I will be looking for which team can best identify the key points of clash in the round and demonstrate why they have won those points. Consequently, I would prefer to see quality of argument and depth of evidence and analysis on the key points rather than trying to drag all points through the round. (That doesn't mean drop things like crazy! It just means get clear on what's actually important to the debate and related to the resolution). I particularly dislike spreading; again, quality over quantity will win the round for me. I will also closely examine the wording of the resolution, so arguments that are not adequately linked to the resolution will not be considered.

Currently attending Notre Dame studying Philosophy and Computer Science. I debated at BK (2017-2018) in PF and Jenks (2018-2021) in LD.

I generally have exposure to all types of arguments and styles. Just run whatever you're comfortable with. I'm okay with speed - I'll yell clear twice before I just drop my pen.

For zoom tournaments, I have a strong preference for there to be a chain. Please put me on it: ncoffman22@gmail.com

General debate things:

1. Tech > Truth

2. Evidence ethics is important. Don't clip, don't miscite, don't misquote. Any of these can result in an autolose.

3. If my ballot is not plagiarized from the 2NR/2AR, something is wrong.

4. I give a lot of credence to high evidence quality and good evidence comparison.

5. Time yourself.

6. I will disclose my decision.

Traditional LD/PF:

- 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)

- I generally evaluate things sequentially. I use who's value/criterion or framework is winning to determine which arguments and impacts to weigh and subsequently who's won the ballot. This means framework in and of itself is not a voter, but it has a massive impact on who wins my ballot, i.e., if you're winning the aff leads to extinction but you've conceded a Kant FW, you'll probably lose.

- Specifically for PF, I will default to a comparative worlds paradigm and util in the absence of any framework. I have a preference for frameworks being read in PF, but its not a deal breaker if you don't.

- Good debaters have consistency between their value/criterion or framework and their contentions. If you're reading Kant and then a bunch of util arguments, I might cry.

- Paraphrasing evidence in cases is a terrible norm. It allows debaters to lie about what authors have never said and embellish what they have said. I am not going to drop you for paraphrasing, but your evidence will hold less weight on my ballot and it will be held to the standard of cut cards, i.e., if I read an article you paraphrased and it does not say exactly what you said it did, it's off my flow.

I do not mind off-time road maps.  A clear outline of each point and subpoint during construction is imperative.  Linking each point to your value and criterion helps flow the case for judges and opponents. Definitions can make or break a case.  Be confident in your definitions.  Speak rapidly ONLY if you can also speak clearly. I like to see passion.

LD: I'm pretty traditional. I like values and criteria and evidence and clash. If you read a K or a bedtime narrative, I will stop flowing the round and take a nap. I have a speed threshold of "don't" and if you could please keep the jargon to a minimum, that would be great. Theory is cool, in theory, but it shouldn't be an entire framework. I like long walks on the beach, and a good tennis match. Also, don't shake my hand at the end of the round.

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

I appreciate arguments that are evidence-based, from the least-biased sources possible, and presented in a calm way. Normally-paced speech is appreciated. I have been judging speech and debate events as a fellow teacher for a few years, but I still feel new to this. 

Have fun during the round! This is a fun competition and feel-free to enjoy yourself while sharing your knowledge and your speeches! Be mindful of the time.

Updated for East OK Districts

Note: I have not competed, coached, or judged this topic so do not assume I am familiar with the topic literature.

Hi, I'm Sam. I debated high school LD (c/o 2020) at Booker T. Now I study Philosophy and Political Science at the University of Alabama. My email is sbrobson@crimson.ua.edu and my phone number is 918-607-0278. Feel free to reach out with any questions before the round -- texting me will probably get you a faster response.

I debated traditional LD but have some exposure to PF (just judging) and circuit LD (Harvard, UT, Heritage, occasionally at Nats). My paradigm for LD and PF are very similar, the main thing is that for PF I default to stock issues in the absence of a framework and won't vote on counterplans (unless you effectively argue why I should of course).

Things to know:

1. I will vote on any warranted and extended argument, unless it is bigoted and/or exclusionary.
2. I like to plagiarize my RFD from the winning debater's voter speech. Even if you won the flow, if you fail to show how and why in your voter speech, you'll probably lose my ballot. I don't like judge intervention (and you shouldn't either!) so if you don't connect the dots, I'm hesitant to do so for you.
3. I don't care about your debate style, as long you're not openly hostile. I like casual rounds and heated rounds, as long as both debaters are comfortable. I love creative arguments and new ways of approaching debate as well.
4. I am HORRIBLE at giving time signals so I recommend timing yourself.
5. I care a lot about citations and evidence ethics. Clipping = you lose automatically. Incorrect / missing citations = your card disappears from my flow.
6. Framework debate only matters if you use it. I see a lot of debaters waste time on framework when it has no impact on evaluating contention-level offense and their opponent's framework is functionally the same thing. I know some judges vote on framework alone (which makes no sense IMO) but I only use framework to filter your arguments.
7. Please keep the flow tight. If the flow gets super muddled because of one debater's lack of organization, I will probably give the opponent the benefit of the doubt.
8. I like email chains, especially for weird Zoom tournaments.

Let me know if you have questions :)

My experience includes 4 years of LD debate throughout high school as well as extemporaneous speaking and congressional debate. In college I competed on a national circuit in parliamentary style debate, LD Policy debate, and extemporaneous speaking. I’ve intermittently judged high school LD, policy, and congressional debate for the past 10 years. I consider my paradigm to be part tabula rasa, part games. I try to let the debaters determine the type of round it will be and I will vote on whatever the best and most logical arguments are. If a debater is able to logically defend their position as the most advantageous or the least disadvantageous, then I will vote on it regardless of how unrealistic or absurd it may be. I enjoy Kritiks, but they need to be well understood and ran with intention. I will listen to pretty much any argument as long as it links and you can defend it. I will vote on topicalities but I prefer to hear attempts at creative argumentation. I don’t mind speed but I prefer articulation over a larger quantity of arguments and my flow will be reflective of how clearly the speaker is communicating their arguments.

I prefer speechdrop but here is my email for document sharing/evidence chains if you need it:betty.stanton@jenksps.org

I'm the head coach of a successful team, and have been coaching for 18 years. I did CX in high school so long ago that Ks were new, and I competed in college.

LD: I'm a very traditional judge. I like values and criteria and analysis and clash. I want framework debate to actually mean something.

PF: I’m a very traditional judge. If the round becomes a very short CX round instead of a PF round, we have a problem. I want evidence and actual analysis of that evidence, and I want actual clash.

CX: I can handle your spread and I will vote where I'm persuasively told to with the following exceptions: 1) I have never voted on T. I think it's a non-starter unless a case is so blatantly non-topical that you can't even see the resolution from it. That's not to say it isn't a perfectly legitimate argument, it's just to say that I will probably buy the aff's 'we meet's and you might have better uses for your time than camping here. 2) If you run a K, you should firmly and continuously advocate for that K. 3) I, again, will always prefer actual clash in the round over unlinked theory arguments.

General Things ~

Don't claim something is abusive unless it is.

Don't claim an argument was dropped unless it was.

Don't advocate for atrocities.

Don't be a jerk to your opponents (This will get you the lowest speaker points possible. Yes, even if you win.)

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.

Nat'l Circuit:

I graduated from a traditional school, however, I was easily the most progressive debater on my team especially during my senior year. I know all the lingo so don't be afraid to use terms you normally would in regular rounds with a judge with a progressive debate background. Ks/CPs in PF/LD are cool, but if you can't support it better than your opponents args or if it has less impact then I might not vote for it. I don't know much about T/Theory so just explain it as much as possible. I judge all PF rounds off CBA (Cost Benefit Analysis), unless one or both of the teams provides framework. Impacts and cards are the most important part of rounds for me in any debate format, so go heavy on those.

PF:

I mainly did PF for three years, so I'd say I know a thing or two about it.

Progressiveness: Check the Nat'l Circuit part above.

Speed: Speed doesn't bother me, I used to speak pretty fast during rounds, but don't try to spread if you know you can't. Also, if you're going to spread you should be more than willing to share the cards you spread with me and your opponents. Also, if I am judging you on a traditional circuit and can tell your opponent cannot understand you because you are speaking too fast, I will ask you to either slow your wpm (words per minute) down, or to forfeit the round. Spreading to make it harder for your opponent to debate you is an abusive debate strategy that I will never vote for, no matter how much your opponent might have lost on the flow.

Framework: Personally not the biggest fan of framework in PF, but if you have it that's cool. If your opponents don't have framework, I will automatically default to your FW and vice versa. However, if your only main attack against your opponents who don't have FW is "they don't have framework," it's not necessary to repeat over and over again. On the contrary, if you hit someone who has FW and you don't and your only defense is "it's PF we don't have to have FW," and never mention it again, that argument will get dropped. Yes, in PF FW isn't necessary or even really required, but if your opponents have it you need to attack it with more than a "no FW in PF" argument.

Speaker Points: Things that will get you low speaker are racism, bigotry, ableism, sexism, discrimination against the LGBT+, screaming at your opponents, and being disrespectful to anybody in the round. It's unnecessary. I understand well enough myself that debate rounds can get heated, but that doesn't justify doing anything I just listed off. Also, if you're speaking too fast and I can't understand you or if you try to spread the entire round but it's unintelligible, again you'll get low speaks. Mumbling and being incoherent will also earn you low speaks. Last one, telling your opponent to "shush" will automatically get you 1 speaker point or 0 if that's possible to give. I've had an opponent shush me before, and it is insanely rude. Their coach rightfully chewed them out for it, and if you do it in a round I will make sure your coach chews you out for it. Do not do that.

RFDs: I will not vote you down for anything in that list I mentioned of things that will get you low speaks (racism, bigotry, ableism, sexism, discrimination against the LGBT+, etc.), because at that point I would not be judging your debate skill but rather your unfortunate character as a person. Rather, I'll treat it as if I'm ignoring the ignorant things you said and choose to educate you at the end of the round why that behavior is unacceptable generally, but especially in the debate space. The RFD will be on your online ballot as long as the tournament I judged you at has it set up right. If what I put in my RFD doesn't make sense or you want to know a bit more why you lost (or won, I guess), email me at jaleighthayer4n6s@gmail.com. It is a personal, debate only email so I will actually respond.

LD:

My experience in LD is equal if not a bit more than my experience doing PF.

Framework: If you drop your opponents framework, I will automatically default to it over yours. Framework is unarguably the most important part of LD. Also, I'm a Philosophy major at my college so trust that if you run a super traditional and philosophical framework wrong, I will know.

Philosophy: I'm a philosophy major, so yes I know about philosophy. However, if you run your philosophy wrong and continue to after your opponent points it out, I will not vote for it. In some cases of this, you may be able to win the round, but it's unlikely.

Refer to the PF section for concerns about RFDs, Speaker Points, Progressiveness, and Speed.

Same thing as on the PF section, if you're confused/want to know more about why you were voted down (or up I guess), the email is jaleighthayer4n6s@gmail.com and is my personal debate email, so you'll actually get a response.

Non-Oratory Speech:

Not gonna lie, this is not my area of expertise. So if I somehow judge a non-oratory speech round, treat me like a parent judge who kinda knows what's going on. Except for Poetry and DI, I literally barely did any acting speech so seriously, treat me like a parent judge.

Oratory Speech (OO, INFO, SO):

I absolutely love oratories. For OO and INFO, I will focus more on the quality of your speech, the message in your speech, and the delivery of it. Other than that, rock on. For SO (AKA Declamation), all the same stuff as the other two but I won't really focus on the quality of the speech (like how it's written) because you didn't write it. (Or at least I should assume you didn't.)

Extemp:

I love extemp with all my heart. I did it for four years, and did pretty well at it too, so expect me to be critical of your speech.

I will judge it off of timing, amount of sources used, background information (especially for FEX), and the quality of your speech. Also if your speech is boring, you'll probably end up in the bottom half of the room.

Went to nationals twice in PF, got 5th at state in FX, got 8th at state in PF.

Totally comfortable with theory/progressive debate as long as it is not sloppy.

You can spread if you like just share the case with me first, and know that I will not give you any bonus points for doing it.

Add me to any evidence sharing chain (I will look at all the evidence) I will not flow against bad cards unless the opponents indict it but I might doc speaks for it.

Make the most of CX, because I will flow it through.

If you do not extend an argument, I will not either.

I am going to vote off warrants so make sure those are pretty clear.

Try to tell me what the bigger picture is, like what a AFF v NEG world looks like. (especially in National Circuit Tournaments)

Also, I appreciate any references to Taylor Swift or the exceedingly long One Piece anime series.

Overall, be respectful and have fun!!!

"I may not be smart enough to debate you point-for-point on this, but I have a feeling that about 60% of what you say is crap" - David Letterman

I am the definition of the "citizen judge" in regards to adjudicating PF. I did not do debate while in high school (I focused on DEX as my primary event, but did on occasion do an interpretative event as well). I come to NSDA mainly as an amazingly proud parent who was blessed to watch his daughter shine in PF and DEX for four years. And for those of you that have taken the time to review these paradigms, thank you for your participation in NSDA. You are a rock star and my sincere congratulations for your achievements at any level - whether just starting out to participation in Nationals.

YOU - just as you are - are a rock star. Every one of you is worthy - just exactly the way you are and how you perform. If you take nothing else out of this paradigm, know that you are seen and I admire you for who you are and what you do - exactly as you are right at this moment.

Debate - My judging style for rounds is very simple - make your argument to the best you can. Convince me. Refute your opponents. Present your evidence. Don't drop anything that is truly important in a debate case. I know you know the arguments (and - you know the positions and the arguments better than the judges. We all know. We don't say it - but we know.) Part of what we all need to learn to live in this world is that each side comes at things from a different perspective. We don't need theatrics, drama, all of that - we just need to be able to clearly communicate where we are coming from and convince people. That is the paradigm of how I base my decision.

Extemp - Relax and take a breath. Have a solid introduction, restate the question and then tell us what you know. Cite references. Be clear. Restate the points at the end and have a conclusion that ties it together. The best extemp speeches are ones where I learn something I didn't know about before - whatever you know about the topic is enough, just share it with us.

Interpretative - I'm sorry - I wish I was better at these. Whatever your discipline - be you. If it is HI, show me your joyful side. If it is DI, show me the dramatic version of yourself. I will judge on the requirements of the event as a primary basis of decision - after that, it is how much you put into the performance. The best performances have left me laughing and in tears (both for the right reasons) - that kind of emotion is in each of you. Share it with us during the performance.

Congratulations for being a member of the speech and debate family and I look forward to seeing you soon.

Brian Welborn