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.

Please no spreading. If I cannot hear and understand you, especially due to speaking too fast, I cannot give you the win.

Additionally, PFD and LD are two different types of debate. LD is based on morality/ philosophy. PFD does not require a value/criterion, nor does it require a plan/counter-plan. Please ensure that your constructive and cross examinations reflect these differences prior to entering the round.

Pronouns- any pronouns are fine, he/him If you have specific pronouns let them be known before the round, if you dont respect someones pronouns your speaks will be as low as they can be, i get the occasional mispeak but if its obvious you dont give a crap your speaks will be trash.

Email-nathan.hernandez2213@gmail.com (spam my email and I will be very upset)

put me on the chain pls

Background- Debated 4 years for Guymon high school in Oklahoma (now a student-athlete at Rogers State, no college debate) under the GOAT and now NSDA hall of fame coach Michael Patterson. 2021 and 2022 policy state champ made state FEX finals a few times and won some IE events a few times at state and qualified to NSDA nationals.

side note-this is a dying activity much to my sadness, so if you are facing someone who is much less experienced than you don't be a jerk and just destroy them, help them learn and be nice and slow down a bit I'm sure a senior team doesn't need 8 off to handle a novice team, crap like this is what drives people away from the activity.

TLDR; tab ras

As far as policy and all debate really goes I try to approach every round with tabula rasa so just have fun and run whatever you normally run as long as it is not sexist, racist, homophobic, or anything hateful, i will not hesitate to vote down any team that participates in card clipping, "ism", plagiarism, i don't care how much you are winning the flow

Policy-spreading- is fine just send a doc copy

Ks- are fine but dont expect me to know your Lit base, was a huge cap/setcol/bioP/anthro debater in HS so i know them pretty well, i understand most Ks but dont expect me to understand your super complex Baudi K so please explain your warrants and your lit base

DA- is cool more specific the better. I get generic links are easy but its always smart to go with more specific links they make the debate way more interesting to judge. Also idk why people are starting to feel like they can run a 2 card long DA and that somehow covers it, i get the strategy for it but its just annoying.

theory- is cool not really a huge voter but I mean if you're winning it I will. Run whatever theory you want as long as it is not problematic (most theory debates are pretty trash but im down to be proven wrong), I prob wont vote on your RVI unless there is some fr abuse.

CPs- are cool i really really enjoy specific ones, i think PICs are kind of lazy and will be down to vote on PIC theory but its never ran it so wahtev. I always love a good CP comp debate, please make the status of your CP known or ask, trust me. I was a big CP debater my senior year so i love those guys. PLEASE HAVE A SOLVENCY ADVOCATE

T- is dope aswell make sure to extend and go for standards they are underutilized. When answering T a counter def or we meet is a good idea, probably the best idea but you cant just run that, if you drop standards you basically lose the round.

Case- is underutilized and can make or break a round i love a good case debate. SOOO much room for good clash on the flow if you use case correctly which makes the best rounds. Also pls pls pls do line by line on case, i hate having to jump around my flow. Ill do my best to put it where i think it goes but if it ends up on the wrong thing, sorry...

Speaks- are determined on how clean your line by lines are and spreading and overall behavior in the round and overall debate skill. It's not that deep bro.

random-i was a 1a/1n all through highschool and more tech>truth judge unless it just gets ridiculous with the hyper tagging. will ask for a card to be shown if i think it can deterime a round or was highly contesed throughout the debate.

Args i 9/10 wont vote-stuff that happened outside of a round, links by their schools (idc if they are a christian school), debate is a game.

args i will vote you down for running-death good (seriously..why), racism or any ism good, name calling, reverse racism.

overall just have fun be nice and enjoy yourselves. Funny jokes in your speech will be rewarded with better speaks i dont think debate should be a monolouge of zombies, crack the occasional joke trust me ill laugh even if i really dont find it funny.

i prefer if you have your cams on when speaking or doing CX/crossfire.

LD/PF-Never done it but i know the gist of it, alot of my policy paradigm applies except in PF it seems as though spreading is bad but i wont stop you. Send the docs still please and im sorry if i confuse the times with policy but ill do my best to give a good RFD and decision. Im cool with whatever LD tricks are ive judged a few rounds of both debates so i can evaluate it decently well probs not high level deabtes tho.

Public Forum - I did public forum debate for 4 years in high school. I am fine with spreading; however, don't go overboard; I won't write it down if I can't understand you. You can talk fast as long as it's clear. Remember to signpost when you're attacking (cont. 1 first, cont 2. second, etc.), and don't jump around your opponent's case. It makes the round hard to follow, and if I don't know what you are attacking, I won't write it down. I understand the basic functions of theory and K's but am not well-versed in the lit. You can run those progressive arguments if you like, and I will evaluate them as best as I can, but just keep in mind that I might have some trouble if you are going very fast and not explaining things well for these types of arguments. I judge PF mainly on the flow. So argument clashes and clashing of evidence and ideas are big to me. Even if an argument is ridiculous, I will flow it through the round if there's no clash. When you call for cards, try to quickly get the evidence to your opponents. If you want me to call for a card, tell me in your speech that I should. Do not use flex prep. I do not believe in flex prep.

Hi! My name is Bri :). My pronouns are she/her.

My email in case of questions or email chain: briannalemaster1120@gmail.com

Quick Bio:

I competed at Westmoore High School for four years, where I was a four-time national qualifier and in multiple state final rounds. I competed in LD and PF, as well as both the trad and circuit debates. I also currently coach multiple events, including all the debate events and some specific IE events. { I beat Taylor Rafferty in a debate round once Iykyk}. I am currently on the OU policy debate team, and I coach basically all the debate events.

- ASK ME ABT COLLEGE DEBATE-

TLDR: General Debate Things

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

2. In your last rebuttal speech, you should crystallize and summarize your best arguments. Going for everything is not the strat I would recommend.

3. Clash is the most important thing for me in debate if you don't do it or are just avoiding it then the round is probably boring and I will be doing my crossword while flowing. JK but please make the arguments interact with each other.

4. SIGN POST PLEASE. If you don't - tbh probably will not flow the argument because I will not know where it goes.

5. Guys - I will not evaluate drops or call out your opponent unless you do it first.

Trad LD - for Oklahoma If you compete on the TOC/Progressive tournament in LD you can ignore and default to policy

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

2. Mostly for OK debate- Since the progressive debate is becoming more common here I'm fine with speed and counter plans etc.... All I ask is that if you're going to 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 I know the difference. Include me on the file share if you want or email chain.

- Oklahoma debate - guys, honestly, since this is a trad circuit, I would avoid running k's or cp or anything like that since the reality is your competitors will not know how to respond, and it will make it an unfair round. I would recommend not running that stuff in general here. It will not help you win a round, and although I do policy, I debate on this circuit, so I know what goes. If you're going to try to run something funky because you think I'll evaluate it. I won't, but you can try. Typically, there is no point in running arguments that your opponents can not respond to correctly.

3. If you signpost, extend your arguments, try not to drop stuff, and give an offensive reason why I should vote for you instead of a defensive one, you'll be in very good shape. (Offense = why I'm winning, Defense = why I'm not losing). I will not vote off drops if they are not brought up, but I think it works in your favor if you bring up drops especially If your opponents do not address your entire case.

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 will cringe.

5. Non-OK debate - run what you want, and I can keep up. Just if you are going to spread, send a speech doc

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 through the final focus if they are not carried through I won't use them in my decision.

4. Public Forum Debate is called a 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. Also, I really do not vote off fw more impact clac take that as you will but if you make fw your entire voter explain why it is the only thing you are going for. Before you run impact calc as your fw think to yourself on what the point of that is. ( I will give you a hint there is no point).

5. Don't be one of those teams that paraphrases evidence. You will instantly lose all credibility. I will read cards if the other team tells me to call for them. This should not even be something I have to say, but I coach teams and cut evidence for them, so there is a very good chance I know what your cards say.

6. Make sure you have been well versed in the lit and case your reading it helps you to be able to answer questions better. That is just advice for the future.

POLICY

- CX open cross fine

- Please add me to the email chain. My email is at the top of the paradigm -

1. Policy- and K debate - Easily what I feel the most comfortable judging. I like seeing a topical aff against a competitive cp and some dis ads. I like more policy-case rounds but - On that, I am a K and policy debater so I am fine with either. If the K, however, needs to prove how the Aff advantages are harmful to the world of the K, so Neg, when attacking a policy aff along with reading a bunch of offenses etc explains how their Econ adv leads to native harm etc you will get my ballot a lot better that way because the sides interact more. Make my voters clear in the last speech - impact clac it out and clearly explain how the team can not perm or how the alt has no solvency.

2. I'm fine with theory - make your violations clear - performance K’s I know the least about I should be able to pick it up tho.

3. I will vote off anything tho, lowkey as long as you make it clear why and how arguments interact and clash and why I'm voting for u

4. Things I do not like - Tricks - ugh plz, don’t, but if you have to, it's fine. Judge kicks - this is super confusing to me, so I think that it does put me in a super confusing position.

5. Make my role in the round clear and tell me to read cards if they are important etc

I did PF my junior year for a few months so feel free to use terminology/slang

I don't have a lot of experience on LD, so I'll vote based on your argumentation

I don't have an issue with keeping times, but I'd prefer you keep your own time (extemp is the only exception to this)

I won't tolerate impoliteness during rounds, especially crossfires. There's a difference between being assertive and being rude.

PF:

TELL ME WHY YOUR ARGUMENTS MATTER. I can't vote on an issue if you don't tell me its importance

I focus on framework but explain its correlation to the resolution and tell me why I have to prefer yours over your opponent's

I like to hear the author's credentials because it assures me your sources come from experts/people relevant to the resolution.

Tell me why I should prefer your impact over your opponents.

Remember to attack arguments in an organized matter (going down the flow), it helps a lot when reviewing the round

LD:

Again, you have to explain why the arguments and impacts matter in the round, otherwise, I can't vote on it.

I'm all for progressive arguments, but you have to explain them and their connection to the resolution

Extemp:

feel free to be funny, as long as it is appropriate

Explain your points fully

Be respectful to your opponents, and best of luck!

I like to see a professional atmosphere in the debate round. I don't particularly appreciate spreading within the round, if you are spreading and it is difficult for me to understand your arguments, let alone your opponent to understand your arguments then it is nearly impossible for me to weigh that argument that you spent less than 30 seconds addressing. Please do not degrade one another in the round, remember that this is a friendly debate round and you are only competitors not enemies.

Lincoln Douglas Debate:

Framework: I weigh the highest moralistic argumentation found within the framework. As Lincoln Douglas is a morality-based debate platform you must provide the moral or philosophical argument as to why your case wins against your opponents' case.

Contentions: I weigh the argument being made and the subsequent evidence provided as the second highest. If the morality of the round is tied then I am going to side with who provides the best arguments with evidence and impact.

Drops: Whenever you drop an argument that argument will automatically flow through and I will then weigh that argument. If you start addressing an argument that you have previously dropped that is abusive and will not be recognized in round, and if it happens multiple times it will be weighed against you in round.