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."

I graduated from Norman North in 2019 and OU in 2022 with dual degrees in political science and professional writing. I am an English teacher and debate coach at US Grant High School and a two-time published poet.

From 2012-2019, I competed in PF, LD, Congress, and all IEs. LD and Congress are by far my favorites. I've been to regionals, state, Nats, and TOC.

I have judged in the West OK circuit since January 2023 and was a coach and judge for Norman/Norman North at Nationals 2023.

Being a respectful, charismatic speaker is most important. The most persuasive speakers are expert storytellers. I'll happily choose the more compelling storyteller over the person with the most cards. Crack a joke. Show personality.

PF should be treated on balance, so I will carefully follow where there is clash of arguments. I want to see offense and defense. I will treat LD similarly, but FW will always matter more in LD.

In LD, if you do not have a FW, then I will default to your opponent's. If you do not make it applicable to your own case, then the opponent will win on that voting issue. If you both have a FW, I want you to tell me where your FW interacts with the other. Does it encompass theirs? Does it narrow the scope? Why does that matter?

I also like to see creative arguments. Bring a fresh perspective. Big K fan when done right, but my preference will always be for traditional LD debate.

TLDR:

PF: 1. speaking 2. clash of impacts 3. FW (maybe)

LD: 1. speaking 2. FW clash 3. impacts, I debate trad, but theory is fun sometimes.

Things to avoid and other notes:

Ad hominems.

Straw man arguments.

Inundating your opponent with evidence and telling me "Judge, they dropped my 2nd and 43rd responses you must vote on that." (I will not vote on that.)

Adaptability is critical to success. So while certain strategies/etc are allowed and often welcome in the nat circuit, I will expect competitors to adapt to their judges' paradigms. Learning how to read a room is a valuable skill. Good luck to all competitors and don't forget to have fun!

So I guess I'll start off by letting you know that I did PF and I am studying to be a coach now! Woo, yay-sies.

That being said, onto my actual paradigms:

First of all: I will almost always vote based on impact weighing; this means at the end of the round I will use any empirics to make my final decision(usually this ends up being numbers unless it is a debate where numbers are not a possibility on one or both sides). To follow impact weighing, I cannot weigh your arguments if they don't have proper links so pls and thx have links and make them obvious!

Secondly: If you are doing a speech event I will make sure you have all parts of a speech(intro, body, conclusion, sources- I have things I look for in each section) and then I will go off of speaking ability, pretty straightforward.

As a note for debates! I promise I keep track of time! I stop flowing arguments when time is up but if I let someone go a little long it's because I'm giving them just a second to figure it out!

You got this girly-pops!

I hate spreading. I will never flow during cross examination, so if it's important, bring it back up. Please keep argumentation topical and respectful. The only thing you have to convince me of is that your framework is the strongest way to uphold the resolution.

I am a veteran parent debate judge. One student: a Senior in high school. I have: BS in Mechanical Engineering & Master's degree

I will attempt to flow the rounds and appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence, and knowledge of your sources. Not all sources are created equal so be willing to evaluate them. The date of a source can be important --- eg, it has current up-to-date information or it is a classic or comprehensive source that has not been superseded. Convince me with good, empirical evidence and a carefully made argument, not with a bunch of PF/LD lingo.

I value the time and energy you have invested in debate and seek to put that same effort into being an attentive judge. Good luck!

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!

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.

As a judge, my priority is to evaluate the debaters in front of me as fairly as possible, regardless of personal beliefs. I have experience with LD, PF, and Congress. You may choose Trad or Tech just be reasonable and if you plan on speaking over 250wpm+, you should send a speech doc to ensure all points are evaluated.

I have three absolute rules for round:

1. Do not be condescending /disrespectful to your opponent(s) unless you feel like losing speaks and possibly the round. Passion and energy are great, disrespect is not.

2. Do not misrepresent/power-tag your evidence. You will lose the point and possibly the round, depending on the severity. This includes misusing, statistics.

3. Do not mischaracterize your opponents arguments or actions in round. Ex: insisting they dropped arguments they clearly addressed. You are welcome to tell me when you believe an argument should flow to you, although I may not agree.

I have no bias regarding theory, K's, ect. that don't break tournament rules. However, you should approach the round as if I know nothing about the argument you are running. That being said, if it doesn't make sense, I will not vote on it, you must prove your argument should win you the round. Ex: Saying your opponents shoes are a voter does not make it so.

Some specific information:

On weighing: I do not automatically way in "layers" or give preference to any specific type of argument, you need to prove that your approach takes priority.

Kritiks: Generally acceptable.

Non-T K's: If you are reading a K that is not topical It needs to be excessively relevant to the round. By that I mean that you telling me that I should vote for you because debate is sexist, will not sway me. However, If your opponent called you a sexist term or used sexist language to undermine you, I will absolutely evaluate a Kritik that concludes your opponent is bad for the Debate space. A topical statistic that you find offensive, is not reasonable ground for the K, facts and logic are critical to a meaningful debate.

Topical K's: I am fine with topical Kritiks, however you must prove that you earned the vote. I'm unbiased, so I'm perfectly comfortable evaluating anything you would like to run, Cap, Anthro, Fem, Pess varieties (I have a very high threshold for link and impact evidence here), and whatever else you can think of. As long as I believe you proved it, and you defend it, it is acceptable.

Note: A large volume of illogical evidence will not outweigh well-reasoned logic.

Theory:

Friv: Do not waste my time with shoe theory, formal dress theory, apple-laptop theory, or any other variation, unless both teams decide they just want to have some fun.

General Theory: For theory to carry a round it needs to outweigh the original purpose of debate. If there is a legitimate offence and you are enriching the round or the debate space by reading the shell, go for it, even if I don't love it, I'm willing to vote on it. You will need to do a lot of work to prove that the offense was egregious enough to warrant me dropping substance on the ballot.

CI: Counter-interps always get offense unless the team reading the shell proves that their opponents were theory-baiting, or does significant work to prove that they should get a 0-risk timesuck for whatever reason they choose. If you are willing to win on the shell, you should be ready to lose on it.

Reasonability: If you prove the offence had no effect on the round, and that you have a bright-line to fairness, I will drop the shell.

Plans: Plans are fine if the rules allow them.

Tricks: I think these de-value debate.

Performances: I have no experience with these, but if you prove its a reason to vote, I'll vote on it.

Don't be rude

╱╱┏╮
╱╱┃┃
▉━╯┗━╮
▉┈┈┈┈┃
▉╮┈┈┈┃
╱╰━━━╯

Please put me on the email chain: sarammoore637@gmail.com

Short Version

I primarily did local/traditional LD debate in Oklahoma. I probably cannot follow your fast spreading or jargon. I’d prefer to judge debates where I don’t have to intervene or guess at what you were trying to say. Spell things out for me, weigh things for me, warrant your arguments. I have not judged this topic. The more you can explain things without jargon, the better.

Pref shortcut:

1/2 - I am a traditional debater or can adapt

3 - I’d rather you than a parent I guess?

4 - I do not know how to debate without spreading

5 - I primarily rely on big words and tricks to win

General

1. I did LD for Norman High School in Oklahoma from 2015-2019. I am on a gap year, starting at Harvard next year. In high school, I qualified for nationals twice, but I never attended. I basically only competed on the local circuit, which means I pretty much only encountered lay debate. I went to VBI twice so I was briefly exposed to more progressive debate, but that was 2 and half years ago.

2. My lack of national circuit experience does not necessarily mean you shouldn't read progressive arguments if that's what you want to do. I am not biased against them (at least not consciously), but, whatever you read, just make sure you explain it really thoroughly and warrant it.

3. For the sake of everyone involved, be respectful. I am not impressed by rudeness. You can be blunt or whatever, say what you want, but, in personal interactions with me and your opponent, be kind. Debate is inherently a confrontational activity and creates a lot of toxicity and exclusion so if you can make it less so, I will be very happy. If you’re reading something that necessitates being rude, make sure that is explained and probably ask if that’s alright first.

4. Blippy arguments are risky not just because they kinda suck, but also because I probably won’t catch them.

5. No flex prep or prep before cx

Speed

Ok so, I don’t know the WPM that will kill me, but I listen to my podcasts at 2 times speed so whatever speed that is is probably around my comfort level. This is the only metric I can provide as I am, once again, from Oklahoma and am very detached from even that circuit.

For my sake and yours, please speak clearly. I will say clear 3 times and then give up.

Theory

Umm...as I type this I am struggling to remember what parts of a shell are..so let that serve as a warning.

I think that means I won’t feel very comfortable voting on what feels frivolous theory because I am not incredibly confident in my ability to evaluate it on a technical level. An example would be if you read a shell because your opponent closed the door, restricted the airflow throughout the room, reduced your ability to inhale in enough air, and thus, made it harder to for you spread, I would laugh and commend you for your effort, but probably not vote on it if I could avoid it.

That being said, I will vote on something that is a legitimate problem, but I don't know what is actually 'abusive' so you will have to clearly spell it out for me as to why the round was so skewed that I have to vote on theory.

Full-disclosure: I am probably biased against disclosure theory because that is not a norm on the OK local circuit, but don’t let that stop you if you feel like reading it. I will vote on it if I understand.

I will vote on RVIs if i can figure out how to?

Ks

Careful here. I have little experience, but also like in general if you explain stuff slowly...go ahead.

Phil

If you are reading something complicated, I commend you and I hope you are good at explaining it, not because I am on the lookout for inaccuracies or incorrect explanations, but because unless I understand, I won’t feel comfortable voting on it.

I don’t read philosophy in my free time. You could mischaracterize Hobbes as Rawls and I would not care unless your opponent pointed it out and explained why I should.

I have biases because they, yanno, allow me to live life normally and feel grounded in reality. For example, I kinda just assume happiness and pleasure matters in some capacity. Keep that in mind when you are reading something that runs counter to that, you might need to explain yourself more for me to shake those off and get what your argument.

CPs

Honestly go off, read PICs or PIKs, live your life. Explain it though. Understand, I might be sympathetic to perms if I can remember what those are.

Speaks

25-26: You said something offensive. I will definitely note whatever caused this on the ballot and in the RFD.

27-27.5: Meh. I said clear 3 times and you ignored it and I was

28-28.5: Solid

29: Wowza

30: Double wowza

I did LD for 3 years at Bishop McGuinness and now I do policy at OU.

Include me on the chain:

blaine3252001@gmail.com

Lincoln Douglas /Public Forum Debate

I prefer a more conversational approach to debate, as opposed to spreading. A few well developed and explained arguments are often more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments that are less well developed. Debating debate for debate's sake misses the point of these events.

In Lincoln Douglas the Value & Criterion framework is key to weighing the round. This framework should be extended through the round. Philosophy and moral arguments are fundamental to Lincoln Douglas Debate. Linking impacts and drawing logical, reasonable conclusions earns points with this judge.

I'm less impressed by the "card shuffle" than by reasoning, impacts, and solid argumentation.

Individual Events

A Note On Trigger Warnings

By knowingly and intentionally bringing a piece that can and will trigger people, you have made the room a potentially unsafe for participants. By asking people who will be triggered to leave the room, you are singling out people with trauma and making their private matters public.Tournaments are public and educational - asking people to leave a round denies them access to the educational environment.

Issuing a trigger warning does not solve the problem of choosing traumatic content that could harm the mental health of competitors in the round. These are not "magic words" that absolve you of the responsibility of your choices. If you want to show that you care about triggering people, don't select triggering content.

I would strongly advise choosing appropriate, non-vulgar and non-triggering content appropriate to the educational setting that can evoke emotion and showcase your talent without knowingly & intentionally traumatizing other students and judges who may choose to suffer rather than singling themselves out in public, or being denied fair access to the educational setting by being asked to leave.

- I am a flow judge.
- Be kind and respectful to your fellow debaters and people in general.
- Don't spread, be clear so that I don't miss something that might be key in your arguments.
- If it's important in cross examination, bring it back up in your argument.

Put me on the email chain: kadewilliams27@gmail.com

Please call me Kade not just judge.

History:

3 years at Moore highschool, double state finalist
1 year at UCO, quall to NDT and 33rd at CEDA
Current SNU

Policy:

I've done just about anything you could think of in policy debate and I'll be good for most things you say. In recent years I've ran almost exclusively settler colonialism, and I tend to be a K focus judge. I don't hold many strong opinions about things in debate, but I've been a 2n/1a for most of my time in debate and most of my 2nrs are the K.

Specific thoughts:

Policy v K debates: This is the type of debate I find that most teams kinda just read their blocks and not interact with the flow, please don't do this with me in the back. I lean a bit neg on the fw question on these debates I guess if I had to have a preference.

K v K debates: no specific comment - I greatly enjoy teams that do a lot of comparative works on their theories and I think that a lot of explanation on why your theory is correct goes a long way with me.

Framework: If the counter interp resolves a large chunk of limits I lean towards the aff. However, I think that if the counter interp doesn't I find it to be a bit hard for the affirmative to impact turn a lot of the neg offense.