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."

-Speak clearly and enunciate. There should be an easy flow of arguments and points should be distinctive (separate).

-Please do not spread, ESPECIALLY!!! at the beginning of your talk.

-I need to be able to understand you, I need to hear what say to make accurate assessments.

If you have any questions, email me at robertkale99@gmail.com

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 did PF debate for 4 years in high school, qualified to both State and Nationals. I now work as a debate coach at Westmoore. - That being said I am familiar with most types of argumentation and styles of debate.

I vote primarily on frameworks/Impact Calc. If you don't have a framework, adopt your opponent's. You should be attempting to win on your framework and your opponent's framework, not telling me why you won on your framework and theirs doesn't matter. If there's two frameworks in a round, they're both valuable. I don't like to have to do the weighing on my own at the end of a debate, it should be clear what the round is weighed on. If you can't prove the impact calculus of your argument or why your argument matters, chances are I will not buy it.

Speed. I'm okay with mild speed, but not with spreading. I should still be able to understand what you're saying and flow without missing a lot.

Sign post what you're attacking. I prefer to see attacks going down the flow (cont. 1 first, cont 2. second, etc.) rather than jumping around. It makes for easier flowing and a more ordered argument.

Crossfire. I do not flow crossfire. If it's important bring it up in a speech.

Online Rounds. Please do not prep without timing while the other team is looking for cards or having technical difficulties. Be fair and honest. And please put me in the email chain, katelynmakjohnson@gmail.com. The faster you go the more you glitch (I really don't care if you go fast, it just happens) but if you're going to read "fast", even if you're not spreading, it would be in your best interest to send a speech doc

Argumentation. I understand the basic functions of theory and K's, but I am not well-versed in the lit. You can run those progressive arguments if you like and I will evaluate 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. It's just hard for me to follow and conceptualize these more progressive arguments, but I don't want to stop you from reading progressive arguments if that is what interests you. If you do like reading wacky substance arguments, go for it, I'm all ears.

Card Calling. I think calling for cards as a judge is interventionist, however evidence ethics is also extremely important. I will only call for a card if I am explicitly told to in a speech. If there is a piece of evidence you want me to look at, tell me in a speech, and I will look at the specific place that you tell me to look at. I try not to intervene, but I want to be fair, so if something is not right, just tell me in a speech and explain why.

Please don't ask me to time. In order to give you the best feedback and round I'd rather you timed yourselves, instead of me giving you time signals or calls for prep. 

Thank you and good luck!

Ask for email

Judge Paradigm For Policy:
I enjoy progressive debate. Feel free to run theory or any Ks you want. I accept spreading in policy, but make sure your links, impacts, etc. are clearly labeled and signposted when you present your case. (I'm not the best at flowing, so helping me flow is to your best interest).

.... for Public Forum
I consider PF to be a middle ground between LD and Policy. Try something new, and have fun! I try my best to match my RDF to the flow of the debate, so work well with your partner to rebut opponent's case and extend your own arguments. (Look below for more general information on my paradigm).

...for LD Debate

Philosophical Approach: I approach LD debate as an opportunity to engage with the complex issues of ethics, values, and moral reasoning. I value clarity, logic, and ethical considerations in the arguments presented. I do not have preconceived biases or preferences for any particular moral framework or side of the resolution. My role is to fairly evaluate the debaters' arguments based on the principles of sound reasoning, ethical consistency, and persuasive communication.

Role of the Judge: My primary role is to objectively evaluate the arguments presented in the round. I will assess the clarity, relevance, and strength of the debaters' contentions, and I will prioritize well-structured and logically sound arguments. I will not intervene in the debate but rather base my decision solely on what is presented in the round. Debating the role of the judge, or the role of the ballot, or the purpose of debate is fair game.

Argumentation and Framework: I believe that both debaters have an equal burden to present and defend a consistent framework that applies to the resolution. I encourage debaters to engage in value clash and address the criterion effectively. If a debater chooses to run a value or criterion, they should explain how it directly links to the resolution and the ethical implications of their framework.

Evidence and Warranting: I value the use of relevant and credible evidence to support arguments. Evidence should be clearly cited, and debaters should provide warranted explanations to connect their evidence to their arguments. I will not evaluate unsupported claims or arguments without proper reasoning.

Clarity and Communication: Clear communication is essential. Debaters should enunciate their arguments, speak at a moderate pace, and avoid jargon or overly technical language. I encourage debaters to use signposting and roadmaps to guide me through the flow of the debate. If I cannot not understand you, I can't flow your case, so be careful when spreading.

Rebuttal and Clash: I expect debaters to engage in substantive clash. Effective rebuttals should address the main points made by their opponents, demonstrating where arguments are impacted or fall short. I appreciate when debaters extend key arguments and explain why they should be prioritized in the round.

Time Management: I will closely follow the time limits set in the round and expect debaters to do the same. Effective time management is crucial for a well-structured and organized debate.

Etiquette and Respect: Debaters should treat each other, the resolution, and the judge with respect. I will not tolerate any disrespectful or offensive language or behavior. Constructive engagement is key to a productive debate.

Flexibility: While I appreciate clarity and structure, I am open to evaluating unconventional arguments or styles of debate, as long as they adhere to the fundamental principles of ethical reasoning and argumentation.

Final Thoughts: I am here to facilitate a fair and educational debate. My decision will be based on the quality of arguments presented, not personal preferences or biases. I encourage debaters to approach this round with a commitment to ethical reasoning and persuasive communication.

Remember that different judges may have slightly different paradigms, so it's a good practice to adapt your approach to fit the preferences of the judge in each specific round.

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

Last Updated 12/5/2021

Ishmael Kissinger
Experience: 3.5 yrs for The University of Central Oklahoma 02-05 (Nov/JV & Open)
14 yrs as Coach @ Moore High School, OK
Policy Rounds Judged: Local ~10
Policy National/Toc - 2
LD Rounds Judged Local: 0
LD National/TOC - 0

PFD - Local = 0

PFD Nat Circuit - 0

Email Chain: PLEASE ASK IN ROUND - I cannot access my personal email at school.

*Note: I do not follow along with the word doc. I just want to be on the chain so that I can see the evidence at the end of the round if necessary. I will only flow what I hear.

LD -

Just because I am primarily a policy judge does not mean that I think LD should be like 1 person policy. Small rant: I am tired of us making new debate events and then having them turn into policy... If you are constructing your case to be "Life & Util" and then a bunch of Dis-Ads you probably don't want me as your judge. If you are going for an RVI on T in the 1AR you probably don't want me as a judge. I don't think that LD affs should have plan texts. If I were to put this in policy terms: "You need to be (T)-Whole Res."

Affirmatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their Criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that affirm the whole resolution.

Negatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that negate the whole resolution.

CX

I tend to consider myself a flow oriented judge that tries to be as tab as any one person can be. Absent a framework argument made, I will default to a policy-maker/game-theorist judge. I view debate in an offense-defense paradigm, this means that even if you get a 100% risk of no solvency against the aff, but they are still able to win an advantage (or a turned DA) then you are probably going to lose. You MUST have offense to weight against case.

Generic Information:

Speed is not a problem *Edit for the digital age: Sometimes really fast debaters are harder for me to understand on these cheap computer speakers.

T & Theory need to be impacted with in round abuse. As the debate season goes on I tend to err more toward reasonability than I do at the beginning of the year. This is usually because as the debate year goes on I expect Negative teams to be more prepared for less topical arguments. This is generally how much judges operate, they just don't say it. I typically don't vote on potential abuse, you should couch your impacts on potential abuse in very real-world examples.

Please make impact calculus earlier in the debate rather than just making it in the 2nr/2ar

Kritiks are not a problem, but I am not really deep into any one literature base. This may put you at a disadvantage if you assume I know/understand the nuances between two similar (from my point of view) authors. **If you are going for a K or an Alt in the 2NR but are unsure if the aff is going to win the Perm debate and you want me to "kick the alt" and just have me vote on some epistemic turn you're only explaining in the overview of the 2NR you are not going to enjoy the RFD. If you think it's good enough to win the debate on with only a :30 explanation in the overview, you should probably just make the decision to go for it in the 2nr and kick the alt yourself.

When addressing a kritikal aff/neg I will hold you to a higher threshold than just Util & Cede the political, I'll expect you to have specific literature that engages the K. If this is your strategy to answering K teams I am probably not your "1."

I don't have a problem with multiple conditional arguments, although I am more sympathetic to condo bad in a really close theory debate.

CPs are legit. Just like judges prefer specific links on a Dis-Ads I also prefer specific Counter-Plans. But I will evaluate generic states/int'l actor CPs as well.

Dispo = Means you can kick out of it unless you straight turn it, defensive arguments include Perms and theory. (My interp, but if you define it differently in a speech and they don't argue it, then your interp stands)

DAs are cool - the more specific the link the better, but I will still evaluate generic links.

Case args are sweet, especially on this year's (2019) topic.



Personal Preferences:

Really I have only one personal pref. If you are in a debate round - never be a jerk to the opposing team &/or your partner. I believe that our community has suffered enough at the hands of debating for the "win," and although I don't mind that in context of the argumentation you make in the round, I do not believe that it is necessary to demean or belittle your opponent. If you are in the position to be facing someone drastically less experienced than yourself; keep in mind that it should be a learning process for them, even if it is not one for you. It will NOT earn you speaker points to crush them into little pieces and destroy their experience in this activity. If you want to demonstrate to me that you are the "better debater(s)," and receive that glorious 29 or maybe even 30 it will most likely necessitate you: slowing down (a little), thoroughly explaining your impact calc, clearly extending a position, then sitting down without repeating yourself in 5 different ways. If you opt to crush them you will prob. win the round, but not many speaker points (or pol cap) with me.

Tech > truth. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true. "Tech" is obviously not completely divorced from "truth" but you have to actually make the true argument for it to matter. In general, if your argument has a claim, warrant, and implication then I am willing to vote for it, but there are some arguments that are pretty obviously morally repugnant and I am not going to entertain them. They might have a claim, warrant, and implication, but they have zero (maybe negative?) persuasive value and nothing is going to change that. I'm not going to create an exhaustive list, but any form of "oppression good" and many forms of "death good" fall into this category.

Specifics

Non-traditional – Debate is a game. It might be MORE than a game to some folks, but it is still a game. Claims to the contrary are unlikely to gain traction with me. Given that, I'm a good judge for T/framework. One might even say it makes the game work. I don't think the correct palliative for inequalities in the debate community is to take a break from debating the topic. Approaches to answering T/FW that rely on implicit or explicit "killing debate good" arguments are nonstarters.

Related thoughts:

1) I'm not a very good judge for arguments, aff or neg, that involve saying that an argument is your "survival strategy". I don't want the pressure of being the referee for deciding how you should live your life.

2) The aff saying "USFG should" doesn't equate to roleplaying as the USFG

3) I am really not interested in playing (or watching you play) cards, a board game, etc. as an alternative to competitive speaking. Just being honest.

Kritiks – If a K does not engage with the substance of the aff it is not a reason to vote negative. A lot of times these debates end and I am left thinking "so what?" and then I vote aff because the plan solves something and the alt doesn't. Good k debaters make their argument topic and aff-specific. That is SO easy to do on the high school CJR topic - I would much rather listen to a reform vs abolition debate than rehashed stuff from past years. I would really prefer I don't waste any of my limited time on this planet thinking about baudrillard/bataille/other high theory nonsense that has nothing to do with anything.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, especially when they are introduced as "the alt is compatible with politics" and then become "you dropped the floating PIK to do your aff without your card's allusion to the Godfather" (I thought this was a funny joke until I judged a team that PIKed out of a two word reference to Star Wars. h/t to GBS GS.). In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go.

Theory – theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” are rarely reasons to reject the team. These arguments pretty much have to be dropped and clearly flagged in the speech as reasons to vote against the other team for me to consider voting on them. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to. New affs bad is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals – By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points- My average point scale is consistently 28.2-29.5. Points below 27.5 are reserved for "epic fails" in argumentation or extreme offensiveness (I'm talking racial slurs, not light trash talking/mocking - I love that) and points above 29.5 are reserved for absolutely awesome speeches. I cannot see myself going below 26.5 absent some extraordinary circumstances that I cannot imagine. All that being said, they are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style. Saying "baudy" caps your points at 28.7.

Cheating - I won't initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

I won't evaluate evidence that is "inserted" but not actually read as part of my decision.

I am a Game Theory judge. I believe that debate is a game, and any argument that forms a coherent syllogism is "fair play" in round. I will have no qualms about voting for a policy that vaporizes the moon, disbands the U.S. government, or any other policy action that would normally be considered "absurd" as long as one of the teams can prove that the aforementioned action is the most advantageous choice in the round.

General:

• Be respectful, but don't waste your time asking your opponents for permission for things like the first question.
• This means treading the fine line of being aggressive and respectful.
• I like to see crystal clear clash on the flow. Please when framing rebuttals go in order down the flow. Do not bounce around.

Value/Criterion

• Provide clear links between your value and criterion and the rest of your case.
• At the end of the day your value and criterion are most important to me in LD. I want to see clear links and evidence upholding those.

ABSOLUTLEY NO SPREADING.

Hi, I'm Chloë! As a brief background, I attended Norman High School and now go to Yale, where I've been involved with Urban Debate League as a coach. My primary events were LD and FX/IX. I love debate and want to make it an educational, encouraging, and fun space for everyone. This means that I have a pretty low threshold for impoliteness. You probably won't lose the debate on it, but your speaks will reflect your attitude and, unfortunately, speaks matter in debate.

I have debated both circuit and traditional. I have no genuine preference for either one and will vote for the smartest/strongest arguments. To win my ballot, you need to win on the flow. However, you will impress me if you respect the game of debate-- don't try to trick your opponent with bad, underdeveloped arguments. Also, post-round oral disclosure is a good practice. I will always disclose, and you can feel free to follow up with me with clarifying questions (within reason, but yeah).

Lastly, here are a few of my tips for Oklahoma debaters:

1. Make your tags clear. I will not extend author names if there's no argument attached to it.

2. Call out your opponent's drops. If you do not do this, I will assume that the argument will not be extended throughout the round and I will drop it from the flow. (ie, it's no longer to your advantage that an argument was missed)

3. Don't blow off the framework debate. Everyone's time is wasted if there is no clash and you continue to build up a boring framework, so make your framework work for you. This can be especially fun if you're negative.

Happy to answer more questions pre or post round. Have a good time!

Hey y'all! My name is Miranda, and I'm a practicing attorney in Mississippi. I grew up in Norman, OK, where I debated for Norman High School. I primarily did LD debate and FEX/DEX, although I dabbled (poorly) in CX and a couple acting events. I've taught at debate camps and clinics, and I also debated for the University of Oklahoma my freshman year of college.

I'm very "go with the flow." I'm well-versed in philosophy, so if that's your angle, I can dig it. If the round comes down to a single definition, that's cool too. This is your round, so do what you want to do, and I'll keep up with you.

I highly encourage you to use all of your time. You have plenty of it, so use it to your advantage. Do not be rude to each other - check your ego at the door. This is a great, time-worthy sport, don't waste your opportunities being ugly.

I'm looking forward to hearing your debate/performance, and I hope you have fun!

I do flow, but only what I hear.

I do time, but that's addressed later in the paradigm.

I am ready before each speech so just debate like I'm not there.

I WILL VOTE ON THE FRAMEWORK MOST OF THE TIME.

My LD paradigm is super simple. I'm okay with all types of arguments as long you can prove a strong value/criterion link. I'm a traditional LD Judge, I won't knock progressive but I do ask that you are clear in your argumentation. I flow and I expect arguments to not be dropped and extended throughout the round. Besides that, I enjoy a fun round so don't be rude but don't be passive. Again I'm open to whatever just make sure that your arguments are clear, logical, and have a strong Value/Criterion Link. Please don't say your card names, say the argument. I do not flow card names if you say "refer to my john 3:16 card" I will have no clue what you're talking about, but if you say "refer to x argument" I'll be on board. As a traditional judge, I like hearing some philosophy. I am not a philosophy expert but I do know the major points of the more used arguments and I wont count it as part of the RFD unless your opponent calls it out. If they don't then run with it I guess.

PF is very similar, hit me with your creative arguments. I generally vote for winners based on which team can either give me the bigger impacts or who can give me a good amount of strong arguments. IF YOU SPREAD IN PUBLIC FORUM I WILL NOT FLOW. I AM A PF PURIST. DO NOT SPREAD I WILL TRULY LOOK AT YOU AND MAYBE WRITE ONE THING. IF YOU ARE A PFER AND SAY USE A PHILOSOPHY FRAMEWORK I WILL NOT APPRECIATE IT. PF IS FOR THE LAY JUDGE. TREAT ME LIKE A LAY JUDGE.

Also if you are reading this, just an FYI please TIME yourselves so I don't have to interrupt you. Again I'm super laid back so just make sure that arguments are very clear and logical.

CX is not my favorite so I have no real paradigm for it. Just tell me why your arguments are good. I like Ks but I hate nukes(extinction).

As you can tell by this paradigm that I'm somewhat lazy. So if you have any specific questions feel free to ask before the round AND do not be afraid to ask me what you can improve AFTER (LIKE IN THE HALLWAYS) the round or for advice.

If you try to post-round or debate me because of the results of the ballot, I will shut it down immediately but feel free to ask for critiques.

I did LD for 4 years and mustered about 200 rounds.

Feel free to email me if your questions reach beyond our time after the round!

Also please for the love of god add me to the e-mail chain

callahanstroud@gmail.com

Traditional

Speaks are based on how compelling and fluid your speaking was. The way you speak is totally irrelevant to my decision.

I assess the round by picking a winning framework and then applying that framework to the contention level debate. Framework itself does not impact my decision. I evaluate impacts through the "lens" of a criterion. Evidence does not Trump analytics. I find that often analytics can take out most evidence.

PF

a 20 second observation establishing an unwarranted philosophical weighing mechanism will not be evaluated. I'll weigh using the same loose notion of consequentialism most people use in day to day policy conversations. Give me good, analytical debate and I'll evaluate you accordingly.

Not traditional

I had a stint on the circuit my junior year and attended GDS a few years back. I'm as fluent in circuit language and argumentation as I am with traditional, but at some point I've debated against most kinds of positions. Policy is the one I'm most familiar with and feel the most comfortable weighing.

Here's my judging philosophy and my specific way of evaluating rounds:

Philosophy

I try to be tab. I will probably fail. To minimize the chance that you misunderstand or interpret the way I judge, refer to the bit below

1. Establish a weighing mechanism

Let's say that an affirmative criterion, a refutation to a negative Methodology K, and an affirmative T shell are the 3 arguments that the affirmative goes for in the 2AR. If I decide that the Methodology K is true, I no longer care about the criterion because it exists on a "lower" level of the debate. That being said, if I don't buy the K or the T shell, all I have left is the criterion and I will evaluate that. I will essentially start at the top and work my way down eventually stopping where I feel a side has distinguished themselves and proven an argument to be true.

2. Evaluate the round under said weighing mechanism

I will weigh and compare the impacts of the round under the established weighing mechanism. If I've decided that the framing of the T shell is the most important (lets say it emphasized fairness in the debate round) I no longer concern myself with the impacts of the criterion or the methodology K because they are irrelevant under the weighing mechanism. That being said, if you made a compelling argument that the impacts of the K are relevant under the T shell, I would absolutely weigh them

3. Tech > Truth with gut check unless compelled otherwise

If your argument is racist, it will fail the gut-check

If it's just stupid and your opponent doesn't have the sense to pick it apart, I will absolutely evaluate it

I will not evaluate unwarranted arguments. If you don't explain it, I don't particularly care if your opponent drops it. Be wary of this if you like to run tricks cases. A one sentence justification is fine if you give me a warrant, just make sure its there!

4. Speed is fine

Put a speech doc in front of my and I'll manage. Don't concern yourself with it unless I don't have anything to follow you with.

If you'll notice, my means of assessing both traditional and circuit boils down to the same principle. Give me a weighing mechanism and tell me how the impacts "weigh" under it. You will have no trouble if you do that

Bozho, Rachel ndezhnekas. Bodewadmi ndaw, Shishibeni ndbendagwes. Gkendasgemgek emikchewiyan. Hi, my name is Rachel, I am Citizen band Potawatomi and I work at the CPN department of education.

Pronouns: Ask, if you're curious. Otherwise call me judge or Rachel or Watson. Ask for others' pronouns in-round or default to they/them. I personally default to they/them until I'm told otherwise.

I've been coaching and competing in LD and policy since 2008. I started in middle school. In college, I debated at Central Oklahoma from 2015-16, and if you're thinking about that program or Wake Forest, ask me about why I left. I got my master's from Penn, and I coach at Holy Ghost Prep.

If you have an email chain add me: r.erinwatson@gmail.com  (Catholic League tournaments don't usually have chains but DON'T add me if you do. It's against the rules.) 

Email me about other stuff too, if you feel unsafe in round, if you want to know more about my paradigm, ask about arguments, get a better understanding of the RFD, etc. Also feel free to contact me at my day job if you would like to talk about going to college, debating in college, or translating your speech and debate experience into a college application essay!

Respect your partner and your opponents. Respect every judge, too, even if you've decided you don't need that ballot to win the panel.

NFCL top level edit- In LD I do absolutely love trad debate so please don't go full circuit thinking that's how you'll get my ballot. All the big picture points below still apply! 

Brief guide to getting my ballot (if you have 1 minute before round read the bolded on this list):

1. Be kind. Show empathy. Everyone in round is human, we are not debate robots, and it’s alright to bring your personality with you into the room. And this is #1 for a reason, kindness and recognizing our mutual humanity is the most important part of being a member of the debate community.

2. Read arguments and debate in a style that you enjoy. I like judging good rounds, and your round is almost always better if you like your argument and know it well. I have voted for poetry, and I have voted for politics DA.

3. Have a claim, warrant, and impact for every argument. I know 1ARs are hard, but you can be fast and efficient without being blippy. Don't be blippy!

4. Clash. Engagement with the other side's arguments and ideas is the one thing that makes this not a speech event. Not all arguments clash automatically! You must produce it in round.

5. Weigh all the impacts. Compare the impacts on the different sheets of paper and tell me why even if the other team’s argument is 100% true, I should still vote for you. Do this even if you and your opponent have completely different styles (i.e. trad v progressive LD, kritikal or policy based args, etc.). Don’t make me weigh things for you, chances are you won’t like the result. I am like most judges and I vastly prefer rounds where debaters tell me how to evaluate and how to write my RFD.

6. Focus on offense and framing (meaning how I should weigh or evaluate the round, or the debate's BIG question). In my head, there’s almost always a chance that the plan/alt/CP will solve. Terminal defense might be useful, and you probably can win that in front of me, but I’m much more comfortable voting for offense than defense or muddy techy stuff somewhere deep in the line-by-line.

All the below was written with policy in mind, but it applies to progressive LD as well.

Affs:

Run what you know and what you're prepped for. I will vote for almost anything.

Topicality and Theory:

I’m plenty happy to vote on topicality and theory arguments if debaters are willing to go all in and can defend that one model of debate or of the topic provides more education/learning opportunities. However, if the negative provides an overly exclusionary interpretation on Framework, they are going to have to work a lot harder to convince me that an exclusionary based model of debate is good.

AC UNDERVIEWS/THEORY (LD): Saying you get to have an RVI is not the same thing as having one... If you want one you have to tell me what the threshold is for making something an RVI and why that means I should vote on it, don't just say you get to have one. Sorry policy kids but you don't get an RVI, esp not on T.

Counterplans/Kritiks:

I generally prefer negative strategies that don’t contain a performative contradiction, like reading counterplans that link to a K of the aff. Other than that, please try to make it clear in round the ways in which your Kritik or counterplan function differently from the affirmative. Counterplans need competition and a net benefit, and k debaters should be prepared for impact framing arguments, especially in a round with a policy team. From the aff, be prepared to explain how a perm functions to achieve the net benefit/not link to the Kritik.

My K experience has mostly been with identity arguments; I know critical race theory- including afropess and set col best. I read and keep up with indigenous scholarship because I am Potawatomi (Citizen band). Yes, I am legally a citizen of this sovereign nation. Yes, I hate authenticity testing. This means I'm probably more willing to listen to speaking for others/commodification/etc. claims about why non-indigenous folks reading set col is bad than other judges might be. That Evans 15 card is probably also true of indigenous lit, sure, but Evans was very specifically speaking about afropessimism and white afropessimists.

Baudrillard, Foucault, Delueze, high theory abstract stuff, aren't my strong suit so develop good, clear, consistent explanations about your K/alt so my ballot can be clean.

I’m happy to answer debater's questions on specific issues/arguments prior to the round. I will also respond to emails after the fact if you have questions about my decisions. I try really hard to write long, detailed ballots, because I believe that even with a lengthy RFD after the round having a record is good for debaters and coaches! And also, no judge is perfect. But if you think I'm wrong, DON'T do the postrounding thing with me. Email me when you are back in school if you're still mad on Monday.

Hi all,

TLDR: Spreading is dangerous and have some easy to convey thoughts/argument - you're saying it for the 1 millionth time, but I'm hearing it for the first time.

Debate:

All: Spreading can be a risk as my hearing is not astounding - buyer beware (though I will provide a couple "clear" calls or warnings as needed).

I'm happy to vote for really anything well-argued, but a note for PF below.

PF: Remember its supposed to be accessible argumentation here, so some simple and clear data, an easy to understand example, and/or solid logical linking from A-Z may give more mileage than an abstract or convoluted theoretical argument without these things. Not saying it can't work to be theoretical, but statistics and data are your friend.

Extemp:

All: Sign-posting between points and being aware of your cadence to emphasize the key takeaways you want me/the judge(s) to pick up on can do wonders. Remember, extemp is an IE event - you have to be both convincing AND captivating of attention.