Choctaw Sting VIRTUAL Tournament
2021 — Online, OK/US
LD/PF Judges Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI determine rounds on three things: CLARITY, IMPACT, and DROPPED ARGUMENTS. I am typically an Interp judge, but I do have a long background in high school public forum debate. This manifests itself in my three RFDs! Please don't spread to the point of non-clarity.
I Judge debate primarily and moot court. I have been judging events for over 10 years now. I am a trial attorney for 25 years and have tried thousands of cases. I am a regular speaker for both public and private events. I regularly speak at events and present seminars on various issues for the Oklahoma Bar Association and other entities. I spent 13 years in the United States Army and Oklahoma National Guard as a decorated NCO. I have a Juris Doctorate, degrees in Political Science, History and Sociology. I attended Oklahoma State University and The University of Oklahoma College of Law. I have participated in moot Court competition as well as Judged various moot court competitions and debate competitions.
When Judging, I am most concerned with presentation. I want to see someone who is organized and presents a solid case for their position. I want presenters to follow the prescribed format of their event, but most importantly convince me of your opinion. Set a strong foundation and provide evidence. Make me believe you and you alone are correct.
I will not tolerate bullies, racism, homophobia, sexism or other rude and unacceptable behavior. If you act like that, I will make sure you do not get positive marks from me.
I am more concerned with substance over form. I use my vast trial and presentation experience, combined with my experience as a presenter and public speaker to evaluate the competitors as to the viability of their arguments and the foundation of their evidence and persuasiveness of arguments.
For LD, I will neutrally evaluate the round using the below three-prong method, with greater emphasis on elements A and B. I am open to classic and contemporary styles and thoughts so long as it makes sense and is fully supported in the case. Most importantly, have fun and enjoy the round.
A. Case and Analysis
1. Defining the Values: Did the arguments presented focus on the values implicit in the resolution? Is the case itself cohesive?
2. Establishing Criteria for Evaluating the Resolution: On what basis (universal, moral, social, political, historical, legal, etc.) is one value proven by the debater to be more important than another?
3. Weighing Importance: Are the values advocated in support of the resolution more important than the values diminished by the resolution, or are alternative values supported by the negative enhanced by the resolution?
4. Application of Values and Criteria: Did the debaters apply their cases by filtering appropriate arguments through the value and criteria?
B. Argumentation
1. Proof: Did the evidence presented pragmatically justify the affirmative or negative stance? Did the reasoning presented philosophically justify the affirmative or negative stance?
2. Organization: Are the ideas presented clearly, in a logical sequence, and with appropriate emphasis?
3. Extension, Clash, and Rebuttal: Did the debaters fulfill their obligation to extend their own arguments? Did they appropriately refute the contentions of their opponents by exposing weaknesses or inconsistencies?
C. Presentation
1. Expression: Were language, tone, and emphasis appropriate to persuasive communication? Please be respectful at all times.
2. Delivery: Were gestures, movement, and eye contact audience-oriented and contained natural persuasive communication components?
3. Rate: Was the rate of delivery conducive to audience understanding? (Spreading may not be feasible under virtual conditions.)
Language borrowed from UIL, emphasis and additions my own.
------------------
For PF, the round will be evaluated as it is argued by the speakers. Focus on the advocacy of a position derived from the issues presented in the resolution, not a prescribed set of burdens.
Debaters should advocate or reject the resolution in manner clear to the non-specialist citizen judge. Clash of ideas are essential to debate.
Debaters should display solid logic and reasoning, advocate a position, utilize evidence, and communicate clear ideas using professional decorum.
As for plans and counterplans, please be aware of both NSDA and OSSAA guidance.
NSDA: In Public Forum Debate, the Association defines a plan or counterplan as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Neither the pro or con side is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions.
OSSAA: Neither the pro nor con is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan, defined as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions.
Crossfire time should be dedicated to questions and answers rather than reading evidence. Evidence may be referred to extemporaneously. It should also be professional and balanced by each side.
No new arguments may be introduced in the Final Focus; however, debaters may include new evidence to support prior arguments. I am always listening for evidence. Per the NSDA's Evidence Rules, "[i]n all debate events, contestants are expected to, at a minimum, orally deliver the following when introducing evidence in a debate round: primary author(s)’name (last) and year of publication."
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.
I vote for whoever has the best argument and uphold the framework best
I will go with the framework that is most moral and has most impacts
If your evidence is not true I will not believe you
I will take down your speaks if your speaker points are bad
Keep it respectable, there is such a thing as badgering the opposite end of the case in a disrespectful manner that in itself is unpleasing to not only your opponent but to some judges as well. I have no true preference on speed, but that being said, still make it where you can be thoroughly understood. If I can't understand you, I will not/can not flow you through and can end in a negative vote for your side. Be professional, be courteous, but overall be the best you can be. This year (2021) will be a little weird due to the current pandemic. Take your time, do your best, and if any complications arise please let myself or any other judge/coach know. This may be an uncomfortable way to do debating or speaking events but we are all proud of you for jumping out of the comfort zone and putting your best foot forward. Break legs! - Aedrynn
1. Please stand and look out during cross fire.
2. Please don't spread during speeches if it is not policy.
3. Don't keep track of your opponents' prep time
General debate:
-I value respect of each other above all else, Keep it fun, no need to het *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 work 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. It's not about how many sources you found. I care about quality and relevance of the sources you found.
-Signposting is appreciated (remember - I'm a flow judge)
-Be confident. I have a speech/debate background so I value a solid public speaker who carries themselves well. Confidence goes a long way.
-I do not appreciate speaking at 2x or 3x speed unless you're really good at it, you enunciate and I can understand you. Please see below bullet point for how I handle those situations.
- If I say "clear" three times during your speech, I will stop flowing your speech since I cannot understand what you're saying. That's on you.
Public Forum:
-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 the fun part about public forum. It's supposed to geared towards a "general audience."
Lincoln Douglas:
-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:
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.
I debated PF for 2 years and went to nationals in congress. I have very minimal experience in LD.
PF:
Framework- I am okay with framework and will flow it across ONLY if you tell me a)Why it matters and b)extend it in every speech. If you agree with their framework, don't just say, 'I agree' - turn it. If you have clashing framework, tell me why to prefer yours.
Speaks-I prefer presentational debate where lay judges could understand if they had to, that being said I am okay with aggressive debate and fast speaking. I like to hear full author citations including their credentials in constructive so that I know the people who you're citing are experts on the topic that is being debated.
Argumentation: The First Summary must frontline, address the previous speech. If you don't tell me why the argument matters, I won't weigh it. And quantify your impacts-I need to know WHY this argument matters.
Progressive debate-I dislike progressive debate in PF.
Cards: I will call for cards if I’m confused about it or if I think you aren’t truthful. The only important thing on cards is I will ALWAYS prefer cards with author credentials, they tell me who has the better source.
I won't really call for cards unless I think I need to do so.
LD:
Same paradigm as PF, but, I have very minimal experience in LD. I'll keep up with anything as long as you clearly explain and weigh your arguments.
Progressive debate is fine, but don't assume I know the lit.
If there's an email chain you can add my email Logankylekennedy@gmail.com
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 competitors who at least attempt to add some persuasive flare in their speeches, but I do NOT want 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, and be sure your case actually supports your value and critera.
2024 UPDATE- If you decide to use terms like "structural violence," in value and criteria framework, DO THE WORK TO SHOW 1. What you mean by this and why it's the most important value in the round and 2. HOW YOUR CASE/ACTION/ADVOCACY DIRECTLY RESULTS IN THE DESIRED IMPACTS. You cannot simply say things that are debate buzzwords with an implied, "you know what I mean, right?"
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.
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.
I did LD for 3 years at Bishop McGuinness and now I do policy at OU.
Include me on the chain:
Background & Experience
I hold degrees in Political Science and Communication Studies and currently serve as a debate coach. As a competitor, I achieved multiple state championships in Lincoln Douglas Debate, Extemporaneous Speaking, and Original Oratory. I was also a two-time national competitor in United States Extemporaneous Speaking. This background informs my approach to judging - I value both the technical and communicative aspects of debate, drawing from my competitive success and academic training in political theory and rhetoric.
Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum Paradigm General Expectations
- Speaking Style: I expect clear, well-paced delivery. Spreading is not appropriate in my rounds. Strong speaking skills and rhetorical ability matter significantly in my evaluation.
- Decorum: Debaters should:
- Stand for speeches and cross examination
- Direct all arguments to the judge (not to opponents)
- Maintain professional demeanor throughout the round
- Show respect to opponents and the competitive format
Technical Preferences Flowing & Speed
- I flow all rounds thoroughly and can follow quick-paced argumentation
- However, clarity should never be sacrificed for speed
- All arguments should be comprehensible to an educated lay audience
Framework & Value Structure (LD)
- I place significant emphasis on framework level debate
- Strong philosophical and moral warrants are essential, especially on resolutions containing "ought" claims
- Value/Criterion structures should be clearly articulated and consistently applied
- Framework debates should go beyond mere definitions to engage with substantive philosophical questions
Argumentation
- I evaluate arguments based on:
- Logical validity
- Quality of evidence/warrants
- Strategic weight within the round
- Clear impact analysis
- Dropped arguments matter but don't automatically result in a loss
- Technical concession does not override glaring logical flaws
Cross Examination
- Cross examination should be used to expose flaws in opponent's arguments, not merely to set up future responses
- Questions should be direct and purposeful
- CX contributes to speaker points through quality of answers and strategic questioning
Speaker Points
Speaker points in my rounds reflect:
- Strategic choices in argumentation
- Speaking ability and rhetorical skills
- Professional conduct
- Effective time management
- Quality of responses in cross examination
Summary:
- I vote for the debater who best combines technical proficiency with effective communication
- Both form and substance matter in my evaluation
- I reward debaters who can make complex arguments accessible while maintaining competitive rigor
- Clear impact analysis and weighing in the final focus/rebuttal is essential
Extemporaneous Speaking Judging Paradigm Philosophy
I view extemporaneous speaking as a unique fusion of debate analysis and improvisational performance, where speakers must demonstrate both intellectual depth and polished delivery. Drawing from my background as a national competitor and coach, I expect speeches that combine thorough analysis with engaging presentation.
Content Expectations
- Analysis
- Demonstrate clear understanding of current events and their historical context
- Provide accurate, factual analysis that withstands scrutiny
- Support claims with current, credible sources
- Avoid oversimplification of complex issues
- Connect historical precedents appropriately to modern situations
Structural Elements
- Organization
- Clear and consistent signposting
- Physical movement should align with main points
- Logical progression of ideas
- Well-developed sub-points that support the central answer
- Compelling introduction and conclusion that frame the analysis
Delivery
- Speaking Style
- Fluid, conversational tone
- Natural and confident presence
- Professional yet engaging delivery
- Effective use of gestures and movement
- Clear articulation and appropriate pace
Source Usage
- Citations
- Recent, relevant sources
- Variety of credible publications
- Strategic integration of evidence
- Sources should enhance rather than overwhelm analysis
Overall Assessment
I evaluate speakers on their ability to:
- Provide a clear, direct answer to the question
- Support that answer with sophisticated analysis
- Present their speech with polish and confidence
- Demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of current events
- Navigate complex political and social issues with nuance
I believe in well constructed Affirmatives that are Prima Facia. I believe T is used as a generic argument to waste time. Unless the case is actually Untopical/Abusive, I won't vote for it. I like to see real world argumentation with real advantages/disadvantages. Unless you can actually tell me the closest we have been to Nuclear war, and that we are there now, I won't buy it. Let's see clash on the stock issues. I would much rather see you debate the actual topic rather than debate theory. This is Policy debate
Spread at your own risk. If I can't understand your points because you don't slow down and label contentions and points, how am I going to know where it goes on the flow.
I haven't met a K that I have voted for.
LD-I just want clash and a spirited debate on Values and points. I will flow everything in the round and use it in my decision making
PF-I want to see good clash of points with sound reasoning. And politeness in CX. If you are rude or barking in your Crossfire, it will probably reflect in your rankings