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'm a parent of a debater. Assume that I don't know much.

I did high school debate, mostly LD, and I was decent. And I did some high school coaching on a volunteer basis. But that was a long time ago. For the past couple of decades I've been completely out of the world of debate. I think the most fundamental aspects of debate are probably pretty stable over time, but jargon and trendy arguments are always changing and evolving. So that's why I'd advise not making any assumptions about my debate knowledge. You can, however, count on me to be an enthusiastic, engaged, open-minded judge -- and one who is relatively fast on the uptake when things are explained. Explaining things (giving the "why") and doing this better than your opponent is likely to give you an edge.

DO NOT SPREAD. I have not trained my ear for spreading. And if I don't understand you, it will be as if you never said it.

I'd like to think of myself as an extremely objective, impartial, blank-slate debate judge open to any argument, but we are all probably much more anchored by our experience and world-view than we want to admit. So here's where I'm coming from: I'm a law professor at the University of Oklahoma. To me, debate is argument, and argument, fundamentally, is reason-giving. So I will strive to vote on the flow, but I am likely to reward debaters for being smart, and don't expect me to be swayed by undeveloped blips. Clarity matters a lot. I very much care about courtesy/decorum/civility and don't like rudeness.

(In writing this up, I benefitted from looking at, and borrowed some words and phrases from, the paradigms of Josh Zive and Victor Jih -- two people I think very highly of.)

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.

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 debators who at least attempt to add some persuasive flare in their speeches, but I do NOT wan 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.

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.