I did LD and PF, went to state in LD and did not too good but I know how to debate nonetheless. I'm currently majoring in philosophy at OU, and would love to see some philosophical argumentation if you can articulate it well.

Do what you will to win, be professional, and I will attempt to be as objective as possible. If you are rude, you are likely losing and getting a 25 on speaks.

For LD, I should understand everything going on, your silly k's and cps. I don't understand why you'd want to spread, it's not useful or enjoyable if no one can understand you. But if you really need to spread, go for it.

keep your own time, it'd be silly if you weren't already watching the clock.

also, i like aggressive cx that adds some flavor to the debate. don't be rude, but also don't be too shy. you only get two cx's, have some fun.

email: mikaylacfair@gmail.com

I competed in PF all four years of high school and went to nationals in PF. I also did OO and FEX for a year each. I currently compete in collegiate parliamentary debate, but I'm also learning policy debate in hopes of switching soon. I've also judged LD. I'm also currently an international relations major at Tulane.

Paradigm:

General- Please be respectful in and out of round. If you are racist, sexist, or homophobic to your opponent or to me, I will vote you down.

Public Forum-

• Please do not argue in cross-examination, and bring up anything important from cross in your next speech as I don't flow cross.
• Signpost (tell me what you're addressing on the flow).
• Almost nothing should be considered common knowledge, you need to have evidence for your empirics, please do not assume I know all the details of one really specific event.
• Ks/Theory: So long as you properly link it, I'm okay with it. I will warn you it is difficult to do K arguments well with pf time constraints so just be prepared for that.
• Framework: Warrant your framework and weigh it against your opponent's fw. Everything should flow through this lens so be sure to link it back into your speeches.
• Evidence Integrity: Please cite all your sources (last name & year). If you cite the same source twice please make it clear that this is a different citation of the same source. Do not power-tag evidence. Refrain from paraphrasing and if you do, it better say the same thing as your card and you better clarify that you are paraphrasing. You should be referencing fairly credible people.
• Email chain/doc: Please add to me any email chains or docs you have. I won't pay much attention to the cards in those docs unless they are repetitively contested and I'm told to reference it.
• No email chain/doc: Unless a card is readily disputed back and forth, I will not call for cards at the end of the round unless one team tells me to.
• Please run reasonable arguments. I know it can be fun to do something kind of outlandish, but just be careful. Honestly, I'm okay with it so long as you explain it well and link it well.
• In general, I'm tech over truth. The flow matters. Functionality matters, don't drop anything, especially your own arguments.
• Spreading: Personally, I'm fine with SOME spreading in PF just because time constraints suck, but also everyone in round needs to understand you. You shouldn't be spreading as a means of abuse.
• tech over truth
• Please bring up framing every speech. Tell me why you won the round, not just the individual arguments.

Lincoln Douglas-

• Please give proper backing for your value criterion and repetitively bring it up throughout the round.
• The value proven to be most moral is the one I will prefer for the round so make sure you uphold this, and better yet, make sure you uphold both values in your case.
• Please impact weigh. Sometimes arguments in LD get really broad, but it's important you apply those impacts in the round (aka. tell me what they mean in context, give empirics, numerics, etc.)
• Ks/Theory: I'm totally okay with these. Link it well and make it loud. If you're running a K, this should almost always be the center of your debate and the first and last thing you discuss. At the same time, please don't ignore the case debate.
• Evidence Integrity: Please use reliable sources and don't power tag anything. If you cite a source twice with two different cut portions please make it clear which is which or have a speech doc that can do the same. If you paraphrase anything please make sure you're actually
• tech over truth
• Please explain why you are overall winning the round, not just individual arguments. This should be connected to the value debate and general framing of the round.

Lastly, I understand that debate can be stressful and sometimes the decision of a judge may seem unreasonable or unclear, so if you have any questions about my decision/comments feel free to email me at mikaylacfair@gmail.com

Overall, spark clash and have fun!

Hello!

I'm Grant and I've debated quite a bit for Norman North

Email Chain - gjgoering@gmail.com

TLDR: I'm fairly tech. I'll try not to intervene if possible. I'll vote for pretty much anything with a warrant, but I need implications not just blips. I will do my best to adapt to you and how you like to debate

NOTE: I am a PF debater if I am judging LD then I'm sorry I don't know norms or anything. Read what you want and I'll do my best but treat me as a lay judge

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

NOVICE

- First and foremost do what you have been told to do by your coach, if something below and what your coach said to do are in conflict please do what your coach said

- I know the first few times you compete its scary and overwhelming so don't worry about the rest of what's in here, I've been in your position, don't be scared, you can do it!

- I'll do my best to give you as much feedback as possible and if there is anything I can do to help you understand this activity better or why I made the decision I did please please find me after the round or email me, I know its intimidating but I want to help you

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

OKLAHOMA 5a/6a

- I default to 29 speaks

- If your opps evidence is bad or misparaphrased show me before I leave the room, there have been problems in the past that ended up not getting dealt with because debaters didn't say anything until hours later

- DO NOT READ ME A "FRAMEWORK" in PF, I have watched or competed in well over 100 PF rounds here and not a SINGLE one of them needed a "framework" or used it correctly

- Other than that I can probably handle whatever you throw at me, just remember to have a good time and keep it consistent, don't go 150 wpm in case then 250 in summary

- My heart goes out to this circuit, I want you all to get better so if you have any questions or feel like my RFD/ballot was insufficient please find me or email me, I know we have a lot of bad judges and I will try my best not to be one of them so if you are really really sure you won and just don't get it let me know or have your coach reach out

- Regardless of what the tournament tells me to do I will tell you how I vote after the round, it is uneducational and unfair for you to only get feedback days after the competition or not at all (as happened with OSSAA state 2022), as one of my best friends Leon Shepkaru said "It's ridiculous that these tournament directors get to play god with our emotions and not tell us if we won"

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

EVERYONE ELSE

HOW I JUDGE:

- Debate is an educational game, make strategic decisions

- Tech>Truth, That isn't an excuse to under-warrant args: I need to understand what I'm voting for

- I default util and lives unless I'm told otherwise

- I presume for the team that lost the flip, if I can't know that then I default first speaking team

- I like cross but won't evaluate anything unless it's in a speech (feel free to skip grand if both sides agree, 1 min prep), cross is binding

- I default 28.5 speaks

- I disclose after the round

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

PREFERENCES:

Speed:

- I can handle ~260-280 WPM

- If you get over 230 WPM I would like a speech doc

- I'll give you 2 clears if I can't understand but after that anything I miss is on you

- You should get slower as the round progresses, if you are still going well over 200wpm by summary you need a stronger collapse

Evidence:

- I don't care if you paraphrase or read off cut cards

- All evidence must have a cut card producible within 2min, after that period I will assume it doesn't exist and you will lose speaks, if it is a repeat issue I'll be very open to a evidence ethics IVI

- If you misparaphrase to the point where the meaning of the evidence changes I will drop you and set your speaks to the lowest allowed by the tournament whether that is 25, 20, or 0

- Same goes for any brackets you add to cards if they change the meaning then I will drop you

- That being said I read cut card and I know sometimes you need to change words to make it read correctly

- You should tell me about all questionable evidence (I WILL REVIEW IT IF TOLD TO)

Prep Time:

- Don't steal prep or your speaks go down

- Flex prep is fine

- I don't care when you take prep

Speeches:

- 2nd Rebuttal needs to frontline

- Summary and FF should be mirrors: if I don't hear it in Summary I won't vote on it

- Only thing that should ever be new in 1st Final is responses to 2nd Summary's implications and weighing

- FF should be all about telling me how / what you have won, I want a story

-The threshold for a response to weighing gets lower the later you introduce it, if I get some totally new pre-req weighing in 2nd Summary any decent response in 1st final will knock it off my flow

Progressive Debate:

My Prefs:

1 (Preferable) - 5 (I am not your judge)

- Topical Debate 1

- Theory 3

- Tricks Post Bid Round 3

- Ks 4 (I don't know any of the lit, so it will be hard for me to evaluate but I will try)

- Tricks/Friv Theory Pre Bid Round 5 (STRIKE IF YOU ARE READING)

- Non-T Ks 5 (STRIKE IF YOU ARE READING)

- If you are reading a framing argument (developing world, prioritize women, extinction good, whatever) I would really prefer you read it in constructive or at the latest first rebuttal. Every time I've seen framing introduced in 2nd Rebuttal or 1st Summary the round falls apart on both sides so just read it in your case if you are going to read it

- I personally think disclosure is bad for small schools but I won't hack for either side, debate how you want and exemplify the norms you think are good but if there is ANY performative contradiction for any shell you've read at the tournament and its gets pointed out in the round its a TKO

- Friv Theory is bad don't read it (Formal cloths, Macbooks, etc.) The only exception is if both teams give verbal confirmation to me that they would like to have a Friv theory round in which case I'd be happy to judge

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

Reach Out If You Have Any Questions!

Hello, my name is Bri :).

If you have questions please email me: briannalemaster1120@gmail.com

About me

I competed at Westmoore High School for 4 years where I was a 4x national qualifier and in multiple state final rounds. I also currently coach multiple events including all the debate events and some specific IE events. I also beat Taylor Rafferty in a debate round once.

TLDR: General Debate Things

1. Tech>Truth. This obviously excludes racist, homophobic, and other hateful sentiments.

2. You should be crystalizing and summarizing your best arguments in your last rebuttal speech going for everything is not in your best interest.

3. Clash is the most important thing for me in debate if you don't do it or are just avoiding it the round will probably not go well for you.

4. SIGN POST PLEASE. If you don't your speaker points just like your signposting won't exist.

Trad LD

1. Framework is pretty important to me especially when im looking at what arguments to prioritize in the round.

2. Since progressive debate is becoming more common among the local circuit I'm fine with speed and counter plans etc.... All I ask is that if you're gonna do it please format it correctly and just call it a counter plan or a "K" or whatever don't try to hide it as a contention.

3. If you signpost, extend your arguments, try not to drop stuff, and give an offensive reason why I should vote for you as opposed to a defensive one, you'll be in very good shape. (Offense = why I'm winning, Defense = why I'm not losing).

4. Your framework and your case should be able to match properly I don't want to see a Kant framework and then a bunch of extinction arguments I might sob internally.

PFD

1. FILL YOUR SPEECH TIMES. You already don't have a lot of time use it wisely!

2. Please don't make Grand Cross a big disaster please be civil and nice.

3. Make sure to carry your arguments all the way through final focus if they are not carried through I won't use it in my decision.

4. Public Forum Debate is called Public Forum for a reason it is supposed to be as accessible to a general audience as possible there shouldn't be a high use of progressive argumentation or debate lingo.

5. Don't be one of those teams that paraphrases evidence you will instantly lose all credibility.

Background: I've been doing PF, extemp, and a little bit of IE for 4 years. I qualified to nationals in congress, PF, and extemp, and I went Top 60 in DEX.

Framework: I will weigh on framework if you tell me why it matters and how your side upholds both the best. If both teams decide to drop framework, that's fine, just don't be the only side to drop framework.

Speed: Please don't spread. If you have a lot of information on your case and you have to read a little faster that's understandable but I can't weigh an argument I can't hear.

Argumentation: Explain your arguments clearly and concisely. I am all for unique arguments as long as they relate to the topic and have an impact that matters. If you want me to vote on something, tell me why it matters and how you solve better than your opponents. Speak confidently!

LD: I have little experience in LD, but the paradigms are mostly the same. Tell me why it matters and how you solve for it best.

Extemp: Use transitions and signpost your points. Develop your arguments and use lots of cards. Don't be afraid to throw in some jokes, they make the speech fun!

Be polite, have fun, and go get that bread, gamers.

Hi, this is Joshua Meng, and I am happy to be your judge for this round. While competing please keep spreading at a minimum, and please be courteous to your opponent(s). As this is a formal debate, I do not tolerate any abusive speech. Please keep it civil, as we are all having fun.

Good Luck to All.

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.

̿̿ ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿'̿'\̵͇̿̿\з= ( ▀ ͜͞ʖ▀) =ε/̵͇̿̿/’̿’̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿̿ ̿̿

Proud mother of 8

Debating at Norman North with the legend Grant Goering

National Qualifier

Please explain to me what a convention is, I hate lack of explanations they make me very sad :(

One additional speaker point if you follow Morgan Russell on TikTok (Feminist4n6)

Currently, I am a college sophomore debating for the OU team

my email is blaire.debate@gmail.com

I’m still in college, so I don’t have a ton of opinions and preferences. I like quality/ well fleshed-out arguments above all else. I’m not super ideological, so give judge instruction and do what you are best at.

K- I read set col, fem, queer theory, security, extinction, and cap, if that tells you anything :)

-I will vote on T and presumption, so you must tell me what you do and how that interacts with this round, debate as a whole, or the outside world.

-A few good arguments can win a round.

T- I will vote on T, but you MUST tell me what the model of debate the other team creates looks like and why that’s bad for debate OR why they made the round functionally impossible

DA- explain your internal links

CP- I think CPs, as a whole, are good

- I need the arg to be fleshed out and compared to the AFF

- I will vote on theory args.

I did LD for 3 years at Bishop McGuinness and now I do policy at OU.

Include me on the chain:

blaine3252001@gmail.com

Good, clear speaking (no spreading)

Traditional judge. Be respectful. Please avoid spreading