I will be looking for which team can best identify the key points of clash in the round and demonstrate why they have won those points. Consequently, I would prefer to see quality of argument and depth of evidence and analysis on the key points rather than trying to drag all points through the round. (That doesn't mean drop things like crazy! It just means get clear on what's actually important to the debate and related to the resolution). I particularly dislike spreading; again, quality over quantity will win the round for me. I will also closely examine the wording of the resolution, so arguments that are not adequately linked to the resolution will not be considered.

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.

Experience-

I have done all debate events, but I have substantially more experience with LD (both traditional and progressive). Four time state qualifier and two time national qualifier, once in Extemp and once in Worlds. While competing in Worlds, my team placed sixth and I placed fourth speaker.

Worlds-

I will judge the round how it should be judged according to Worlds norms and standards. Don’t try to be too limiting with framing, definitions or models. I will not evaluate the round using any other influences (LD, CX, PF). Ideal speed would be about conversational, and spreading will result in a a reduction of speaker points, speaking quickly to cover everything may not. I love POIs when done tastefully. Don’t stand up constantly with the sole purpose of distracting your opponent, but everybody needs to be asking them (not just the same team members). I also think that using POIs as more than just questions is a phenomenal strategy (20% of your overall rank).

LD-

Framework-

I prefer to have a framework to weigh the round with. Some sort of weighing mechanism makes the round more clear. I tend to evaluate different impacts though that weighing mechanism presented and won.

Arguments-

I need warrants and impacts. I will vote on most anything not obviously offensive (racism, sexism, homophobia ect.). While I have some familiarity with K's, it is not anything close to being extensive. If you decide to run one, you will probably have to give me more analysis and slow down more for claims and warrants (adding me to an email chain or flashing it won't hurt). I also require clash.

PF-

A framework is preferred, but not necessary. There needs to be clash and the other team's case must be addressed. My least favorite debates are those that heavily center on only one case because that usually results in a purely defense/offense debate.

Speaking-

I would rank myself as about a 7 as far as speed goes. Answers to questions-

I don't care where you sit

I don't care if you time on your phone

I don't need to see if your laptop/phone is on airplane mode

I don't care if you sit or stand for cross ex

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!

Background:

I'm currently a sophomore at OCU and an Economics and Mathematics double-major. I did PF and FEX for 4 years in highschool, went to nationals in both, so I'm pretty knowledgeable with how debate works and therein most argument styles (except progressive ones lol).

email for evidence chains: teegingroves@gmail.com

Quick Rundown:

Be specific and slow when delivering taglines and impacts, spread for your evidence. I have ADHD, I can only process so much information, so you need to differentiate your most important information when presenting.

My role as the judge is to determine who provides the most justified argument with respect to the topic at hand. Meaning I expect each speech to contain an argument that relates to the resolution. I'm traditional, I generally will not consider Ks, performative cases, etc unless there exists a clear and compelling reason to myself (which is not likely) to consider such an argument.

In debate, you "win" arguments by having a better justification than your opponent, and you win rounds by having better justified impacts than your opponents.

I will weigh impacts according to who "wins" framework, meaning their framework has the most desirable implications.

I only weigh arguments that you "win", meaning your link to the argument at the end of the round is stronger than any delinks or turns against it. Make sure you win arguments that best support your framework.

You can find my detailed and specific paradigm beneath, where I tell you exactly what I want to see, as well as general pointers.

Speaking:

I personally prefer faster speeches, but if you're going to speak fast just make sure your opponent and I can understand it, so enunciate, slow down on tags, etc. That said, since debate doesn't really have points, assists, or rebounds, I like to treat speaker points like a proxy for a basketball statline. What does that mean you ask? It means I give speaks based on how good you debate, so I start at 27 and move up or down depending on the quality.

So how does this look? Suppose your speeches are disorganized (you don't tell me what contention/point your responding to), you stutter a bit, and you don't really flow with what your partner is doing, I'm probably going to give you a 25-26. But if you're a decent presenter, have great analysis, great organization, are absolutely tearing up the flow and your opponent like you're the NSDA's Michael Jordan, I'm gonna give you a 30.

Argument Style:

As a general rule, sign post and have distinct taglines in your case, and in the remaining speeches tell me what argument you're responding to, just be organized.

With regards to type of argument, do whatever, OSSAA has no rules against CPs or plans in PF or LD, so go right ahead. I will vote on anything if you have the warranting and explain it clearly throughout the round. I don't care for K's, if you run one you must explain it clearly because if I don't understand it I won't vote for it. Theory and topicality args im fine with in LD, not so much in PF, once again if you do it well I'll buy it.

I really like clash, so aggressive rebuttals that are on the point with deep analytics (telling me why the argument is wrong in a nuanced fashion) and lots of turns, which means you must address the flow, the whole flow, and nothing but the flow. After rebuttal, extending arguments is essential, in most cases I will not weigh dropped arguments. Summary speeches should collapse on pre-existing arguments and weigh them, but respond to the previous speech if you must. However, do not bring up new arguments at all in the final focus or 2AR. Also, generally don't argue definitions (PF), it's a waste of time.

How to win the Round - Weighing:

First off, provide me a standard by which to weigh the round and then tell me why I should prefer that standard. I did not truly understand this until my senior year, but it's a really simple concept, and if you do this you will make it that much easier and satisfying to vote for you. However, I am aware that an explicit framework isn't going to be present in many PF rounds, and so that requires that you weigh your arguments, so here's an outline of what I should generally see:

1) Tell me the impact of your argument like lives, costs, neoliberal hegemony, whatever, just give me a reason that it matters because if it doesn't matter then I can't vote for it.

2) Compare that impact to what your opponent is arguing, and tell me why your impact trumps theirs. For example, lets say their arguments follows like "Building nuclear reactors is safer than alternative, saves like 10k lives." and your arg is "nuclear reactors are at risk of exploding b/c low staffing, costs 10k lives/reactor". You can weigh this against your opponent on magnitude because your impact is scalar meaning while they save 10k lives overall for X amount of reactors, X amount of reactors in your world puts 10k*X people at risk of dying. Or you could weigh on timeframe and say 10k people will die before the other 10k are saved. Regardless, this requires your own analysis and ingenuity.

3) Compare quality of evidence. Lets say the impacts themselves are vague or hard to argue, outweigh them by proving your study was better i.e. larger sample size, better methodology for given subject, etc.

If you don't weigh, I'll do it for you which means I'm going to default to impact calc.

Also final note, quantify your impacts. If you don't have verifiable numbers or some way to quantify what you're talking about, you better pray to god your second speaker is the next Kant because its hard to evaluate abstract and vague impacts versus clear and concrete ones.

Evidence:

I generally try to avoid judge intervention, and am a firm believer of tech>truth so you're usually going to have to be the guy that calls for evidence. I'll only weigh on evidence I call for if its blatantly unethical or outright wrong.

Regarding credentials, I rarely weigh the source of the evidence because most of the rigor in debate is done through analysis (and good analysis is self-evident, regardless of the analyzer), but there is an implicit hierarchy I'll apply in the case I do feel the need to weigh credentials:

I weigh authors on education experience, Ph.D's and tenured professors rank highest.

I weigh sources as follows: Random websites < Generic News (NYT, CNN, Fox) < Curated News (WSJ, Bloomberg, 538) < Think Tanks (EPI, Pew) < Government Agencies < Academic Journals < Respected Academic Journals (Nature, Econometrica, Energy and Environmental Sciences)

Anyways, I'm giving you such a long paradigm because I want you to do well, I want to watch a good debate. So yeah, weigh your impacts and engage the flow.

I judge based on a clear analysis, fulfillment of weighing mechanism, and appropriate evidence. Debaters need to be able to tell me why aff/neg get the round. Respectful debating is a must. Remember to have fun!

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.

debated 4 years at Moore High School (oklahoma). was in state out rounds a few times, doing progressive (fast, Ks cool) CX.

CX:

tech>truth, with some obvious exceptions -- if i can't explain your argument to the other team in the rfd, i'm probably not going to vote on it even if it goes dropped. likewise, i'd never vote on a downright offensive arg even if it's dropped

i like to think of myself as tab rasa. read whatever you want. if the last rebuttal gives me a decent reason to vote on it, i'll vote on it. Ks are fine. K affs are also fine. T/FW is just as fine.

i've got a technical understanding of K debate, but don't expect me to know a lot about your lit. idrk how performance debates work (no experience with them), but i'm willing to vote for them. K aff vs K neg is a similar situation - not what i understand best, but a winnable debate if it’s explained well

condo's generally fine. i'll vote for any theory that you win. if you want to win theory, it needs to be all 5 minutes of the 2AR (most likely, it needs to be all 5 minutes of the 1AR as well, in order to make it convincing that you really got cheated so hard the other team needs to lose). if you think at any point in the debate that you may go for the theory you read in the 2AC, slow down on it. i will not vote for standards that i didn't hear in the 2AC, even if the rebuttals are so eloquent and convincing that the magnitude of the other team's cheating makes me sob out of sympathy for you.

"they drop it" IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR EXPLAINING YOUR ARGUMENT.

weird but sometimes important - i almost never catch author names on cards, so if you frequently refer to your ev by its author, i might get kinda lost. i can figure out what ev you’re talking about in the rebuttals if you preface the author name w the warrants tho

i default to offense-defense. it is exceedingly difficult to win zero-risk to me (unless it’s a politics DA with an especially shady link chain)

PF:

i have some experience with pf on one of the most lay circuits in the country. i will judge based off the flow, and my rfd will probably sound like a policy rfd. see my cx paradigm for more specific notes. i'm a bit more lenient on things like tech vs. truth and how much work you'll have to do to extend a dropped argument due to shorter time limits.

generally speaking, i don't think that pf should include spreading - if both teams want to spread, that's fine though

the neg doesn't get an advocacy. not sure if that's a thing in pf anywhere, but it wasn't in oklahoma and it's not in front of me. if the res is one of those stupid "on balance" ones or policy A vs. policy B, i guess the neg gets whichever advocacy the aff doesn't get.

LD:

i have no experience with high school LD other than judging a few novice rounds. spread if you want, explain any arguments that only LDers make like i have no idea what you're talking about, and you'll be alright.

my first impression is that the neg gets at least 1 advocacy in LD. i'm open to having my mind changed in any round with a decent theory debate. have fun.

I competed in Lincoln Douglas Debate for four years and went to nationals and state. I was forced by the man, the myth, the legend Brit McCabe to take Foreign Extemp and Domestic Extemp to tournaments. Since then, I've left the quaint small-town life of Edmond, Oklahoma behind to study business administration, healthcare management, and marketing at Washington University in St. Louis.

Philosophy/Framework

- Framework is just a means of weighing the round. It's important to show me how to weigh arguments, but winning framework alone won't win you the round. You can win the framework debate, but if your opponent can better access their impacts under your framework-they'll win the round.

- Please don't mansplain philosophy to me- quite frankly, I do not care and I read enough of it in high school and college to know. Also just because the theory says it's true doesn't mean that I think it's true, tell me why what this man is saying is important/valid.

Argumentation

- The burden of the affirmative is to prove the resolution to be true. The burden of the negative is to disprove the affirmative and show why the cost of the affirmative outweighs the consequences of the status quo. (PLEASE don't try to convince me the negative is defending that the status quo is "good")

- I tend to prefer layered arguments. Please give me more than one reason to buy that their contention/argument/card isn't true.

Evidence

- Summarize the argument the card is making if you're going to extend it in a rebuttal.

- Slow down during authors. I prefer it if you read the qualifications in the constructive but won't hold it against you unless your opponent indicts your source.

- Cards with solid empirics and if you can show me why the methodology is credible/important tend to hold more weight in my decisions than descriptive pieces of evidence

- Repeating a card over and over doesn't make it better

Speaker Points

- Don't be excessively aggressive. Don't speak over your opponent in cross-examination. I'm sitting three feet away; you don't need to turn the round into a screaming match.

- My biggest pet peeve as a former female debater is when you continuously try to talk over your opponents during their speeches or cross ex or just get super condescending with your facial expressions and language- you might be able to get away with being a douche with other judges but I promise you I will notice.

- Make the round easy for me to flow and signpost

- Reading arguments that you know your opponent is unable to engage with (e.g., reading progressive style arguments against a traditional debater who doesn't know how to engage with the case structure) will lower your speaker points but will not automatically drop you. Allowing your opponent to engage in the debate space and good round will give you better speaks than reading a progressive case you know your opponent won't know how to respond to.

- I'm a main character so if you can stylistically manage to quote me somehow in your speeches (like it has to be very well done) it'll probably make my day.

Other

- I HATE definition debate so, please don't turn the round into one

- Don't read extremely off-topic cases, I don't like to vote off topicality but I will

- Don't try to share your speech docs with me or files- I read upwards of 200+ pages for the 21 hours of classes I force myself to endure and don't want to read your cards that are not in Times New Roman 99% of the time. I am a tired college student and genuinely believe that more is not necessarily better in terms of speeches. Just give good rebuttals and make sure to signpost- like I said tired college student.

- Any other questions ask me before the round.

Running List of Things Not to Mansplain to me (I won't vote you down for doing this I may just like you a little less and pay attention a lot less)

- Basic economics (e.g. supply/demand, supply shocks, shortages, etc.) I promise the Olin Business School makes me read hundreds of pages on both micro/macro economics I can understand your arguments that you may or many not have stolen from your AP Econ class (bc me too in high school)

- Basic Frameworks (utilitarianism, consequentialism, deontology, need I say more) I debated a few too many LD rounds in high school

- How Debate Works (times, what your opponent can and can't say, counterplans, etc.) I placed at state three times and broke at nats twice- I PROMISE you I know how a debate round works trust me okay?

Former Parlimentary Debate competitor at Cameron University (2005-2007). Coach PF- 5+ years LD - 3 years. Basically I understand policy, but I don’t like judging it, necessarily.

I will entertain any arguments in-round as long as they are developed with appropriate impacts/voters. If you want to argue topicality for an entire round, fine (I love words. Words are important). Just tell me why it's crucial to do so. Kritiks, sure! Just tell me why I need to vote here first. Is there abuse in-round? Tell me where, and specifically how it harms you/the activity, etc. and why that matters. This is your round to strategize in however you see fit; I don't have any real predisposed dislike for any argument. However, poor arguments are still poor arguments and will not win. Irrelevant arguments won't win either, no matter how fancy they sound.

Clear, significant impacts make it easy for me to vote for you. Don't make me do the work for you or your team, because I won't.Sure, it would be nice to end the contention at "and this leads to more discrimination." Spell it out for me, otherwise I will shrug and say, "So what? Who cares?" Be sure to pull them through to your final speeches.

One thing that will work against you: Speed. I know you have a lot of material to cover, and often both teams will be fine with speedy arguments. I'm not going to vote against you for spite, but I WILL drop arguments on the flow. If you are okay with that, just be prepared for the vote to possibly not go your way... even if you put 87 responses on your opponent's disadvantage. I'm not a speed debater, so I won't be able to follow you. If you feel your opponents are using speed against you as a tactic, I will listen to a speed K and possibly vote on it... IF IT'S WELL DEVELOPED. As I said, I won't vote for a speed K simply because I don't prefer this style; Poorly developed arguments will not win me even if I tend to share your viewpoint. Bottom line: If you want to improve your chances of winning, don't speed one another out of the round-- you'll likely flow me out of the round too.

— I’ve gotten MUCH better over the years. I don’t encourage speed, still, but I’m pretty good at

getting it all down.

I do enjoy debators who at least attempt to add some persuasive flare in their speeches, but I do NOT wan you to focus on delivery at the expense of content and analysis.

If I do get stuck in an LD round, you must spend some time convincing me that your value and criteria are better than your opponents. I've had two sides argue with fantastic evidence to support their values, counter-values, with NO clash about which one is superior. I'm a libra, so it's already a task for me to try and choose between two equal, yet differing options. INCLUDE A FANTASTIC JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR VALUE IF YOU WANT TO WIN ME IN LD.

• I’m only experienced in traditional LD and some PF, so if you plan on running anything progressive, you’re gonna need to be pretty clear about it. I probably won’t vote on anything off-topic unless your opponent is completely lost.

• I’m pretty flow-oriented so point out extensions and tell me where you're cross applying arguments.

• Don’t be rude to your opponent at all.

• I don’t mind a definition debate as long as it’s clever and not just semantic distraction.

• I like it if you can delegitimize your opponent’s evidence and explain clearly why your evidence is better. This makes it easier to vote in a close round.

• I can keep up to a speed of like 7. Anything past that I’ll likely miss stuff

• USE CROSS. Use it to set up arguments, use it to make your opponent look dumb, or whatever. I would hate to watch three minutes of clarification or 1 minute of a failed setup. I’m not gonna vote off of it, but I’ll dock speaks for bad use of cx.

FRAMEWORK

• Framing is just a way for me to evaluate your arguments.

• Don’t make it a voting issue.

• Even if you “win”

• Even if you win the framework debate I can still vote for your opponent if they can use it.

You can ask before round about anything else.

you know

Lincoln Douglas - I mainly debated in Lincoln Douglas during my high school debate years and went to nationals my junior year. I am well versed in philosophical and empirical debate. I judge rounds off the Criterion. What this means if that if you prove your Value is good but cannot uphold your Criterion or way of achieving this value I won’t vote for you. I also vote down the flow, so if both sides prove framework and there’s not a lot of clash I would move on to the Contention level and judge off the flow. I judge all arguments so even if it is ridiculous, if it goes unaddressed I have no choice but to flow it through the round.

Public Forum - I debated Public Forum my senior year of high school and got 1st alt. to nationals so once again I would consider myself knowledgeable in PF debate. I judge PF mainly on the flow. So argument clash and clashing of evidence and ideas is big to me. Once again even if an argument is ridiculous, if there’s no clash I’m gonna flow it through the round. I will rarely vote on framework or observations because they are there more to strengthen the empirical rather than becoming their own winning argument.

Overall I prefer good sportsmanship and respect in rounds and I will dock speaker points if this isn’t upheld in rounds and most importantly have fun because that’s what debate is all about.

Be excellent to one another. This is the way.

I value quality over quantity. Where less words can be spoken to express the same point, less is better than more. Similarly, "winning" two subpoints against an opponents' one subpoint is insufficient if that one subpoint was monumentally important. Ditto with evidence.

Debate is an exercise in argumentation, not truth-seeking per se. I will entertain and vote for almost anything if it is well argued.

Experience: I competed in PF in high school and am now in my 4th year of parli debate at Point Loma Nazarene University.

I'm fine with pretty much anything being run in front of me, as long as the arguments are good & aren't blatant lies. An easy way for me to vote you down is if you're rude to your opponents. Debate is supposed to be an educational activity, and that goes out the window if you're rude. I'm fine with theory/tech/K's (though in PF you shouldn't be running that stuff anyway), speed (as long as you're clear), and think you should be able to time yourself for your speeches. I value the flow, so give me good signposts and keep it organized. Also, make sure you give me framework/weighing mechanisms.

My name is Petra [Pay-truh] (she/her). I graduated from the University of Oklahoma with a degree in Sociology with a focus in Criminology and have worked in financial crime detection and investigations. Should you feel the need to know my qualifications, I have 9 years of experience with Policy/CX and 7 of PF & LD. I competed in CX in high school, qualified to NSDA 2x, had a TOC bid, placed 3rd at state in CX, was a state quarterfinalist in LD, and have coached CX, LD, PF, and Congress. Affiliations: Cheyenne East (my alma mater) '12-'16, Edmond Santa Fe (individuals) '16-'17, Norman North '18 - present. I have been lucky enough to coach students who have advanced to semi-finals in Congressional Debate at nationals, late out-rounds in LD and PF at nationals, and late out-rounds in LD, PF, and CX at the state level.

I tend to default to policymaking, but my primary evaluation and if no debater has clearly won or told me where and why to vote, I will default to stock issues. If the aff hasn't upheld their obligation of affirming the resolution (or providing a solid case why they shouldn't), I will presume negative. I’m not a fan of vulgarity in-round. Please time yourself. Open Cross is okay, but if you don't engage or talk over your partner your points will reflect that. If you bring spectators, they must be respectful of all competitors and judges.

Speed is fine, I prefer slow on plan/advocacy statements and tags/authors. Use an indicator when switching between tags and arguments. Clarity is key to getting on the flow. I will say clear once, and if I can't decipher you after that I stop flowing you.

In the era of online debate, I suggest recording your speeches just in case of tech difficulties. I will adhere to all tournament guidelines regarding competition and tech issues. Slow down for the sake of mic processing. You probably don't need all 10 DAs. Please try your best to keep your cameras on, I understand this is not always possible.

Policy - My background is in traditional policy debate. I am well-versed in topicality and straight policy, but I will listen to just about anything you can and want to run. I appreciate creativity in debate. Cool with Ks and theory, but I have a high threshold for in-round abuse. Not a fan of plan+ / plan inclusive anything. Tell me where to vote and why.

Cross:It's probably binding, and often underutilized. Make it strategic - analyze the links, perms, make your opponents prove their solvency. If you’re being shifty and don't know what you're talking about, your opponent doesn't know what you're talking about, and I definitely don't know what you're talking about. For the love of all things sacred, don't be a jerk.

CPs: You must have a plan text and a net benefit. Tell me why it's competitive. You should probably have a really good solvency advocate. Full disclosure, I think I have only ever voted for one PIC, I think that a perm makes this a pretty easy win for Aff. I don't believe States CP gets to fiat all 50 states + relevant US territories (unless you have a decent theory shell, in which case go for it).

DAs: I love me some case-specific DA's. Do the impact analysis!! Aff too. For the love of all things holy, please make it a complete argument. I don't love seeing a 10-off 1NC with severely underdeveloped DAs that lack links and UQ.

Kritiks: I have a solid technical understanding of K's but don’t know all theory/philosophy. I'm not a philosophy hack; I won't do the work for you. It's critical that you understand what your advocacy is. If you don't know/understand, I don't want to vote for it. PLEASE don't read a K because you think I want to hear one. I would much rather hear a good, in-depth debate about what you're good at. If your K is about debate being irredeemable and a black hole...consider who your audience is. I've dedicated almost half my life to the activity and understand that it can be made better, so let's put in the work to make it better.

Topicality: Good. Great. I typically default to competing interpretations. It's not (usually) a RVI. Just like anything, read it only if you understand which violation you're reading and if there is clear abuse. You need standards. I have a higher threshold for FXT and XT because of how policymaking typically operates in the real world, but if you feel there is clear in-round abuse, knock yourself out.

Theory: Most of the theory debates I see are bad. That makes me sad - I like theory. I will listen to some well-thought-out theory any day of the week. I will consider any discourse args on reasons to reject a team, so long as their impacted out. Don't be racist/sexist, etc. Not a huge fan of framework debates because I see very few that are good. I tend to vote for world v world and real-world impacts anyway. Neg worlds should probably be cohesive, unless you have a theory shell to backup why not.

Misc: Don't be mean. Don't cheat. I'll call you on stealing prep. If you do it after I call you on it I have no issue auto-dropping you. I don't want to have to read the evidence - you should be explaining it. Post-rounding (asking questions is fine - I will be more than happy to explain my thought process - I'm talking about arguing or bringing up things you should have used to answer but didn't) won't change my ballot but will guarantee you'll get the lowest speaks possible. If you run wipeout, you better have a dang good warrant and dang good framework shell to run with it.

LD:- I did traditional LD in high school. I look for lots of work on the framework debate and framework/case interaction. If you're about progressive debate, that's cool too - but I would like to see your version of framework or a role of the ballot. I don't really want to see a CP, DA or K read with zero interaction with the resolution or aff, but if you have one with a good argument, I'm open to it. Please dont just run a K/theory shell because you think that's what I want to hear - do what you do :)

PF: See: LD, Policy. Theory is cool, and welcomed, here too. Disclosure/paraphrasing theory - I have a high threshold of abuse here as well. Progressive/fast is cool. Traditional is cool too. Again, Please dont just run a K/theory shell because you think that's what I want to hear - do what you do :)

TLDR; If there is no clear reason given for me to vote on either side, I will default to stock issues because it is what I know the best. Does aff meet their minimum requirements of affirmation? Does the negative do their job of negating the resolution/the aff? Do the off-case arguments link? Are alternatives mutually exclusive? Do the alternatives solve the aff? Impact it out. In-round, fiated implementation, and on the flow. For everything. Don't steal prep. If you have any specific questions, please ask! my email for chains and questions: petracvc@gmail.com

Most importantly, have fun, and be kind to one another! Happy debating! - P :)

Bozho, Rachel ndezhnekas. Bodewadmi ndaw, Shishibeni ndbendagwes. Gkendasgemgek emikchewiyan. Hi, my name is Rachel, I am Citizen band Potawatomi and I work at the CPN department of education.

Pronouns: Ask, if you're curious. Otherwise call me judge or Rachel or Watson. Ask for others' pronouns in-round or default to they/them. I personally default to they/them until I'm told otherwise.

I've been coaching and competing in LD and policy since 2008. I started in middle school. In college, I debated at Central Oklahoma from 2015-16, and if you're thinking about that program or Wake Forest, ask me about why I left. I got my master's from Penn, and I coach at Holy Ghost Prep.

If you have an email chain add me: r.erinwatson@gmail.com  (Catholic League tournaments don't usually have chains but DON'T add me if you do. It's against the rules.) 

Email me about other stuff too, if you feel unsafe in round, if you want to know more about my paradigm, ask about arguments, get a better understanding of the RFD, etc. Also feel free to contact me at my day job if you would like to talk about going to college, debating in college, or translating your speech and debate experience into a college application essay!

Respect your partner and your opponents. Respect every judge, too, even if you've decided you don't need that ballot to win the panel.

NFCL top level edit- In LD I do absolutely love trad debate so please don't go full circuit thinking that's how you'll get my ballot. All the big picture points below still apply! 

Brief guide to getting my ballot (if you have 1 minute before round read the bolded on this list):

1. Be kind. Show empathy. Everyone in round is human, we are not debate robots, and it’s alright to bring your personality with you into the room. And this is #1 for a reason, kindness and recognizing our mutual humanity is the most important part of being a member of the debate community.

2. Read arguments and debate in a style that you enjoy. I like judging good rounds, and your round is almost always better if you like your argument and know it well. I have voted for poetry, and I have voted for politics DA.

3. Have a claim, warrant, and impact for every argument. I know 1ARs are hard, but you can be fast and efficient without being blippy. Don't be blippy!

4. Clash. Engagement with the other side's arguments and ideas is the one thing that makes this not a speech event. Not all arguments clash automatically! You must produce it in round.

5. Weigh all the impacts. Compare the impacts on the different sheets of paper and tell me why even if the other team’s argument is 100% true, I should still vote for you. Do this even if you and your opponent have completely different styles (i.e. trad v progressive LD, kritikal or policy based args, etc.). Don’t make me weigh things for you, chances are you won’t like the result. I am like most judges and I vastly prefer rounds where debaters tell me how to evaluate and how to write my RFD.

6. Focus on offense and framing (meaning how I should weigh or evaluate the round, or the debate's BIG question). In my head, there’s almost always a chance that the plan/alt/CP will solve. Terminal defense might be useful, and you probably can win that in front of me, but I’m much more comfortable voting for offense than defense or muddy techy stuff somewhere deep in the line-by-line.

All the below was written with policy in mind, but it applies to progressive LD as well.

Affs:

Run what you know and what you're prepped for. I will vote for almost anything.

Topicality and Theory:

I’m plenty happy to vote on topicality and theory arguments if debaters are willing to go all in and can defend that one model of debate or of the topic provides more education/learning opportunities. However, if the negative provides an overly exclusionary interpretation on Framework, they are going to have to work a lot harder to convince me that an exclusionary based model of debate is good.

AC UNDERVIEWS/THEORY (LD): Saying you get to have an RVI is not the same thing as having one... If you want one you have to tell me what the threshold is for making something an RVI and why that means I should vote on it, don't just say you get to have one. Sorry policy kids but you don't get an RVI, esp not on T.

Counterplans/Kritiks:

I generally prefer negative strategies that don’t contain a performative contradiction, like reading counterplans that link to a K of the aff. Other than that, please try to make it clear in round the ways in which your Kritik or counterplan function differently from the affirmative. Counterplans need competition and a net benefit, and k debaters should be prepared for impact framing arguments, especially in a round with a policy team. From the aff, be prepared to explain how a perm functions to achieve the net benefit/not link to the Kritik.

My K experience has mostly been with identity arguments; I know critical race theory- including afropess and set col best. I read and keep up with indigenous scholarship because I am Potawatomi (Citizen band). Yes, I am legally a citizen of this sovereign nation. Yes, I hate authenticity testing. This means I'm probably more willing to listen to speaking for others/commodification/etc. claims about why non-indigenous folks reading set col is bad than other judges might be. That Evans 15 card is probably also true of indigenous lit, sure, but Evans was very specifically speaking about afropessimism and white afropessimists.

Baudrillard, Foucault, Delueze, high theory abstract stuff, aren't my strong suit so develop good, clear, consistent explanations about your K/alt so my ballot can be clean.

I’m happy to answer debater's questions on specific issues/arguments prior to the round. I will also respond to emails after the fact if you have questions about my decisions. I try really hard to write long, detailed ballots, because I believe that even with a lengthy RFD after the round having a record is good for debaters and coaches! And also, no judge is perfect. But if you think I'm wrong, DON'T do the postrounding thing with me. Email me when you are back in school if you're still mad on Monday.

When it comes to LD debate, I am a traditionalist. I prefer focus on clear, quality argumentation and clash, that's well-supported by direct evidence, delivered in a reasonably-paced, persuasive manner. Provide a strong framework, offer signposted attacks, fully-explained extensions, and strong voting issues. There is no place for spreading in LD debate. A strong debater understands how to isolate the important issues in a round and should be able to manage speech time accordingly. I trust your ability to monitor your own time throughout the round. Please don't let jargon get in the way of your arguments. Quality, quality, quality.

Debaters should behave professionally and should treat opponents respectfully throughout the debate, and especially in cross examination. While I understand the pressures of wanting to win a round, debaters should not sacrifice decorum in order to get a W.

That said, this isn't brain surgery. Take a deep breath. Focus on the fundamentals. AND HAVE FUN!

I have experience at state finals level competition in high school and have judged for many years. I am a government lawyer and policymaker by profession who works on equity and racial justice issues in housing, urban planning, and financial services.

I generally default to stock issues unless I am persuaded to adopt another paradigm, which I will do if the round goes to a place where that is not a fair framework to apply. If that's the case, please crystalize the voting issues and framework you want me to apply.

I prefer to vote on impacts, framework, or philosophy when I can rather than minor dropped cards or minor procedural abuse arguments unless those issues are significant. Dropped arguments of course are inherently significant.

I will keep up with spreading if it is clear and well sign-posted.

There is a line between aggressive, strong debating for your position and rude and dismissive behavior to the other team which I like to see respected.

Please add me to the email chain: jwwylie@gmail.com