I did LD for three years, and PF for one year, as well as Extemp and OO. I can handle some speed, but when online, be aware of the limits of the internet connection.

Framework:

Even with PF I want to be told what wins the round. What policy goal is the most important, how do I weigh competing impacts against each other? Teams are most successful when you incorporate this analysis into your impact analysis.

Contentions:

Arguments that go unresponded to will be weighed on their merits. Clash will be evaluated based on the quality of evidence presented by each side, and the feasibility of your mechanisms and impacts, as demonstrated through analysis. Don't just reread cards when there is clash, reframe your arguments, provide new evidence, or tell me why your evidence is better than your opponents.

Flow:

I am not a strictly flow judge, meaning that I will not vote on an argument just because it is dropped. You still must convince me that the argument dropped has impacts that weigh above your opponent's in the round. That being said, clean debates are preferable. If I don't know where to record an argument on the flow, I will have a hard time weighing it. I will flow cross-x/cross-fire when there are explicit impacts on the round, but do not automatically assume something said in cross-fire will be weighed if it is not apparent how to weigh it in the round.

Theory:

I am not a fan of theory arguments, that being said, I will vote on them if you can successfully tell me why it is the most important element of the round and links to both your advocacy and your opponent's case.

Please attach me to any email chains you start to exchange evidence, lancebrightmire@gmail.com

Falsifying evidence or intentionally misrepresenting its source is a big red flag for me, please don't do it.

A little about me :)

Marcus Repsher

I have done PF for 5 years among other speech/debate events

Student at Bixby highschool

What I consider interventionist on the judges part and I will not do

I will not call for evidence unless told to by your team

I will not decide if a teams argument is factually based on my own knowledge of the topic that is up for you to prove to me

I will not ask clarifying questions after the round

my job as the judge is to simply observe all information presented to me and the way you want me to interpret it so please tell me how

Debate stuff

I will evaluate literally any k, shell, or random theory (within reason...) just make your interp clear, if you decide you want to change the norms of debate and turn this into a theory round I'm 100% behind you if you can make your line of reasoning sound and explain violations etc.

style- I am not a progressive debater in the sense of ks and non-topical arguments but i will go along with most things but that doesn't mean I enjoy hearing shoe theory or the like.

Flow/tech judge

Tech > Truth almost 100% of the time

Debate is not a game and is to be considered much more than just that rudimentary definition. Remember the topics you discuss often have real-world impacts that affect others and or your opponents, debate isn't always about the ballot.

TW/CONTENT WARNING/Misgendering

I am a firm believer in TW theory and the violence that can be caused by debaters not reading content warnings before potentially triggering topics. I ask that you read your case before the round and consider with each contention if it needs a CW, if there is even a question about the contention needing one please include it before the content is read. If your plan is to read a case that includes potential triggering content as most topics have, please include some format of an anonymous opt-out system and a backup case/contention. If in the event these standards are not met I am fully prepared to drop the debater or tank their speaks. If you have any questions about this/your case please speak to me before the round or coin flip. I will fight tab about dropping the debater who violates this before I allow debate to become an exclusionary event.

TKO
At any time you can Invoke a TKO (Technical knock out) and I will end the debate there with a win to your team and award you 30 speaks, however if not your speaks will be set at 20. This basically means that at any point of the debate you believe you’ve solidly already won the debate, beyond a reasonable doubt, (dropped T argument, double turn, strategic miscue that is irreparable by the other team) you can invoke a TKO and immediately end the debate BUT only do this if you believe that your opponent has absolutely no route to the ballot.

Some other stuffs

Run whatever you want, I will do my best to follow. Judge adaption is a sorry excuse for lay judges to be lazy and not actually learn debate.

You may read your cases as fast as you would like, but if you would like me to flow key cards or points please slow down on them or send me your speech doc.

If you plan on running very long link chains please explain them to a full extent or include me on an email chain- marcus.repsher@gmail.com

if evidence is asked for at the end of a round please make sure the entire card is at least an 8 point font or I assume you don't want me to read it.

If in Lincoln Douglas, the same goes for card font also if your running unique Criteria or Value please explain them to the full extent if you wish for them to be flowed.

I usually value tech over the truth but I do not think in a strict offense/defense paradigm. Terminal defense, presumption, and negligible risk are possible.

post rounding is acceptable if you have nice things to say or questions for me or your opponent, post rounding is not the time nor the place to argue my RFD, if you absolutely disagree with my RFD please take it to your coach or a tournament director arguing with me in round will get you nowhere.

PUBLIC FORUM

Public Forum is an evidence-based debate.

Do not rant during speeches, be absolutely clear and precise.

The basics of every round and the way I am going to judge, the AFF must prove a net gain, the NEG must prove a net loss, unless offered a framework or observation this is how i will judge your round.

I do not mind sitting during grand cross, during 1st speaker and 2nd speaker cross i do prefer you stand.

There is a difference between being assertive and rude.

I will assume you to be well versed in the rules in public forum, understand I will mark it on your ballot if you do not follow them.

I will assume if you drop an argument or contention whether it be offense or defense you agree with it and will flow it to your opponent's side unless they don't mention the drop then ill just pretend like I was hallucinating.

If you would like me to understand exactly what your doing, please give some format of an off time road map before each speech after case reading. basically PLEASE SIGNPOST

If you don't offer a framework of what you need to prove to win or the opponent needs to prove, i will hold your opponents framework in the round (technically you should just adopt their framework but you get the idea), If neither of the teams offer one I will decide the round over the weighing that has been offered to me.

Crossfire- unlike many flow judges I do flow cross x as i believe it holds value to the debate or you wouldn't be doing it.

Impacts- Do not give me anything scalar without explaining why it matters.

Weighting- If you have dropped the arg or lost access to it don't use it as a weighing mechanism. weighting is an action not a word to be used for fill.

drops/concedes- I am a flow judge i promise i caught the drop/conceded arg, so if your going to tell me that something was dropped or conceded tell me why its important rather than "this went cold conceded!!!"

style- I am not a progressive debater in the sense of ks and non-topical arguments but i will go along with most things but that doesn't mean i enjoy hearing debate is always bad K's

Lincoln Douglas

Do not rant during speeches, be absolutely clear and precise.

The basics of every round and the way I am going to judge, the AFF must prove a net gain, the NEG must prove a net loss. Of course other factors will be taken into consideration but this is the very basics.

I will assume if you drop an argument or contention whether it be offense or defense you agree with it and will flow it to your opponent's side unless they don't mention the drop then ill just pretend like I was hallucinating.

If you would like me to understand exactly what your doing, please give some format of an off time road map before each speech after case reading. basically PLEASE SIGNPOST

There is a difference between being assertive and rude, please understand the difference.

You can stand or sit during cross, doesn't matter much to me.

I will assume you understand the rules of Lincoln Douglas debate, understand I will mark it on your ballot if you do not follow them.

Please understand these are the absolute basics of how I will judge your round. Of course other factors will influence my decision, but that is tailored to each round.

Crossfire- unlike many flow judges i do flow cross x as i believe it holds value to the debate or you wouldn't be doing it.

Impacts- Do not give me anything scalar without explaining why it matters.

Weighting- If you have dropped the arg or lost access to it don't use it as a weighing mechanism. weighting is an action not a word to be used for fill.

drops/concedes- I am a flow judge i promise i caught the drop/conceded arg, so if your going to tell me that something was dropped or conceded tell me why its important rather then "this went cold conceded!!!"

style- I am not a progressive debater in the sense of ks and non-topical arguments but i will go along with most things but that doesn't mean i enjoy hearing debate is always bad K's

General rules

I do not tolerate mansplaining

I'm not an interventionist judge in any sense I weigh the round how you tell me to, I will, however, become interventionist when you become homophobic, racist, transphobic, or any other form of bigotry.

If you are going to spread, please ask all parties involved before the round starts (aka case reading).

If you ask me to disclose after round, I will but only if asked.

Do not trap your opponents into some terrible tunnel vision of a framework. (I know this doesnt translate to everyone so if you have a question about this ask me before round)

Please keep cross as professional as possible, I understand the want to prove a point, this does not mean you can be rude to your opponent.

Please take any critique that I give you to heart, I am in no way a snobby judge who will get mad if you move your hands too much, I really wish for you to do better.

Of course all of this goes deeper and if I listed all rules I think debaters should follow we would be here all day. The most important rule is for you to go to a tournament and enjoy yourself, debate is in no way meant to be a exclusive rude community.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ASK BEFORE THE ROUND STARTS

Hi, I'm Miles. I did LD in HS (BTW c/o2022) and now sorta-coach PF in NYC. I study Philosophy and Intellectual History at Columbia (sorta pretentious); LDers, that does mean I probably will be pretty familiar with your frameworks...beware. Please don't assume I'm too familiar with the current resolutions, bc I'm not.

If you have any q's email me at miles.udwin@gmail.com :)

LD: I'm most familiar with trad LD, but you can debate however you want (though Iprobably won't vote on a K). I'm a pretty standard flow judge: win the flow and you'll win the round. That said, please do the impact calc for me, I hate having to do any weighing or extentions myself (I actually think it's kinda unfair if I do have to). I'm ok with speed, just know that I am off caffein rn and might fall asleep (if you do speed, speech dox are greatly appreciated).

PF: Um....win more arguments than the other team. Go. Fight. Win.

LD:

Please feel free to share your case with me during the round (2wisnerlh@stu.bps-ok.org)

Speed

You won't win any points for ridiculously fast-paced speech. I enjoy persuasive argumentative language that creates clash; If you want to speed up the overall pace of your speech, make sure to maintain a clear and understandable tone. Don't be offensive, rude, or obscene; I will deduct speaker points for a violation of these especially in cases of extreme rudeness. I am generally opposed to spreading, if you do end up spreading please send me your case.

Judging style

While I value a well-rounded debate, the two things that carry the most weight in my decisions are your framework and your impacts. Arguments that are clearly racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. are unacceptable. If you run it, you will lose. If you make it easier to judge you, you've already done a lot of the work. Signposting is the most crucial aspect of this; flipping back and forth from the aff flow to the neg flow will probably make it harder to follow your arguments and ultimately confuse me if not yourself.

Misc.

Please feel free to time yourself, I will be keeping my own time. However, because my attention will likely be focused on the content of your speeches, I may occasionally make slight errors. Outline your voters clearly.