I did PF Debate for my last 3 years of high school. I have done LD before and understand it well. I have competed in Parli Debate/Congress. I am currently competing on the OU Debate team for the college policy circuit. This means I am well-versed in all styles of debate. In terms of speech events: I have done DEX, FEX, OO, and Prose.

Things I will be looking for:

- Speaking: I appreciate elegant but assertive speakers. No spreading. Emphasizing points, especially if you really believe them, goes a long way. I want to see passion, or at least how well you can fake it.

- Professionalism: Do not disrespect your opponent. Say please and thank you. Ask for follow-up questions, don't just take them. You can talk down to your opponent's arguments without condescending them.

- Be Clear: By this, I mean you need to make it very clear why your side is the stronger one. Crystallize your arguments. The summary speech is a key opportunity to do this.

- Carry Arguments: Push your arguments through the round and do not drop any of theirs. I flow. Defend your case/cards, don't let them bring up an argument without refuting it (and continue to refute throughout the round).

- Impact Calculus: The main thing I, along with almost every other judge, will cast a winning ballot for. tell me WHY I should care. Like okay "yes this random thing is happening and it's probably bad", but how bad is it? And why? Make me care. Make it urgent. That is what a strong impact is. Make me feel like I literally have to vote for your side or it's OVER.

- Speaking: I appreciate elegant but assertive speakers. No spreading. Emphasizing points, especially if you really believe them, goes a long way. I want to see passion, or at least how well you can fake it.

LD is Value Debate. Propositions of Value

CX is Policy Debate. Propositions of Policy

I vote for whoever has the best argument and uphold the framework best

I will go with the framework that is most moral and has most impacts

If your evidence is not true I will not believe you

I will take down your speaks if your speaker points are bad

As a debate judge, my primary focus is on promoting a respectful and clear debating environment. Here are the key elements of my debate paradigm:

1. Respect and Decorum:

   • I place a high value on respect in debates. Competitors should treat each other with civility and refrain from personal attacks, derogatory language, or disrespectful behavior.
   • Maintain proper decorum throughout the debate, addressing your opponents and judges respectfully.

2. Clarity and Accessibility:

   • Clarity is essential. I must be able to understand your arguments to give you credit for them, so please enunciate clearly and avoid talking too fast.
   • If I cannot understand your argument, I cannot flow it.

3. Spreading:

   • If competitors choose to engage in spreading (rapid delivery of arguments), they must maintain clarity. Speed should not come at the expense of intelligibility.
   • Remember that spreading is not the only path to victory. Well-articulated, well-structured arguments can be more persuasive than sheer speed.

4. Use of Crossfires:

   • I do not consider crossfires as a time for rebuttals. Crossfires are meant for competitors to ask questions and clarify their opponent's arguments. I do not flow arguments made in crossfire.
   • Please use crossfires to seek clarification, challenge your opponent's arguments, and help me understand the debate better.

In summary, my judging philosophy is rooted in fostering a respectful and comprehensible debate environment. I believe that a respectful discourse is not only more constructive but also more persuasive. Clarity is essential, and I urge competitors to prioritize it, especially when spreading. Remember that crossfires are for questions, not rebuttals. Good luck, and let's have a productive and respectful debate!

A note about rule violations: I know the rules of debate. I am aware of both the OSSAA and NSDA rules and their various differences. I keep copies of the handbooks at the ready, so I can look up rules if I feel a rule was violated. That being said, I will weigh lies made in round in my judging decisions. Lies about cheating, evidence, drops, etc. are all weighed into my judging decision. Lying will not benefit you in my rounds. Debates should be about which team can make the best argument, not which team can trick the judge. If you need to lie to win, you did not win the round.

Notes for IEs:

I value genuine performance over screaming and fake crying every single time. Anyone can scream- few can act.

BIG NOTE: You NEED to implement trigger warnings if you have a selection with triggering content. You do not know what the experience of those in the rooms is- you could seriously hurt someone's performance by not giving a warning. You also do not know the lived experiences of your judges- they are a captive audience and you ought to give them a chance to prepare themselves. This is why dramatic pieces often get called Trauma Interpretations. That's not a compliment- it's a statement on how upsetting it is to see children acting out the most heinous trauma they possibly can in order to get reactions through shock value. If you are genuinely good- trigger warnings will not dull your performance- they will enhance it. If you rely on the shock of triggering people- consider if you are really a good actor. Trigger warnings DO NOT count against your speech time- there is literally no reason to give one.

I retired from Coffeyville, KS - Field Kindley Memorial HS in 2012 after coaching debate and forensics for 36 years. I continue to judge when possible. I consider myself a policy maker and prefer to weigh the impacts of the disads and advantages. Obviously, topicality and solvency will be considered, but without a reasonable and compelling DA the negative has to work harder. Additionally, I expect the Aff. to meet its prima facia burdens. I expect both sides to provide clash. Not a fan of Kritiks, but I will listen to most any argument that is relevant to the debate and expect rebuttals to narrow down to the most compelling arguments. I prefer that the round not be fast and incoherent. Clarity is key. If debaters are not clear and arguments do not link to the opponent's positions, then you leave the decision totally in my hands and I have to search for reasons to justify my decision. Not a wise choice. I have not coached for 12 years and will be out of the loop with "new debate practices". In other words, I'm old school. I can flow a round, but if a so-called argument gets by me, it won't impact my decision. Basically, "don't be stupid" and we will have fun.

As for LD and PF, I have coached both. Each have their own purpose, LD debates should establish a value. While both sides will present real world examples that support their value positions, this is not a policy debate. LD is value debate and the decision will be made for whomever wins the value debate. PF was originally intended to debate current events. Not sure that’s the case anymore, but as I rarely hear PF debates, I expect each team to present evidence and arguments that support their side best. Both LD and PFD were developed as an answer to bad, fast, incoherent policy debates. I expect LD and PF to be slow, conversational and persuasive.

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.

She/her pronouns.

Hello! I’m Morgan Russell and I am the head coach for Norman North High School in OK. We're relatively traditional style debaters, but part of my team does compete on the circuit 8 or so times a year. Before that, I competed in CX and PF in high school, assistant coached through college. So I’ve dabbled in it all.

Overall: My philosophy on debate whoever debates better should win. However, my personal opinion of arguments or strats shouldn't matter, so I default to weighing brought up by debaters whenever possible. I do believe Aff and Neg need to interact with each other's cases.

I’ll judge the round based off what you give me, and won't judge based off what I'd do, but what y'all did.

Add me to the email chain! morgannmrussell@gmail.com

LD: I think framework is important, but it’s not everything. You need evidence and solid analytics to back it up. I prefer we not spread, but I'm fine with some speed, if I can't understand I will say “clear” once or twice. From there, if it doesn’t make my flow, I can’t weigh it. I’m fine with Ks and Plans in LD.

PF: PF was made to be more accessible, so I don’t like when it gets too new wave. It’s not “mini-policy.” You can use debate jargon, but don’t just read cards the whole time. I need impact calc.

CX: It’s all fair game. As far as spreading, I’m okay but with Zoom it’s more difficult to understand. I will say “clear” once or twice if I can’t understand. From there, if it doesn’t make my flow, I can’t weigh it.

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 have no real paradigms, to be honest, just do your best and show me why you should win the round.

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.

I did policy debate for Jenks for four years, now I'm debating for OU. Put me on the email chain: supersalok@gmail.com.

I read both critical arguments and policy ones, so just read whatever you want. Good case debate is my bread and butter. I think debate is both a game and a place to learn things but you can convince me otherwise.

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!!!

This will be my 2nd ear judging. Being relatively new to judging, I really appreciate when the flow of the debate or forum is clearly called out (i.e. contentions, subpoints, voting issues). If I have to guess whether or not a competitor clearly rebutted a contention, or is stating a voting issue, I often assume it was not addressed.

I did PF for three years, becoming a state champion my senior year. I'm currently a sophomore at Princeton.

Just some general rules

Don't be mean. There's a difference between being aggressive in cross-fire and being mean, don't be mean.

Don't lie or misconstrue your evidence. I'll probably read evidence if you ask me to, and if I feel like you're stretching something then I'll probably call for the card at the end of the round.

About cross-fire: I generally don't flow cross-fire, but if something spicy is mentioned I'll jot it down. If you're witty you'll get some speaker points, but there's a big difference between being witty and being mean. Mean bad, Witty good.

Truth over Tech any day of the week, especially in PF. Something that will really help in clarifying how you win in that regard is by weighing your arguments in the context of magnitude, probability, and time-frame. I loooove impact calculus, really gets me up in the morning. That being said, don't just tell me that your argument is more probable, rather tell me why it is more probable.

I think PF is at its best whenever it is focused. Don't bring up some argument that has been ignored the whole round back up again in final focus. If it really is an important point then bring it up continuously in your speeches.

There's a lot of value in telling me why your evidence is better than your opponents, especially whenever they say opposite things. Also if you have a DOPE piece of evidence tell me why its a goldmine.

Overall I think debate is a fun time where we should learn a lot from. If I walk out of a round and don't learn anything, then there's a problem. If you can provide some unique analysis that provides an impact that makes me really care about the topic, then you've done a fantastic job.