I use to consider myself a stock issues judge....But I'm slowly moving away from it I'm good with T as long as it's done right. I'm ok with K's and CP's, But I wouldn't bank on winning with that alone. Also I prefer closed CX...and I REALY prefer closed constructive and rebuttals. Spreading is fine as long as I can understand the tag lines.

I currently am the debate coach at Central High in Tulsa, OK, a member of the Tulsa Debate League (UDL). I competed for 5 years in Oklahoma 6A and 4 years at the University of Oklahoma. I previously worked as an assistant coach for Jenks High School and have worked at numerous debate camps.

My paradigm has somewhat altered in recent years. To put it simply, I am more interested in evaluating the entire debate not just what survived the flow to make it to the 2NR/2AR. Each speech (including cross-ex) is an opportunity for competitors to showcase skills which include logic, strategy, knowledgeably of issues, speaking proficiency, team work, research and more. As I do not want to dictate the content or style of the round to the competitors, I will add that I believe primarily the style and content of the debate are justified through the quality of the debate presented (although they can also become issues in the round themselves). Do what you want to do well and I will do my best job to evaluate the round as fairly as possible. Make sure and tell me how and why I should vote for you, that would be much more to your favor than leaving it up to me.

Lastly: speak clearly, treat everyone in the round with respect, and don't assume I know what your argument/evidence says or what the acronyms you use mean. I am more at the periphery of this activity than I once was, and as a result I may be out of the loop on contemporary trends.

K debate is the best, I really don't care what ypu run just convince me what I should be voting on. That being said mosts cps are abusive so I normally err towards aff.

spreading is fine, flash your evidence prior to speeches.

most likely wont vote on T

make sure to do some type of framing in your rebuttals

I am a Tabs judge, meaning I will vote what is in the round. If it is an argument made in debate, I will look at it in the context of the round. That's not to say I don't have my preferred things to talk about, the Stock Issues are a critical part of debate in my point of view. The biggest thing is that it is your job to tell me what the important parts of the round are and why I should be voting for your team/view point.

A brief background: I was a competitor for four years at Keys High School. I participated in Policy debate between 2009-2012 and along with my partner was the State Champion in the 4A Division in 2012. I have also medaled at State in Standard Oratory and Foreign Extemp. He/Him

Extemp: The most important thing to me is that your speech is constructed well; I will vote for a well-organized speech with sub-par delivery over a well-delivered speech that seems to be written haphazardly. Having a solid preview-> view -> review structure tends to help with this. I like it when speakers clearly tie the introductions to their speeches to the main topic they will be talking about, and give a satisfying conclusion after their review. Signposting with phrases like "Now, onto my second point..." helps make it clear which of your points you are talking about. I also like it when speakers make a clear distinction between information that is cited evidence and information is their own analysis. Please tell me if you want your time signals going up (I show you how many minutes you have used) or going down (I show you how many minutes you have left).

CX: I lean towards being a Policymaker judge, meaning I look at the world both teams present to me and vote for the world I would more like to live in. That being said, I vote for what I see in the round and I like it when teams tell me the issues I should be voting on in the rebuttals. I don't handle spreading as well as some other judges and prefer it if speakers slow down at least for the slugs and citations on their cards. Brief roadmaps and good signposting (e.g. "Now, onto the topicality...") helps me flow and will make it much easier to vote for you. I appreciate it when arguments are well-organized and clear to understand. I am open to kritikal and theory-based arguments but will find it easier to vote for these things if you do a good job of convincing me why I should vote for them in your rebuttal speeches.

LD and other debate formats I am less familiar with but still appreciate when competitors clearly line out voting issues and give me solid reasons to vote for them in their rebuttal speeches.

Feel free to ask if you have any specific questions before the round. Competing is tough under normal circumstances and is made even more frustrating when having to deal with technology-based issues. Good luck!

CX-

Stock Issues

Make sure taglines are clear

Do not spread too fast - evidence matters and I need to hear it to understand your case

Do not like topicality arguments-fine to mention if you feel argument is non-topical, however do not waste excessive time and allow judge to determine if the argument is or is not topical.

Do your best to present on case arguments. If Neg ignores the AFF and presents only generic attacks, you will lose points, please debate the AFFs case.

If you run a K or counter plan, make sure you do you fully vet and present your arguments. These options require more convincing.

Prefer you not to go nuclear unless it is necessary.

Debated CX and LD in high school, 2006-2010. Debated Parli 2011-2015. Had some success in both spheres. Am a bit rusty with higher levels of debate but can probably keep up in most rounds.

I'm a lazy judge and want to vote on the easiest way to pull the trigger at the end of the round. The best way to get there is with obvious offense and impact calc/cost benefit/some sort of weighing at the end of the round.

I'm open to any kinds of arguments including K and procedurals.

I do my best to judge based on what happened on the flow, but that is with the expectation that arguments have substance.

Please differentiate between cards and tags! Use AND or NEXT or something like that.

RCDS '20

MSU '24

TLDR

Email chain scottyscott1424@gmail.com

Fine with speed

Make sure you kick out of stuff right

Good for the K and Policy, generally more experienced with policy affs and flex negative strategies.

Full stuff

Hi I'm Mitchell or Scotty, either work, I did 4 years of high school debate for Riverfield Country Day School. I Currently Debate for Michigan State University. Competing at both the local and national level.

I decided to scratch most of my prewritten paradigm, it felt like debaters tried to overadapt to what my preconceived biases are, when I should be trying to evaluate a debate. So I'll leave it at this, win your arguments and win the debate, and I'll vote for you, generally regardless of what it it (exceptions for inherently problematic arguments like sexism, racism, ableism, etc.)

Cool with everything, run what you want (yes even strange things like wipeout), I generally have a soft spot for the fun but completely unrealistic arguments. Not a bias so much as an acknowledgment that I will in fact vote for it if you win.

I think condo is getting a little stretched, feel free to read as many as you want, but any more than 5 and I'll lower your speaks a little.

I'm generally pretty open to debate how the debaters want to debate. Things I don't have patience for are sexism, racism, ableism, etc. and "progressive debate bad" arguing Ks are an invalid strat or speed is bad for comprehension is not super persuasive for me. (Note about speed, if you have a reason for a more conversational speed round, feel free to ask for one before the round, the other team should honor this, but trying to catch a team with either a speed K or speed theory when you didn't ask for no speed is not persuasive to me)

if you have questions, feel free to ask before rounds and feel free to reach out post-round.

I debated policy through all four years of high school (one nats qual, regular circuit debate) so I'm most comfortable judging that debate format. I do have some experience in PF, but have never debated LD.

For CX:

Go as fast/slow as you want - all I ask is that you slow down a bit on tags/analytics

I'm a tab judge, so I'll listen to everything. However, here are some specifics:

K's - I understand them, but don't expect me to vote on high theory stuff unless it's explained well in-round. I haven't been in a ton of K debates, so this is one of my weaker areas.

Theory - See above, I will vote on it, but don't have much experience with it. You'll need to overcome a high threshold to get me to vote the other team down on theory.

T - Running T is good and Not a Time Suck. Not my favorite argument but an important one nonetheless.

CP's - Counterplns are good, but I'm open to AFF arguments that specific kinds are abusive. There needs to be a clear net benefit and it has to be competitive. Perms are convincing if there's no functional or textual competition or if there's no net benefit.

DA's - I'll vote on Disads all day. There should be clear impact work in the block or 2NR.

I will vote on any unconventional argument (Wipeout, SPARK, etc.) as long as it's debated well.

PF:

You can spread if you want. As I said earlier, I don't have a whole lot of experience with Public Forum, so I'll judge it based on the quality of argumentation.

Here's my email for any other questions (please add me to the email chain): shashwat@usc.edu

I'm the debate coach at Hennessey HS and started the forensics program there five years ago. Previously I coached at Kingfisher HS and I also was a CX debater at Kingfisher. All in all, I've been involved with this activity now for 26 years.

I'm very old school when it comes to what I like and don't like in a round because, well, I'm old. But more specifically, here are my "paradigms."

1. I will vote on a stock issue every single time if you win it.

2. Aff. cases should be topical. This goes without saying, but apparently I have to say it now.

2. I don't like critiques, counterplans, squirrel cases, or any other things the "creative" debate people have come up with over the years to try to take away from what a CX debate round was meant to be (in my opinion.) That's not to say I've never voted for one, I just really, REALLY don't like them.

3. If I can't understand you, I don't flow. If I don't flow the argument, I can't consider the argument. If I can't consider the argument, I can't vote on it, and it's out of the round. I don't have a problem with speed, but clarity is key.

4. EVERYONE needs to flow the round.

5. NEGATIVE TEAMS- RUN CASE ARGUMENTS!!!! This is one of the most under-utilized strategies in CX debate, in my opinion.

I am Tabula Rasa and extremely non-interventionist. I am open to any arguments but I will not connect the dots for you. You need to make the argument and demonstrate, not just claim, that your opponents' arguments are weak. I will vote on Topicality if it is run well. I also like impact calculus. I expect good evidence and often call for evidence after the round. I appreciate good rhetorical skills. I have a Stock Issues background, but will only judge that way if you debate that way.

I did CX for 3 years in High School. I went to AFA Nationals in Impromptu Speaking during College. I have judged often since College with @1000 rounds under my belt. I coached in Oklahoma for 16 years. I have also judged in Texas and Nebraska. I have judged college tournaments. I was Senior Staff at Cameron University Summer CX Camp for six years.

I'll listen to any arguments, but stock issues are usually key for me. I'm not a fan of counterplans. If you run T or Ks, make sure you run it right or don't even bother. Speed is fine, but I have to be able to hear your taglines.