnitude, and a better timeframe then it makes it really easy for me to vote for you.

Speaks: generally ill give good speaks as long as no one is rude, like i said i dont mind aggression as long as its not rude or disrespectful. i also will give you better speaks not only based on actually speaking skill, but how well your argumentation is within your speech. if you get up and give an absolute banger rebuttal or summary, youll probably get a 30 assuming youre not being hateful in the round.

Speed: i dont mind speed, just dont full on spread, other than that if you wanna go fast thats fine with me. im giving you the benefit of the doubt that if i can keep up, then your opponent should be able to as well, however, that works both ways so if i lose track and cant understand you im gonna assume the opponents cant either.

other than that, i think this is a great activity that everyone should have fun with. dont be afraid to make jokes, smile, and enjoy yourself. thats what this activity is for imo.

LD: i never did LD but i did PF for four years and i was a pretty progressive debater so im gonna be able to keep up with any arguments. i dont mind speed, just dont full on spread unless you wanna let me have the evidence youre reading, other than that if you wanna go fast thats fine with me. im giving you the benefit of the doubt that if i can keep up, then your opponent should be able to as well, however, that works both ways so if i lose track and cant understand you im gonna assume the opponents cant either.

Denslow, Keith Edit 0 3… Judging Philosophy
Keith Denslow,
Skiatook High School,
Skiatook, OK

I have taught academic debate for 32 years. I have coached both policy debate and value debate on the high school level plus NDT and CEDA for 2 years on the college level. I have coached regional, district, and state champions.

I give up. I embrace the absurdity which is post-modern debate. If you debate on a critical level, then it is your burden to understand and explain the philosophical position you are advocating and offer a rational alternative to the worldview.

Topicality is an outdated mode of thought with tries to put up fences in our brain about what we can and can not talk about. It harms education and the marketplace of ideas. As a negative, only run Topicality if the argument is 100% accurate not as a test of skill or response.

It is important that anyone arguing counterplans have an understanding of counterplan theory especially how a counterplan relates to presumption. DO NOT automatically permute a counterplan or critique without critically thinking about the impact to the theory of the debate.

Style issues: Civility is important. Open CX is okay. Clarity must accompany speed. Numbering your arguments is better than “next” signposting. Detailed roadmaps are better than “I have 5 off” and prep time doesn’t continue for 2 minutes after you say “stop prep” Flash evidence faster!

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 absolutely love the framework debate, please explain to me how I know your impacts achieve your framework. FRAMEWORK IS HOW I AM SUPPOSED TO VOTE IN THE ROUND.

I am comfortable with all forms of arguments: K's, Counterplans and plans, Theory, Reverse voting issues, ETC. Just explain yourself and don't assume I know the literature.

If you exhibit any discrimination towards your opponent or me it will be extremely difficult for you to get a ballot from me.

I appreciate a good speaker and someone who stays confident, NEVER GIVE UP any solid argument could persuade me to vote for you

Good Luck!

Hello! I competed in LD for 4 years in high school, and WSDC for one, and have taught both formats at times since then. My threshold for speed is fairly low, with a strong preference for something around a quick conversational pace. If early in the round you're losing me I'll call "clear" or "speed", but after that I can only evaluate what makes it onto my flow.

I'm agnostic about case formats, so a V/Cr + contentions, standard + counterplan, K + alt etc. are all fine, so long as you signpost and you're presenting me with a framework to decide the round, warranting that framework, and then presenting offense under it. I evaluate the round based on offensive arguments under whichever framework is best defended in the round. If no framework is better explained or defended, I try to evaluate the balance of arguments under each. Just winning framework does not win the round - I need to see offensive arguments generated under a framework.

I like evidence in rounds, but a card isn't automatically a warrant. Your ability to explain the argument, especially in cx and rebuttals, is the number one factor. Extending cards without extending the argument (specifically the warrant) won't carry much weight in my evaluation of the round.

I struggle to evaluate non-topical or extra-topical arguments, and am much happier to vote on arguments that clearly link back to advocating one side of text of the resolution. With that said, I'm happy to hear arguments in whatever format you like to run them, so don't worry about calling a critical argument a critique so long as it has a clear connection to advocating your side of the resolution. I will be reluctant to vote on arguments or strategies that rely on heavily narrowing the resolution, non-warranted blippy arguments, etc. If you find yourself encountering these arguments in a round with me, pointing them out (no warrant, narrow advocacy, etc.) and moving on to the main clash in the round is best - it's extremely rare that highly formalized theory arguments decide any rounds for me.

I'm fine with shorthand like cross apply/drop/extend/etc., but make sure not to let the jargon substitute for the argument. Calling something an extension lets me know what kind of argument you're about to make, but it isn't the argument.

Overall, make sure to warrant your arguments, extend and weigh things in the rebuttals, engage with your opponent, and have a good time!

PFD:

Background: I did PFD for 4 years at Moore High school and was moderately successful. I qualified to regionals 4 times, and went to state twice. I went to nationals in World Schools Debate and DEX. I am currently attending UCO majoring in Biomedical Engineering.

Framework: I love to see framework in a debate, because it gives the judge a lens to weigh your impacts. If neither team wants to read a framework, that is fine and I will resort to Cost Benefit Analysis, but it is in your best interest to have a framework based case with me.

Aside from framework, I am not picky about arguments you have in your case. I will vote off any argument as long as it is well warranted and there is an impact.

Rebuttal: I prefer quality of quantity with your attacks, but I also am not opposed to you having a lot of good attacks on a case. I do not think you have to extend/defend your case in the rebuttal, and you should spend most of your time attacking the opponents case.

Summary/Final Focus: These speeches should be very similar. I recommend you collapse in the summary and crystalize in the final focus. Please do the weighing for me in during these speeches. If you do not weigh the impacts of the round, then you leave me to do it, and I don't want to do the debating for you. I prefer to see offensive arguments in these 2 speeches. If you say something in the final focus but not in the summary, no matter how good it is, it will not be weighed in the round.

Counterplans: Knock yourself out, as far as I know, they are not against the rules, but if the opponents make a theory argument about your counterplan, you must respond.

Theory: I think these arguments are cool. If you read one, be prepared to explain it well in round because I don't have much experience debating these arguments.

Kritiks: You can try but I don't like them.

Speed: Go as fast as your opponents can understand. If I can hear/understand you but your opponents can not, then that's no fun and it ruins the debate for everybody. If the opponents are fine with you going fast, then I can keep up as well.

Speaker Points:

25-You conceded or said something really awful.

26-You were hard to understand and your speeches had no structure to them.

27-You did alright, but still struggled a little bit. Maybe you used of fillers or some of your arguments didn't make sense.

28-Average speaks. Not outstanding but no complaints.

29-You did exceptionally well. Little to no pauses/stuttering or you had a good, unique style.

30-I expect you to be one of the best debaters at the tournament. I have no complaints with your speeches and you should be in the finals round soon.

If you have any questions, please ask me before round.

I did PF debate for 4 years in high school, qualified to both State and Nationals. I now work as a debate coach at Westmoore. - That being said I am familiar with most types of argumentation and styles of debate.

I vote primarily on frameworks/Impact Calc. If you don't have a framework, adopt your opponent's. You should be attempting to win on your framework and your opponent's framework, not telling me why you won on your framework and theirs doesn't matter. If there's two frameworks in a round, they're both valuable. I don't like to have to do the weighing on my own at the end of a debate, it should be clear what the round is weighed on. If you can't prove the impact calculus of your argument or why your argument matters, chances are I will not buy it.

Speed. I'm okay with mild speed, but not with spreading. I should still be able to understand what you're saying and flow without missing a lot.

Sign post what you're attacking. I prefer to see attacks going down the flow (cont. 1 first, cont 2. second, etc.) rather than jumping around. It makes for easier flowing and a more ordered argument.

Crossfire. I do not flow crossfire. If it's important bring it up in a speech.

Online Rounds. Please do not prep without timing while the other team is looking for cards or having technical difficulties. Be fair and honest. And please put me in the email chain, katelynmakjohnson@gmail.com. The faster you go the more you glitch (I really don't care if you go fast, it just happens) but if you're going to read "fast", even if you're not spreading, it would be in your best interest to send a speech doc

Argumentation. I understand the basic functions of theory and K's, but I am not well-versed in the lit. You can run those progressive arguments if you like and I will evaluate as best as I can, but just keep in mind that I might have some trouble if you are going very fast and not explaining things well for these types of arguments. It's just hard for me to follow and conceptualize these more progressive arguments, but I don't want to stop you from reading progressive arguments if that is what interests you. If you do like reading wacky substance arguments, go for it, I'm all ears.

Card Calling. I think calling for cards as a judge is interventionist, however evidence ethics is also extremely important. I will only call for a card if I am explicitly told to in a speech. If there is a piece of evidence you want me to look at, tell me in a speech, and I will look at the specific place that you tell me to look at. I try not to intervene, but I want to be fair, so if something is not right, just tell me in a speech and explain why.

Please don't ask me to time. In order to give you the best feedback and round I'd rather you timed yourselves, instead of me giving you time signals or calls for prep. 

Thank you and good luck!

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.

Hi, I'm Elijah. I like long marches on the capital, I have an awesome dog, and I'd like the flash/to be on the email chain: ellott1700@gmail.com

I started debate my freshman year at UCO and am still kickin it. ROLL CHOS!

I have a hearing problem and will yell clear if I don't understand you. Don't let this slow you down- your speed is not the issue, it's your annunciation. Even if you aren't perfectly clear after I call, if there is a concerted effort I'll do my best to follow along. I know it can be tough to balance pace and clarity. That being said: if you need accommodations please let the judge(s) and your opponents know before the round/ASAP- this goes for every round you have. This includes but is not limited to calling clear, sitting down for speeches, stepping out for a moment, etc., etc.. Your ability to participate and health are of the utmost importance. I will not hold it against you.

If you're racist, transphobic, homophobic, ableist, or just plain mean to anyone participating in the debate I will give you the lowest speaks possible and probably vote against you. Period.

Now to the nitty gritty. (Law and Order voice: dun dun)

I, personally, am a K debater, but don't let that faze you. I really don't give a patootie what you read in front of me as long as you know what you're talking about and can articulate the necessary evidence/information. I'm a sucker for a good in round argument, well thought-out internal links, and "roll of the ballot" statements- AKA don't make me think any more than I have to. My job is to decided who made the better argument, not what your argument is. I also love performative moves but again, not necessary at all, so don't feel flustered to concoct some brand-spankin-new strategy to break as you're reading this.

Be sure to slow down and sign post headers and tags; this helps me follow along with where you are in your doc so I don't have to call for clarification as often. Don't clip cards without any warning. Be cautious to not talk over anyone in CX- I am sympathetic to excitement and nerves but if it becomes too convoluted and I can't make out what anyone is saying it will only hurt the person/people causing the issue.

TL;DR - Be clear, be nice, be smart, and be thorough. And, because I'm generally a nihilist, actually convince me your thing is important. Otherwise I don't care.

Lastly, feel free to ignore my weird face. I really don't know what's wrong with it- for whatever reason I cannot control my facial expressions, and if I'm doing something gross it's probably just because I have a migraine.

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 am going to try to keep this pretty easy. I have an about me section, my thoughts on various positions/formats.

About me: I competed in High School debate at Norman High/Norman North (4 years) and college debate at William Jewell College (4 years). I also coached/taught debate in South Korea (3 years). From all of this I have ended up either competing in or coaching every almost every possible debate format. (Policy, LD, PFD, Congress, Model UN, British Parliamentary Debate, NPDA/NPTE Parli).

In general, I view debate through offensive/defensive lens. It is the only lens that really makes sense in most formats. Some arguments win you the round/position/point others stop them from winning. I like things to have proper tags, clarity at any speed or style is more important than your words per minute for comprehension. I have kept a detailed flow for incredibly fast rounds that were well organized and a muddy flow for incredibly slow rounds that were unclear and disorganized. If you want me to vote on a turn call it a turn. Do not make me have to go through pages of text to figure it out for you. I cant believe I have to say this, but slow down on your tag, author, and year, digitally sending my your case does not mean you get to shortcut this.

LD - it is your debate. Want to be slow and traditional? Cool. Want to pretend you are in a policy round without a partner? Awesome. Value/Criterion to me are just ways to weigh the round (what impacts are important or things). Winning that does not mean you win, just means that I look through that framework. Have fun, ask questions before the round if you want.

Policy/Parli - I am pretty open here. I tend to hate specs but will vote on them if they go dropped or somehow actually matter. I probably vote for T more often than most judges, but that is about it. I am very comfortable with K debates, but if you want to go CP/DA/Case that also works. If you want to answer a K with hedge good that works or you can go way to the left. Play your game, tell me why win, then why that matters. I am most comfortable judging non-performance based arguments, but if I have to, I will and have voted on a performance...just know this is probably an area I am not the best critic.

I kept this short so that if you have a specific question just ask it before the round. I hated reading a book of a Paradigm when I competed, if you want to know about my specific thoughts on a position/style just ask.

Please put me on the email chain: sarammoore637@gmail.com

Short Version

I primarily did local/traditional LD debate in Oklahoma. I probably cannot follow your fast spreading or jargon. I’d prefer to judge debates where I don’t have to intervene or guess at what you were trying to say. Spell things out for me, weigh things for me, warrant your arguments. I have not judged this topic. The more you can explain things without jargon, the better.

Pref shortcut:

1/2 - I am a traditional debater or can adapt

3 - I’d rather you than a parent I guess?

4 - I do not know how to debate without spreading

5 - I primarily rely on big words and tricks to win

General

1. I did LD for Norman High School in Oklahoma from 2015-2019. I am on a gap year, starting at Harvard next year. In high school, I qualified for nationals twice, but I never attended. I basically only competed on the local circuit, which means I pretty much only encountered lay debate. I went to VBI twice so I was briefly exposed to more progressive debate, but that was 2 and half years ago.

2. My lack of national circuit experience does not necessarily mean you shouldn't read progressive arguments if that's what you want to do. I am not biased against them (at least not consciously), but, whatever you read, just make sure you explain it really thoroughly and warrant it.

3. For the sake of everyone involved, be respectful. I am not impressed by rudeness. You can be blunt or whatever, say what you want, but, in personal interactions with me and your opponent, be kind. Debate is inherently a confrontational activity and creates a lot of toxicity and exclusion so if you can make it less so, I will be very happy. If you’re reading something that necessitates being rude, make sure that is explained and probably ask if that’s alright first.

4. Blippy arguments are risky not just because they kinda suck, but also because I probably won’t catch them.

5. No flex prep or prep before cx

Speed

Ok so, I don’t know the WPM that will kill me, but I listen to my podcasts at 2 times speed so whatever speed that is is probably around my comfort level. This is the only metric I can provide as I am, once again, from Oklahoma and am very detached from even that circuit.

For my sake and yours, please speak clearly. I will say clear 3 times and then give up.

Theory

Umm...as I type this I am struggling to remember what parts of a shell are..so let that serve as a warning.

I think that means I won’t feel very comfortable voting on what feels frivolous theory because I am not incredibly confident in my ability to evaluate it on a technical level. An example would be if you read a shell because your opponent closed the door, restricted the airflow throughout the room, reduced your ability to inhale in enough air, and thus, made it harder to for you spread, I would laugh and commend you for your effort, but probably not vote on it if I could avoid it.

That being said, I will vote on something that is a legitimate problem, but I don't know what is actually 'abusive' so you will have to clearly spell it out for me as to why the round was so skewed that I have to vote on theory.

Full-disclosure: I am probably biased against disclosure theory because that is not a norm on the OK local circuit, but don’t let that stop you if you feel like reading it. I will vote on it if I understand.

I will vote on RVIs if i can figure out how to?

Ks

Careful here. I have little experience, but also like in general if you explain stuff slowly...go ahead.

Phil

If you are reading something complicated, I commend you and I hope you are good at explaining it, not because I am on the lookout for inaccuracies or incorrect explanations, but because unless I understand, I won’t feel comfortable voting on it.

I don’t read philosophy in my free time. You could mischaracterize Hobbes as Rawls and I would not care unless your opponent pointed it out and explained why I should.

I have biases because they, yanno, allow me to live life normally and feel grounded in reality. For example, I kinda just assume happiness and pleasure matters in some capacity. Keep that in mind when you are reading something that runs counter to that, you might need to explain yourself more for me to shake those off and get what your argument.

CPs

Honestly go off, read PICs or PIKs, live your life. Explain it though. Understand, I might be sympathetic to perms if I can remember what those are.

Speaks

25-26: You said something offensive. I will definitely note whatever caused this on the ballot and in the RFD.

27-27.5: Meh. I said clear 3 times and you ignored it and I was

28-28.5: Solid

29: Wowza

30: Double wowza

Hello! I’m Morgan Russell and I am the head coach for Norman North High School in OK. We're relatively traditional style debaters, but part of my team does compete on the circuit 8 or so times a year. Before that, I competed in CX and PF in high school, assistant coached through college. So I’ve dabbled in it all.

Overall: My philosophy on debate whoever debates better should win. However, my personal opinion of arguments or strats shouldn't matter, so I default to weighing brought up by debaters whenever possible. I do believe Aff and Neg need to interact with each other's cases.

I’ll judge the round based off what you give me, and won't judge based off what I'd do, but what y'all did.

Add me to the email chain! morgannmrussell@gmail.com

LD: I think framework is important, but it’s not everything. You need evidence and solid analytics to back it up. I prefer we not spread, but I'm fine with some speed, if I can't understand I will say “clear” once or twice. From there, if it doesn’t make my flow, I can’t weigh it. I’m fine with Ks and Plans in LD.

PF: PF was made to be more accessible, so I don’t like when it gets too new wave. It’s not “mini-policy.” You can use debate jargon, but don’t just read cards the whole time. I need impact calc.

CX: It’s all fair game. As far as spreading, I’m okay but with Zoom it’s more difficult to understand. I will say “clear” once or twice if I can’t understand. From there, if it doesn’t make my flow, I can’t weigh it.

Hi, I'm Chloë! As a brief background, I attended Norman High School and now go to Yale, where I've been involved with Urban Debate League as a coach. My primary events were LD and FX/IX. I love debate and want to make it an educational, encouraging, and fun space for everyone. This means that I have a pretty low threshold for impoliteness. You probably won't lose the debate on it, but your speaks will reflect your attitude and, unfortunately, speaks matter in debate.

I have debated both circuit and traditional. I have no genuine preference for either one and will vote for the smartest/strongest arguments. To win my ballot, you need to win on the flow. However, you will impress me if you respect the game of debate-- don't try to trick your opponent with bad, underdeveloped arguments. Also, post-round oral disclosure is a good practice. I will always disclose, and you can feel free to follow up with me with clarifying questions (within reason, but yeah).

Lastly, here are a few of my tips for Oklahoma debaters:

1. Make your tags clear. I will not extend author names if there's no argument attached to it.

2. Call out your opponent's drops. If you do not do this, I will assume that the argument will not be extended throughout the round and I will drop it from the flow. (ie, it's no longer to your advantage that an argument was missed)

3. Don't blow off the framework debate. Everyone's time is wasted if there is no clash and you continue to build up a boring framework, so make your framework work for you. This can be especially fun if you're negative.

Happy to answer more questions pre or post round. Have a good time!

Northwestern University 

Norman '18

3rd Place LD NSDA Nationals. A Bid here or there. 6 Years Debating LD.

Email (Include me in Chains): matthewylie@gmail.com

------------

Bullet Point Version:

- I am an experienced debater who dealt primarily in more “traditional” styles personally, but is well versed in virtually all forms of LD

- Tech > Truth. However do not construe this to mean that you are immune from your opponent pointing out falsehoods.

- I will hear all forms of arguments, but vastly prefer topic based debate to a K that could be run on any topic (see bolded sections below)

(Generally I like Phil > “Traditional” > Policy/LARP > K > Theory, but that doesn’t mean Theory couldn't beat Phil in front of me by any stretch of the imagination)

- Impacts are important, framing even more so. Write the ballot for me at all times possible. I default comparative worlds, but can be easily convinced to become a truth-tester with the proper framing mechanism. Other rolls of the ballot aren't off the table, but are less likely to be included in my RFD. 19 times out of 20 I will evaluate the round through the perspective of the winning framework, if you lose the framework debate make sure you access your opponent's framing or the ballot will be over.

- Speed is fine, will yell clear twice before I stop flowing, and would like a doc to follow along if possible (see below for details). If the only reason you are spreading is to read multiple versions of the same card/warrant/link, expect me to nag you about it after round.

- Theory ideally should only be deployed in cases of real abuse rather than in every round. In general I default drop the arg, RVIs are acceptable but require justification.

- If you have questions please ask, more than happy to answer

------------

Long Form:

I come from a more traditional HS debate background in Oklahoma, however I also engaged with progressive debate at the national level and dabbled heavily with the arguments -if not the style- of circuit debate.

I believe debate is an academic game that requires you to adapt to the judges in front of you, but that judges must also adapt to their surroundings. If I'm at a circuit tournament I will be much more sympathetic to progressive argumentation then if I'm at a small traditional tournament and vice versa.

Like most judges, I still have some opinions:

The Aff generally has the burden to uphold the desirability of the resolution whereas the Neg generally must disprove the resolution through presenting reasons as to why that desirability does not withstand scrutiny or some other procedural objection. Hence I am disinclined to listen to non-topical cases though I will not vote you down for it at face value. Non-topical (or loosely topical) offs urging me to "change the debate space" which have been being read for years if not decades with little to no affect on the debate space or society writ-large are rarely convincing to me and I only tend to vote off them if they are very weakly or not contested; the resolution asks a morality question within itself, there is more or less always plenty of ground to attack systemic issues through the lens of the resolution itself instead of trying to force the debate space beyond the general obligations of your opponent (e.g. links of omission).

I really really want to evaluate the round through someone's FW/Framing, otherwise will default to comparative worlds. Impacting is one of the most important parts of debate, and I believe that impacting is done best when it is done with a framing mechanism that truly highlights your impacts and position as correct and desirable. Framing usually defines the roll of the ballot for me, and I will evaluate the round through the winning FW unless it is essentially ignored as an issue by both debaters in which case I will default comparative worlds.

I'm inclined to go for arguments rooted in logic. This is not the same thing as an argument being carded and I have heard some of the best arguments in round made purely analytically and plenty of terrible carded ones. This is also not the same as an argument being realistic, as realistically pretty much nothing is going to end in extinction impacts, but I would prefer to not have to stretch my imagination when it comes to your Links.

I guess this makes me mostly Tech > Truth, but don't make claims that straight-up defy logic (a real example: Our mothers are actually hippopotamuses and the government is lying to us about it).

If you have any specific arguments you aren’t sure about running in front of me, ask. I tried writing about each individual type of arguments and couldn’t figure out a way to do it that didn’t involve creating a full manifesto.

Go nuts. Have fun.

------------

On Speaker Points and Speed:

Speaker points have always seemed to me to be incredibly subjective so I will probably be relatively subjective with them as well. I give points more often to debaters who show that they actually understand the arguments they are making through: on-the-fly analysis, cutting cross-examination, and adaptation of their own case to generate offense against their opponent. I also, shockingly, give points for being a good orator: clear tags, changes in speaking pace and intonation, emphasizing the big picture without succumbing to the tendency to think that louder = more important.

Spreading is, in my opinion, kind of dumb, and antithetical to the things I tend to award speaker-points for. It removes the need for the debaters to stand up and speak in the first place when I could (and indeed will probably have to) just read your doc instead.

Spreading is not a reason to vote anyone down on face certainly, but I didn’t particularly see a need for going past the speed an average person could comprehend while I was debating even if my opponent was going at top speed. I will be more impressed with you if you go efficiently down the flow rather than quickly (though of course a quick 1AR is implicit to the event at this point). Basically 99% of the time you can spread in front of me with no impact on my decision, but don't be surprised if it's a low point win if your opponent is keeping up with you in spite of not spreading, or if your opponent compellingly argues theory as to why spreading is a voting issue make sure you respond or you could end up in that 1% of times.

Be nice, roadmap clearly, have good presence, breathe. You’ll be on the way to high speaks for sure :)