LD- I’d like to see a value and a criterion

For judging I am incredibly easy when it comes to judging.  I like good debate that is clear and easy to follow.  I'm not a huge fan of spreading.  Especially in debate formats that it isn't meant for.  I will pretty much flow anything in the round with in reason.   If you stretch too radical then I'm not inclined to buy into your thoughts.  I've been judging world schools the last 9 years so prefer to stick to the ideals of world schools.  Definitions should be clean and easy to follow, nothing squirrely.

About Me: I'm an attorney with a court of appeals. My job is basically to draft opinions in civil and criminal appeals for my judge. I competed in CX debate for 4 years. I also competed in DEX, FEX, and most drama categories at some point. I went to nationals in CX. I was the 2012 Oklahoma CX District, Regional, and State Champion.

TL;DR: I consider debate to be a game, which to me means two things: (1) I will not do your work for you, so tell me why you win; and (2) I will consider and vote on abuse-type arguments if you give me a good reason to do so. I prefer when debaters' arguments are intellectually consistent throughout the round.

I judge extemp using the standards on the ballot, which identifies several broad categories for evaluation. I score each category 0-10 and add up the total score. I also add a category for entertainment value, which I use only as a tie breaker. Highest score wins.

FOR ALL DEBATES:

In your last speeches, you should always make a big-picture argument why you should win the debate. If you can't tell me why should win, you probably shouldn't. I will not vote for a side solely because an argument was dropped or unanswered. The team making an argument has a continuing responsibility to explain (1) why it is true and (2) why it matters. If your opponent drops an argument, you may note that failure to respond and extend the argument through, but you should still make an argument that you're right and that I should care. For example, if an affirmative has two reasons why universal child care helps the economy, and the negative provides two reasons why universal child care is bad for the economy, and the aff never answers the negative's points, the negative still needs to explain why their two points are more persuasive than the aff's two points. The fact that the aff didn't respond gives your points more weight, but only if you say so.

FOR ANY DEBATE WITH CARDS:

Remember that I am judging how persuasive your argument is. Cards can provide some support for your argument, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient to make a winning argument. Unless the card is providing hard data, all it proves is that someone said something that you are now saying. It may be more or less helpful, depending on its credibility. For that reason, I AM NOT PERSUADED BY THE ARGUMENT, "WE HAVE A CARD, AND THEY DON'T, SO WE'RE RIGHT." Always justify the reasons why your argument is correct. If you can't explain your argument, I won't accept it. AND PLEASE DO NOT REFERENCE CARDS BY THE AUTHOR/DATE. Reference the claim (Heg is good/bad, universal child care works/doesn't work, Space Force good/bad, sneezing to the left causes nuclear war, whatever). I may have missed the author or not cared enough about the argument to write it down.

I'm also not a fan of judge intervention. If you feel that your opponents have been dishonest or have provided an incomplete card (either with text missing or an incomplete citation), make that argument in your speech, tell me why I should care, and I will review the card after the round if necessary. The only other circumstance where I will read cards after a debate is if the debaters dispute their contents. Please do not ask me to read a card after the round if you did not read it during your allotted speaking time. I will not read it, I will consider that an attempt to increase the amount of your speaking time, and I will dock your speaker points.

FOR PF DEBATES:

I'm looking for strong initial arguments that will be crystallized as the round goes on, and I expect your final speech to contain an explanation why you should win. I am looking for big picture arguments, so please don't get lost in the minute details. Explain, support, and defend each of your arguments. Show me how your argument applies to the topic, your position, your opponent's position and the impacts. I don't mind speed as long as you are clear; I hate speed if you're bad at speed.

FOR LD DEBATES:

I prefer traditional framework, with clear contentions and sign posting throughout the round. Remember that LD is value-based, so I will be looking for you to carry your Value/Criterion through the entire round and link all arguments back to this value. Your argument should have a solid framework to support it and it should be topical. I am looking for big picture arguments, so please don't get lost in the minute details. Explain, support, and defend each of your arguments. Show me how your argument applies to the topic, your position, your opponent's position and the impacts (and please name these clearly).

If you run counterplans (I guess counterplans are a thing in LD now?), remember that the neg's job is to negate the resolution. If your counterplan gives me no reason to reject the resolution, or if the aff makes a persuasive argument that adopting the resolution and the counterplan is possible (a perm, in policy debate), I probably won't vote neg on the counterplan.

FOR POLICY DEBATES:

You should slow down (a little) for taglines, authors, and important quotes in your cards. If you maintain a constant speed throughout your speech, I (and any other judge) will likely miss something.

Although I generally will let the debaters establish their own rules for the debate, here is some information on my voting history:

One-Off Negs: I typically do not vote for negative teams who make no effort to respond to the affirmative. If you ignore the 1AC, you'll probably lose. I emphasize "probably" because I have begrudgingly voted for one-off negs when the affirmative has responded poorly.

Topicality: Topicality debates should focus on standards and voters, which should be specific to your definition. In the past, I've voted negative when they've shown that the affirmative plan falls outside any definition that is fair, predictable, and flexible enough to accommodate a variety of topics. In those rounds, the negative has shown (1) their interpretation is reasonable, (2) the affirmative falls outside that definition, and (3) the affirmative's interpretation is unreasonable/bad for debate. I have never voted neg when they use a definition that is too restrictive (e.g., only x is topical) or when both teams have reasonable definitions. In other words, when the negative's argument came down to "our definition is better" rather than "our definition is good and their definition is bad," I have not voted negative on topicality.

Kritiks: If you feel confident in your Kritik, I will listen to it like any other argument. In my view, a winning Kritik is pertinent to the affirmative case and/or the resolution in general and has a clear, feasible alternative. If you run a K with an argument (CP, DA, etc) that contradicts the K, I won't like you. To be honest, I've rarely voted neg because of a K, mostly because negative teams tend not to run them well. If you don't understand the Kritik well enough to explain it, don't run it. Tip: If you've run a K to throw the other team, you've probably thrown yourself as well.

Counterplans: I've voted negative on counterplans that are competitive with the affirmative case and are mutually exclusive from it -- that is, counterplans that prove we should not adopt the resolution. I've never voted negative on a topical counterplan. That said, you are welcome to try.

Theory: Because debate is a game, I'll entertain theory. In the past, I've voted on theory only when one team has demonstrated that their opponent's strategy/argument is so abusive or unfair that it functionally derails the debate. I've voted aff on theory when the negative functionally ignores the 1AC and begins a new conversation. I've never voted negative on theory, but I've considered it when deciding whether to accept or reject a perm to a counterplan.

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 like to flow as the debate occurs. I like to be able to hear clearly and concisely the arguments presented point by point down the flow, starting with value, criteria, etc. I prefer not hear emotional or personal attacks, just resolution arguments.

About Me: I'm Bailey McBride (she/her), and I'm the marketing and communications manager for a beverage distribution company. I competed in LD and PF debate for 4 years of high school (Bishop Kelley, OK), and was the 2007 Oklahoma LD State Champion and a top 5 finisher in DEX. I went to Nationals in Student Congress. I also competed in DEX, FEX, and all drama categories at some point in that time. I debated 3 years in college (University of Arkansas).

FOR LD DEBATES:

I prefer a traditional framework, with clear contentions and signposting throughout the round. Remember that LD is value-based, so I will be looking for you to carry your Value/Criterion through the entire round and link all arguments back to this value. Your argument should have a solid framework to support it and it should be topical. I am looking for big picture arguments, so please don't get lost in the minute details or you will lose me. Explain, support, and defend each of your arguments. Show me how your argument applies to the topic, your position, your opponent's position, and the impacts (and please name these clearly). Please speak at a reasonable speed for me to flow by hand--if you go too fast, I will miss your argument and can't consider it in my final decision. If you get into a back and forth about "cards" and waste your time on that over the greater issue of the round, I will not consider that compelling. Please have voting issues.

FOR PF DEBATES:

Public Forum debate should be conversational, respectful, and engaging. I'm looking for strong initial arguments that will be crystallized as the round goes on, and will flow through anything that is not addressed by Summary. I am looking for big picture arguments, so please don't get lost in the minute details or you will lose me. Explain, support, and defend each of your arguments. Show me how your argument applies to the topic, your position, your opponent's position, and the impacts (and please name these clearly). Please speak at a reasonable speed for me to flow by hand--if you go too fast, I will miss your argument and can't consider it in my final decision.

Former debate coach (1999-2004). Kansas High School. College coach/judge 2006-2008.

Communications and theatre instructor as well as currently an academic librarian. Communicate clearly what you want me to do with the information and argument.

I try to approach each round with a Tabula Rasa philosophy. I am willing to listen and evaluate any type/form of argumentation. I will want debaters to evaluate and frame arguments as the round progresses with emphasis on comparative analysis between those competing arguments.

Speed is generally not a problem.

Tabula Rasa

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

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

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

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

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

General Things ~

Don't claim something is abusive unless it is.

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

Don't advocate for atrocities.

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