I Judge debate primarily and moot court. I have been judging events for over 10 years now. I am a trial attorney for 25 years and have tried thousands of cases. I am a regular speaker for both public and private events. I regularly speak at events and present seminars on various issues for the Oklahoma Bar Association and other entities. I spent 13 years in the United States Army and Oklahoma National Guard as a decorated NCO. I have a Juris Doctorate, degrees in Political Science, History and Sociology. I attended Oklahoma State University and The University of Oklahoma College of Law. I have participated in moot Court competition as well as Judged various moot court competitions and debate competitions.

When Judging, I am most concerned with presentation. I want to see someone who is organized and presents a solid case for their position. I want presenters to follow the prescribed format of their event, but most importantly convince me of your opinion. Set a strong foundation and provide evidence. Make me believe you and you alone are correct.

I will not tolerate bullies, racism, homophobia, sexism or other rude and unacceptable behavior. If you act like that, I will make sure you do not get positive marks from me. 

I am more concerned with substance over form. I use my vast trial and presentation experience, combined with my experience as a presenter and public speaker to evaluate the competitors as to the viability of their arguments and the foundation of their evidence and persuasiveness of arguments. 

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 am a parent of a competitor and a lay judge. Speak at a pace a layperson can understand and process. Avoid using jargon so that I can hear and understand your argument. Clearly spell out the issues I am deciding the round on. Refrain from being any kind of -ist or phobic. Be proud of yourselves and enjoy this experience.

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!

I have been judging regularly for about 15 years; and I am in my seventh year coaching Harding Charter Prep HS in Oklahoma City. I love every single event offered for competition. They are all valid. Memes hating on particular events are lame. Follow @hcpspeechdebate on Instagram and Twitter.

LD/PFD: I prefer quality of information and sources as well as clarity and presence of speakers over speed and quantity of information and sources. The more you can tell me about the qualifications of a source, the better I can weigh them. If you give a simple (Last Name/Year) tag, you can assume I know nothing about the author. I like to see your personality as a debater and jokes/lighthearted moments are welcome as long as they are within the scope of the topic. I dislike plans and policy-style approaches to Lincoln-Douglas debate; if you want to do Policy, there's a debate for that. I believe that the heart of Public Forum debate is that it should assume any judge is a lay judge and is more informal and free of debate jargon. Limit pre-case observations and don't place impossible burdens on your opponent. Be civil and professional during cross-examination or your speaker points are toast. Use cross-examination time to ask questions, not make another speech. Use your speech time and prep time! Your constructive speeches should be as close to memorized as possible. I want to see you speaking/debating, not just reading. Cases on paper vs on a laptop gain an automatic advantage. Have fun!

Big Questions: Please, please, please read the Format Manual. Then read it again. Use the Format Manual as evidence in round if you need to. Please let this thing have a chance to become its own thing before we drown it in the other debate sauces.

Policy: If I am judging round round, I apologize in advance. Something has gone awry at this tournament and I am a kind-hearted person with a semi-functioning brain that has been put in to prevent the round starting hours late. We'll make it through this together. I'm probably not gonna disclose unless tab forces me to.

Congress: Don't read word-for-word pre-written speeches. You should have an outline. Pay attention to the whole of the round, not just sitting there prepping for when you are going to talk. Keep questions concise.

World Schools: Requests for POIs should rise/raise as often as needed but don't be a pest about it. You are at the discretion of the speaker. Avoid debate jargon. Rely on reason and logic. Appeal persuasively. Prop arguments should do their best to prove the resolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. Opposition arguments should be about broad rejection of the resolution, not just finding an outlier to say that one example is representative of all.

Final Thoughts: This activity is for education. Winning and excellence should always be celebrated, but not the only goal. Remember that Words Matter and Words have Power. Respect the purpose of the Pronouns and name pronunciation options in Tabroom. The NSDA has worked hard to be inclusive. Don't abuse that. #NotGarbagePeople

Parent judge- but have been judging for 2 years.

Judge LD + PF.

Impact based weighing > evidence, but both are important.

Spreading: I've only had one person I couldn't keep up with, so it doesn't bother me.

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!

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.

I have been teaching Speech & Debate for 16 years. I particularly enjoy speaking events and LD debate. I do not care for spreading. I don't mind if you speak fast as long as I can understand you. If I can't understand the argument then I can't vote for your position. I look at the structure of the case as well as the delivery. Your job is to convince me that your Value is the highest in the round. I look for you to uphold your value throughout your case. You need to make the links and impacts, I won't do it for you. Please use a 4-step refutation.

I am big on structure in case. You must be able to uphold your Value and Criterion throughout your case. Each contention should fully support and link to the V, Cr, and resolution. Each contention should have a claim, warrant, and impact. You DO need evidence to support your ideas. Evidence comes in the form of facts, statistics, studies, logical reasoning, and expert opinions. The evidence you use should directly support the claim. You also need to impact the argument. Just because you prove something doesn't tell me why it matters to uphold your side. "If you don't tell me why it matters, it doesn't matter."

During rebuttals start with a roadmap so I know what you are going to do and in what order. Go down the flow to prevent drops. Most importantly when you argue drops in the round please do not use the phrase "he dropped my contention so it flows to me". You must impact this for me. Why does it matter that he dropped that particular contention? How does it help you or hurt them?

Please do not plagiarize cases from briefs. Utilize them to facilitate your ideas but do the work yourself. I want your ideas, not someone else's.

All in all, I am looking for a good debate.

I have 4 years of PF experience, so with that being said, I usually go off impact calc judging rounds. To properly weigh evidence I need proper links. be clear and concise, and if you're unsure, make it painfully obvious. break it down as if I have no idea what's going on. Don't drop major points/ evidence, it could make or break the round.

I enjoy a team who clearly knows their material and knows their cases/blocks like the back of their hand.

I have zero tolerance for bullying in rounds. Be respectful to everyone in the room and have fun!

A bit of background:
I debated policy 3ish years at the University of Oklahoma and 4 years at Edmond Santa Fe High School. I've judged policy/LD/PF debate since then.

Yes put me on the email chain:
parkerstephennelson@gmail.com

Most of what is below is tailored towards policy debate:

I believe that debate is a game that fosters a multitude of positive things: critical thinking, problem solving, logical decision-making, communication skills, and exposure to an abundance of topics that no other activity provides. Because of this, I try to give back to this community and support it in every way I can. There is no wrong way to debate, and bringing your own flavor/style is encouraged. I have an extensive amount of experience with critical arguments but I can get down to a good policy debate too. The best judges I had were the ones willing to listen to positions from every possible angle, and that's what I strive to emulate.
Thus, I try to outline my general preferences in technical terms:
-- Each argument must have a claim, warrant, and be properly impacted out. The other team dropping the argument doesn't mean putting a 30 second blurb at the end of the 2NR/2AR, expecting my unequivocal vote.
-- Coherence is a must, and your evidence should say what you claim it says. Don't under-highlight to put out incoherent arguments. Evidence quality wins more debates.
-- I'm a big advocate for framing arguments, which make my evaluation of the round easier.
-- My argument preference in my past debates/decisions won't grant you any type of benefit in the next round.
-- Understand and adequately explain how your argument interacts with the specific nuances of the opposing teams. So many debaters get bogged down in jargon instead of properly explaining how these concepts should shape my decision.
-- There is a significant difference in being strategic and being squirrely; the latter is incredibly annoying.

The Specifics:
Framework/Topicality:
You NEED evidence/definitions for what portion of the resolution is being debated.
Ideally, the affirmative defends a position that is controversial, with plenty of literature granting ground on both sides and predictable elements to it. I probably have a reputation as a fairness/limits voter, but that's because it's the debate I hear the most. I also enjoy "clash" debates, but the biggest issue I run into is one side not engaging with how the other side portrays the debate, and instead hyper-focuses on turning every offensive standard without providing the over-arching context.
Topical versions of the Aff aren't required to solve all the world's problems. The 1AC is 9 minutes for Christ's sake.
Impact framing on the Topicality flow is just as important as anywhere else.

Kritiks:
***You need a link to the Plan itself--or at least to the representations of the Aff. One of the biggest reasons I vote Aff in Policy Aff vs K debates is that either:
a) Not enough work was put into establishing a specific link to the Aff or
b) work is put into establishing a link to the status quo, which the negative assumes automatically links to the Affirmative. That isn't the case.***
Using direct quotations from the Affirmative evidence in your link claims will get you leaps further than you think.
Permutation defense is just as important as link offense -- voting on links of omission aren't super compelling.
Expect me to allow the affirmative to weigh the advantages of the Aff unless there is an overwhelmingly explicit reason not to, aka violent representations of the plan, flawed epistemologies, etc.
No separate sheet of paper for overviews.
No underviews; please god.
Note: "Perm do the alt" is not a perm.
While I'm here, overview debates are exhausting. Spilling a prewritten 5 minute word-salad about your K, and expecting it to answer literally everything on the line-by-line is a meme and is bad debating. Debate the line-by-line.
You need an alternative. A coherent alternative. I keep using the coherence word, because discussions need to be had on how the alternative interacts with both the status quo, and advantages of the affirmative plan. It also must solve your links.

I'm most familiar with: Nietzsche, Capitalism, Heidegger, Reps, Fem IR, Anthro, Security, Anti-Blackness, SetCol and various flavors of such. I'm not your Deleuze/Baudrillard aficionado.


K Affs:
You do not have to have a plan, but you need to answer the question of advocacy. Why am I voting for whatever it is you're doing? Why is it good? If I'm left in the dark, typically it's due to teams thinking that obscurity is advantageous. It isn't.
I am persuaded by good presumption arguments made by the negative. Engaging with these is paramount to success with critical affirmatives. Ignoring them is a great recipe to lose.
Your advocacy--at minimum--needs to have a critical element that is tangential to the resolution, and a mechanism for achieving/overcoming/resolving this element.


CPs:
Counterplans? Yes.
Advantage Counterplans? Yes.
Plan Inclusive Counterplans? Ehhh, but acceptable, given proper justification/solvency advocates.
In all cases, the negative needs to win a few things:
1) The counterplan is competitive (textual and functional to be safe)
2) There is a uniquely accessed net benefit
3) Complete solvency of the affirmative harms WITH a solvency advocate (unless you weigh other things against the remaining portions of the Aff).
I will vote for permutations -- use your net benefits as offense.

DAs:
Love them. I absolutely adore specific link stories, or better yet case-specific disadvantages, but I will still take all of your generic links.
I find Affs hole-punching their way through weak link-chains to be the easiest way to dismantle a DA. Point out logical leaps in internal links.
Read the cards, especially the un-underlined portions. Point out cards having no warrant in your speeches.
I believe 0% risk is possible, but it's not always probable, so don't rely on only uniqueness take-outs or link defense.
Specificity of Uniqueness > stacks of cards that all have two sentences highlighted. The under-highlighting is proliferant and teams getting away with it is insane to me.
Please. Do. Impact. Calculus.

Theory:
I am a believer in theory interpretation debate and it's a hill I'll die on. It's also, coincidentally enough, a great way to defend/persuade your judge by having a basis for evaluation.
I probably lean more towards condo/multiple-worlds good, assuming the negative isn't trying to run away from the debate/spread people out of the round.
Going for the theory in the 2NR/2AR is a bold move, and I will vote on it, assuming you impact the debate well and answer back defense overwhelmingly, preferably with some in round-abuses tied to a violation of some sort by the opposing team.
This does not mean running incoherent, superfluous theory arguments and expecting a W.

MISC:
Clipping: I request a copy of all speech docs due to how egregiously offensive I find this to be. You will not pass GO. You will lose the round. You will receive 0 speaks.
I *will* vote against you without the other team claiming you are clipping.
I *will* give you minimum possible speaks if you have the un-underlined/highlighted portions of your evidence at a 1 point font. STOP.
Have a copy of your evidence for your opponent. This can be physical or digital.
Do not be rude to each other in Cross-Ex. Be engaging, but not overly aggressive.
I have no issues with speed -- I do have issues with people who think they're fast, but aren't clear. I only flow what I hear, and if I have to yell clear more than twice, I'd suggest slowing down and checking if my pen has stopped moving.
Please respect preferred pronouns. Mine are he/him.

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.

Please do not spread, I would like to clearly hear you and what you have to say.

Make sure to keep your own time to help both of us.

I prefer four step refutation and please go straight down the flow, as it makes it easier for me to keep a track of your points.

I am a traditional LD judge who participated in Speech & Debate when I was in high school. I make my judging decisions based off clear, reliable evidence provided during the round. I also weigh my decisions heavily upon the ability of the debater to uphold their value/criteria. I appreciate clear speaking at a reasonable pace.