hi. i am senior debating at Norman North with just myself (ld = lonely debate) i don't think i'm usually a mean debater or judge? basically,

- I hate lack of explanations or clash they make me very sad :(

- plz don't forget u have a framework,, its a very nice thing if you use it

- nothing is as spicy as a good cross examination so use it wisely

(no screaming, shouting, spreading, crying, sobbing, wailing, shreiking, yowling, hollering, bawling, screeching, howling, growling, barking, meowing, snarling, rumbling, bad mouthing, striking, slaping, smacking, hitting, punching, thrashing, whacking, pounding, attacking, assaulting, swatting, or assaulting)

in conclusion, just try your best and uh debate yea woo !

For PF, try to keep the event like it was intended. The round should not sound like policy, so that means no spreading, no counter plans, Ks, etc. The round should be easy to flow and easy to understand. I will prefer fluency over speed - every time. I will vote on impacts, frameworks, and arguments. Don't drop arguments and try not to concede time. I don't flow CX. 

For LD, no progressive, keep the arguments grounded within the round and the topic at hand. I should be able to know what you're saying at all times. The flow should be organized, and all arguments should be thoroughly addressed. I would appreciate a criterion so I know how to frame the round. 

Above all else though, and this goes for both LD and PF, be respectful. If you are rude to your opponents I will vote you down. 

Hello!

I'm Grant and I've debated quite a bit for Norman North

Email Chain - gjgoering@gmail.com

TLDR: I'm fairly tech. I'll try not to intervene if possible. I'll vote for pretty much anything with a warrant, but I need implications not just blips. I will do my best to adapt to you and how you like to debate

NOTE: I am a PF debater if I am judging LD then I'm sorry I don't know norms or anything. Read what you want and I'll do my best but treat me as a lay judge

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOVICE

- First and foremost do what you have been told to do by your coach, if something below and what your coach said to do are in conflict please do what your coach said

- I know the first few times you compete its scary and overwhelming so don't worry about the rest of what's in here, I've been in your position, don't be scared, you can do it!

- I'll do my best to give you as much feedback as possible and if there is anything I can do to help you understand this activity better or why I made the decision I did please please find me after the round or email me, I know its intimidating but I want to help you

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

OKLAHOMA 5a/6a

- I default to 29 speaks

- If your opps evidence is bad or misparaphrased show me before I leave the room, there have been problems in the past that ended up not getting dealt with because debaters didn't say anything until hours later

- DO NOT READ ME A "FRAMEWORK" in PF, I have watched or competed in well over 100 PF rounds here and not a SINGLE one of them needed a "framework" or used it correctly

- Other than that I can probably handle whatever you throw at me, just remember to have a good time and keep it consistent, don't go 150 wpm in case then 250 in summary

- My heart goes out to this circuit, I want you all to get better so if you have any questions or feel like my RFD/ballot was insufficient please find me or email me, I know we have a lot of bad judges and I will try my best not to be one of them so if you are really really sure you won and just don't get it let me know or have your coach reach out

- Regardless of what the tournament tells me to do I will tell you how I vote after the round, it is uneducational and unfair for you to only get feedback days after the competition or not at all (as happened with OSSAA state 2022), as one of my best friends Leon Shepkaru said "It's ridiculous that these tournament directors get to play god with our emotions and not tell us if we won"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EVERYONE ELSE

HOW I JUDGE:

- Debate is an educational game, make strategic decisions

- Tech>Truth, That isn't an excuse to under-warrant args: I need to understand what I'm voting for

- I default util and lives unless I'm told otherwise

- I presume for the team that lost the flip, if I can't know that then I default first speaking team

- I like cross but won't evaluate anything unless it's in a speech (feel free to skip grand if both sides agree, 1 min prep), cross is binding

- I default 28.5 speaks

- I disclose after the round

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PREFERENCES:

Speed:

- I can handle ~260-280 WPM

- If you get over 230 WPM I would like a speech doc

- I'll give you 2 clears if I can't understand but after that anything I miss is on you

- You should get slower as the round progresses, if you are still going well over 200wpm by summary you need a stronger collapse

Evidence:

- I don't care if you paraphrase or read off cut cards

- All evidence must have a cut card producible within 2min, after that period I will assume it doesn't exist and you will lose speaks, if it is a repeat issue I'll be very open to a evidence ethics IVI

- If you misparaphrase to the point where the meaning of the evidence changes I will drop you and set your speaks to the lowest allowed by the tournament whether that is 25, 20, or 0

- Same goes for any brackets you add to cards if they change the meaning then I will drop you

- That being said I read cut card and I know sometimes you need to change words to make it read correctly

- You should tell me about all questionable evidence (I WILL REVIEW IT IF TOLD TO)

Prep Time:

- Don't steal prep or your speaks go down

- Flex prep is fine

- I don't care when you take prep

Speeches:

- 2nd Rebuttal needs to frontline

- Summary and FF should be mirrors: if I don't hear it in Summary I won't vote on it

- Only thing that should ever be new in 1st Final is responses to 2nd Summary's implications and weighing

- FF should be all about telling me how / what you have won, I want a story

-The threshold for a response to weighing gets lower the later you introduce it, if I get some totally new pre-req weighing in 2nd Summary any decent response in 1st final will knock it off my flow

Progressive Debate:

My Prefs:

1 (Preferable) - 5 (I am not your judge)

- Topical Debate 1

- Theory 3

- Tricks Post Bid Round 3

- Ks 4 (I don't know any of the lit, so it will be hard for me to evaluate but I will try)

- Tricks/Friv Theory Pre Bid Round 5 (STRIKE IF YOU ARE READING)

- Non-T Ks 5 (STRIKE IF YOU ARE READING)

- If you are reading a framing argument (developing world, prioritize women, extinction good, whatever) I would really prefer you read it in constructive or at the latest first rebuttal. Every time I've seen framing introduced in 2nd Rebuttal or 1st Summary the round falls apart on both sides so just read it in your case if you are going to read it

- I personally think disclosure is bad for small schools but I won't hack for either side, debate how you want and exemplify the norms you think are good but if there is ANY performative contradiction for any shell you've read at the tournament and its gets pointed out in the round its a TKO

- Friv Theory is bad don't read it (Formal cloths, Macbooks, etc.) The only exception is if both teams give verbal confirmation to me that they would like to have a Friv theory round in which case I'd be happy to judge

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reach Out If You Have Any Questions!

Hello, my name is Bri :).

If you have questions please email me: briannalemaster1120@gmail.com

About me

I competed at Westmoore High School for 4 years where I was a 4x national qualifier and in multiple state final rounds. I also currently coach multiple events including all the debate events and some specific IE events. I also beat Taylor Rafferty in a debate round once.

TLDR: General Debate Things

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

2. You should be crystalizing and summarizing your best arguments in your last rebuttal speech going for everything is not in your best interest.

3. Clash is the most important thing for me in debate if you don't do it or are just avoiding it the round will probably not go well for you.

4. SIGN POST PLEASE. If you don't your speaker points just like your signposting won't exist.

Trad LD

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

2. Since progressive debate is becoming more common among the local circuit I'm fine with speed and counter plans etc.... All I ask is that if you're gonna do it please format it correctly and just call it a counter plan or a "K" or whatever don't try to hide it as a contention.

3. 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).

4. Your framework and your case should be able to match properly I don't want to see a Kant framework and then a bunch of extinction arguments I might sob internally.

PFD

1. FILL YOUR SPEECH TIMES. You already don't have a lot of time use it wisely!

2. Please don't make Grand Cross a big disaster please be civil and nice.

3. Make sure to carry your arguments all the way through final focus if they are not carried through I won't use it in my decision.

4. Public Forum Debate is called Public Forum for a reason it is supposed to be as accessible to a general audience as possible there shouldn't be a high use of progressive argumentation or debate lingo.

5. Don't be one of those teams that paraphrases evidence you will instantly lose all credibility.

Background: I've been doing PF, extemp, and a little bit of IE for 4 years. I qualified to nationals in congress, PF, and extemp, and I went Top 60 in DEX.

Framework: I will weigh on framework if you tell me why it matters and how your side upholds both the best. If both teams decide to drop framework, that's fine, just don't be the only side to drop framework.

Speed: Please don't spread. If you have a lot of information on your case and you have to read a little faster that's understandable but I can't weigh an argument I can't hear.

Argumentation: Explain your arguments clearly and concisely. I am all for unique arguments as long as they relate to the topic and have an impact that matters. If you want me to vote on something, tell me why it matters and how you solve better than your opponents. Speak confidently!

LD: I have little experience in LD, but the paradigms are mostly the same. Tell me why it matters and how you solve for it best.

Extemp: Use transitions and signpost your points. Develop your arguments and use lots of cards. Don't be afraid to throw in some jokes, they make the speech fun!

Be polite, have fun, and go get that bread, gamers.

Lay Debate

Overview

Hey everyone! My name is Jack Miller, I've been a LD debater for 4 years. I've qualled to NSDA nationals twice, qualled to TOC twice, and placed top 3 in lots of different national circuit tourneys. I care less about what you read and more about how you read it; idc what the framing and contentions are as long as its executed well. Just win the flow and I'll vote for you.

Good luck and have fun!

Misc Thoughts:
-Please extend args
-LBL>large overviews that just concede args (i.e. please dont give a 2nr where you just extend everything thru ink and say "voter" a lot)
-Framing isnt a voter, you need to win contention level offense under it otherwise its just a presumption ballot.

ask any other questions in round if you have any.

Goodluck and have fun!

Circuit Judging

About Me

Hey everyone! For those of you who couldn't tell, my name is, in fact, not Pegasus Mitusbishi Fitzgerald - it's Jack Miller. I am currently a rising senior from a small school in Oklahoma (ACCS). My decisions in debate very much center around strategy, so I've read a very eclectic range of arguments—everything ranging from a myriad of phil affs, to trix and friv theory, to pess and debate bad—so I am happy to evaluate whatever type of round you want.

Ideological Overview

One of my strongest beliefs in debate is that the flow is the sole determiner of who should win the round, so my goal as a judge will always be to render the most objective and equitable decision possible. I don't ever want a debater to feel like they have to accommodate to me—read whatever arguments you feel most comfortable with and I will do my best to evaluate the round presented in front of me. Of course, I am not omniscient so I naturally understand some arguments more than others (i.e. I am probably the worst at evaluating larp vs larp), but I will always consciously attempt to detach myself from any biases or predispositions I have. In summary, you can read whatever arguments you want as long as you win them on the flow and implicate them as justifications for voting in a particular way.

I don't care how fast you go, but if I can't understand you, I will shout clear. I would also prefer if you included analytics in docs since it ensures with certainty that I won't any miss arguments, but if you decide not to, I'll still do my best to toggle on my inner flow-bot.

Judges who I've always liked and strive to judge similar to: JP, Castillo, Taj, Sam Azbel, Tom Evnen, Becca Traber, Scopa, Aqin, Leedrew, Austin Broussard, Joey Georges, and pretty much every other tab judge on the circuit. If you like the judges listed above, you will hopefully like me.

Quick Pref Shortcut

Prefs are hell to do at most tourneys, so if you are feeling time-crunched or lazy, here's a TLDR as to what I feel most comfortable evaluating:
1. Phil, Theory/T, K, K Affs, Trix.
2. Policy (this is for policy vs policy; I feel very comfortable evaluating policy vs Phil/K and don't lean in either direction)

Specific Arguments

Kritiks

Overview: I've read a lot of Ks throughout my career and think they have the potential to be very strategic. The lit bases/Ks I'm familiar with are disability (Mollow, Fritsch, St. Pierre, Hughes, Campbell, and pretty much every other author that is read in debate), Deleuze, Baudrillard, Berardi, Edelman, Lacan, Setcol, Cap, Security, Afropessimism, Grove, Bataille, Weyhelie, Cybernetics, Onticide, Virilio, Baldwin, James, and utopian authors like Munoz. HOWEVER, you should not take this as an excuse for not explaining arguments - I'll still have the same threshold for extensions as normal.

Specific Preferences:
-Word PIKs are strategic
-Not a huge fan of author indicts or other ad homs.
-

K Affs

Theory

Overview: I read lots of theory throughout my career and think it's incredibly strategic in a lot of circumstances. Here are some of my specific thoughts on theory:
1. I am of the belief that there is no such thing as friv theory - if you win a theoretical arg then it's just as valid as any other. However, feel free to make arguments to the contrary in the round and persuade me otherwise.
2. If you are going for reasonability, PLEASE provide a reasonability brightline! Otherwise, I don't know how to evaluate what is reasonable, and I'll probably be very compelled by arguments as to why I should reject reasonability without a brightline.
3. RVIs are coherent and people should read them more often. I don't know why they have such a negative stigma to be honest. In most cases, they waste the opponent's time at worst, and can win the round at best.

Trix: Like I mentioned in the ideological overview, I will evaluate any argument with a warrant (no matter how bad it is), so yes I will evaluate trix. I've gone for a lot of tricky arguments and honestly find this style of debate to be super fun in moderation. Here's some things to keep in mind:
1. I am a philosophy geek and am particularly interested in things like formal logic and skeptical problems, so there's a good chance that I've read entire articles about whatever trick you are going for. This is not to say that you should under-explain arguments; I am simply saying that you shouldn't feel pressured to shy away from esoteric arguments or condense claims into incoherence for the sake of explanatory ease.

Policy: This is the style of debate I am least familiarity with because I never enjoyed reading these arguments myself, so I have much less first-hand experience with it. However, I do still feel very familiar with the Policy vs K/Phil debate, and think extinction outweighs is one of the stronger arguments in debate. Here's some miscellaneous thoughts and things to keep in mind if you are reading a policy aff or DAs/CPs in front of me:
-Even if the 2NR is 6-minutes on T, you still need to extend case—It feels arbitrary to disregard args that aren't extended in every instance except for a 2AR vs T. HOWEVER, saying "extend case, it was conceded" will suffice.
-In a lot of scenarios, I think 1AR framework + weigh case is the right 2AR rather than the perm (i.e. the perm is pretty incoherent vs pess in my opinion). However, I do still think spamming perms is a good time suck, and am a big fan of creative, strategic perms.
-I think multiple condo is probably bad but you can easily win otherwise. I also really enjoy hearing CP theory debates.

Speaks

Speaks are a referendum of how well you debate, not how well you talk. If you make strategic pivots, smart arguments, demonstrate good time allocation, make arguments efficiently, implicate claims well, and display impressive round vision, I promise you that it will be reflected in your speaks.

Safety

As I stated at the start of my paradigm, I am an incredibly tab judge, and will evaluate any arguments presented. However, if anything makes you uncomfortable in any way, please let me know (you can text me at 405-763-7778 if you would like to do it discreetly but quickly) and I will immediately stop the round and figure out the best course of action.

Miscellaneous Thoughts

Defaults

If no arguments are made on a particular issue, I'll default to the following:

Ev Ethics

I would prefer you to just debate it out if its a insignificant rule like not having a link to an article.

CX

1. CX is binding just like any other speech. I highly doubt I will evaluate any arguments to the contrary (to clarify, you can argue about the semantics of what was said and the implications if it, but just not blatantly choosing to sever out of what has been said.
2. Prep can be CX but CX can't be used as extra prep.
3. I don't flow CX (by default - if you want me to flow, tell me and I will), but I'll listen and will write down anything that you flag as important.

Traditional/Locals Paradigm

Background: PF debater for 2 years

PF

FW- If framework is used, you must weigh throughout the entire round but I focus heavily on contention level debate.

Speaks- Do not spread. If I cannot understand the evidence, your opponent most likely will not either. Slow down tags, enunciate, and SIGNPOST. I would like to hear author citations and credentials in constructive. (keep your own time for speeches + prep)

Argumentation: Tell me what argument you're responding. Lots of clash in the rebuttal is really fun, but if the arguments are not extended after rebuttal, it's dropped. Tell me why the argument matters and quantify your impacts!

Evidence- I won't call for cards unless the evidence is bizarre or am told to do so in a speech.

LD

Same paradigm as PF in terms of argumentation, but I have little experience in LD. Weigh your arguments and I'll keep up.

If there is an email chain, add me: jackie.nguyen222@yahoo.com

GOoD LUCK :)