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 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!

General debate:

- I value respect of each other above all else. Keep it fun, no need to get *too* saucy with one another. There's a difference between aggressiveness and meanness.

- It's fine to keep your own time; I can keep track of prep time if you need me to (assume I am anyway).

- No spreading. I'm a flow judge. If I can't keep up with you, I can't flow. If I can't flow your arguments, I can't weigh them.

- I appreciate nuance if it makes sense. Don't try to throw nuanced arguments at me just for the sake of it. Show me how it works in the round.

- Evidence - I like it. I like substantiated evidence. Don't card dump on me, but provide me with adequate proof of your claims. I don't care how many sources you were able to find. I care about quality and relevance of those sources.

- Signposting is much appreciated. :) (goes back to that whole flow judge thing)

- Be confident. I have a speech/drama background as well so I value a solid public speaker who carries themself well. Confidence goes a long way.

PF:

- I enjoy a framework debate, but if you aren't going to provide framework - (a) be willing to weigh your side to your opponents' or (b) provide enough of an impact calculus to convince me you have the stronger case without framework.

- Pretend I don't know anything about your topic. Prove to me you do. That's kind of the fun part about public forum. It's supposed to be geared toward a "general audience."

LD:

- I'm pretty simple when it comes to LD - convince me your value/criterion are superior. Please link your arguments to your value, and remind me often. If you can't convince me there's a link, there's no case.

Overall just have fun with it. At the end of the day that's what debate is supposed to be. You'll find I'm pretty chill so just keep it clean, convince me you've got the better arguments, and we'll have a good time.

I 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 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

Background:

I'm currently a sophomore at OCU and an Economics and Mathematics double-major. I did PF and FEX for 4 years in highschool, went to nationals in both, so I'm pretty knowledgeable with how debate works and therein most argument styles (except progressive ones lol).

email for evidence chains: teegingroves@gmail.com

Quick Rundown:

Be specific and slow when delivering taglines and impacts, spread for your evidence. I have ADHD, I can only process so much information, so you need to differentiate your most important information when presenting.

My role as the judge is to determine who provides the most justified argument with respect to the topic at hand. Meaning I expect each speech to contain an argument that relates to the resolution. I'm traditional, I generally will not consider Ks, performative cases, etc unless there exists a clear and compelling reason to myself (which is not likely) to consider such an argument.

In debate, you "win" arguments by having a better justification than your opponent, and you win rounds by having better justified impacts than your opponents.

I will weigh impacts according to who "wins" framework, meaning their framework has the most desirable implications.

I only weigh arguments that you "win", meaning your link to the argument at the end of the round is stronger than any delinks or turns against it. Make sure you win arguments that best support your framework.

You can find my detailed and specific paradigm beneath, where I tell you exactly what I want to see, as well as general pointers.

Speaking:

I personally prefer faster speeches, but if you're going to speak fast just make sure your opponent and I can understand it, so enunciate, slow down on tags, etc. That said, since debate doesn't really have points, assists, or rebounds, I like to treat speaker points like a proxy for a basketball statline. What does that mean you ask? It means I give speaks based on how good you debate, so I start at 27 and move up or down depending on the quality.

So how does this look? Suppose your speeches are disorganized (you don't tell me what contention/point your responding to), you stutter a bit, and you don't really flow with what your partner is doing, I'm probably going to give you a 25-26. But if you're a decent presenter, have great analysis, great organization, are absolutely tearing up the flow and your opponent like you're the NSDA's Michael Jordan, I'm gonna give you a 30.

Argument Style:

As a general rule, sign post and have distinct taglines in your case, and in the remaining speeches tell me what argument you're responding to, just be organized.

With regards to type of argument, do whatever, OSSAA has no rules against CPs or plans in PF or LD, so go right ahead. I will vote on anything if you have the warranting and explain it clearly throughout the round. I don't care for K's, if you run one you must explain it clearly because if I don't understand it I won't vote for it. Theory and topicality args im fine with in LD, not so much in PF, once again if you do it well I'll buy it.

I really like clash, so aggressive rebuttals that are on the point with deep analytics (telling me why the argument is wrong in a nuanced fashion) and lots of turns, which means you must address the flow, the whole flow, and nothing but the flow. After rebuttal, extending arguments is essential, in most cases I will not weigh dropped arguments. Summary speeches should collapse on pre-existing arguments and weigh them, but respond to the previous speech if you must. However, do not bring up new arguments at all in the final focus or 2AR. Also, generally don't argue definitions (PF), it's a waste of time.

How to win the Round - Weighing:

First off, provide me a standard by which to weigh the round and then tell me why I should prefer that standard. I did not truly understand this until my senior year, but it's a really simple concept, and if you do this you will make it that much easier and satisfying to vote for you. However, I am aware that an explicit framework isn't going to be present in many PF rounds, and so that requires that you weigh your arguments, so here's an outline of what I should generally see:

1) Tell me the impact of your argument like lives, costs, neoliberal hegemony, whatever, just give me a reason that it matters because if it doesn't matter then I can't vote for it.

2) Compare that impact to what your opponent is arguing, and tell me why your impact trumps theirs. For example, lets say their arguments follows like "Building nuclear reactors is safer than alternative, saves like 10k lives." and your arg is "nuclear reactors are at risk of exploding b/c low staffing, costs 10k lives/reactor". You can weigh this against your opponent on magnitude because your impact is scalar meaning while they save 10k lives overall for X amount of reactors, X amount of reactors in your world puts 10k*X people at risk of dying. Or you could weigh on timeframe and say 10k people will die before the other 10k are saved. Regardless, this requires your own analysis and ingenuity.

3) Compare quality of evidence. Lets say the impacts themselves are vague or hard to argue, outweigh them by proving your study was better i.e. larger sample size, better methodology for given subject, etc.

If you don't weigh, I'll do it for you which means I'm going to default to impact calc.

Also final note, quantify your impacts. If you don't have verifiable numbers or some way to quantify what you're talking about, you better pray to god your second speaker is the next Kant because its hard to evaluate abstract and vague impacts versus clear and concrete ones.

Evidence:

I generally try to avoid judge intervention, and am a firm believer of tech>truth so you're usually going to have to be the guy that calls for evidence. I'll only weigh on evidence I call for if its blatantly unethical or outright wrong.

Regarding credentials, I rarely weigh the source of the evidence because most of the rigor in debate is done through analysis (and good analysis is self-evident, regardless of the analyzer), but there is an implicit hierarchy I'll apply in the case I do feel the need to weigh credentials:

I weigh authors on education experience, Ph.D's and tenured professors rank highest.

I weigh sources as follows: Random websites < Generic News (NYT, CNN, Fox) < Curated News (WSJ, Bloomberg, 538) < Think Tanks (EPI, Pew) < Government Agencies < Academic Journals < Respected Academic Journals (Nature, Econometrica, Energy and Environmental Sciences)

Anyways, I'm giving you such a long paradigm because I want you to do well, I want to watch a good debate. So yeah, weigh your impacts and engage the flow.

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.

I did PF my junior year for a few months so feel free to use terminology/slang

I don't have a lot of experience on LD, so I'll vote based on your argumentation

I don't have an issue with keeping times, but I'd prefer you keep your own time (extemp is the only exception to this)

I won't tolerate impoliteness during rounds, especially crossfires. There's a difference between being assertive and being rude.

PF:

TELL ME WHY YOUR ARGUMENTS MATTER. I can't vote on an issue if you don't tell me its importance

I focus on framework but explain its correlation to the resolution and tell me why I have to prefer yours over your opponent's

I like to hear the author's credentials because it assures me your sources come from experts/people relevant to the resolution.

Tell me why I should prefer your impact over your opponents.

Remember to attack arguments in an organized matter (going down the flow), it helps a lot when reviewing the round

LD:

Again, you have to explain why the arguments and impacts matter in the round, otherwise, I can't vote on it.

I'm all for progressive arguments, but you have to explain them and their connection to the resolution

Extemp:

feel free to be funny, as long as it is appropriate

Explain your points fully

Be respectful to your opponents, and best of luck!

Hi!

I am the Speech and Debate coach for Edmond Memorial High School. I have experience in all events except policy.

Please be respectful, nice, and a good sport. Don't be mean, rude, racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or entitled (I will vote you down). Take this seriously, but remember it is supposed to be enjoyable. Please ask questions if you have any.YOU CAN DO IT!! BE CONFIDENT AND HAVE FUN!!

Debate-

• Tech over Truth

• I don't mind spreading, but it has to be understandable. If I am not flowing then it is not coherent.

• Please signpost! Use off-time roadmaps, tell me where you going with your speeches. it helps me flow and better understand where you are going to take the round.

• I vote frameworks and impact calcif they have a valid warrant and is upheld throughout the entire round.

• Carry arguments through the round. Drops don't count if you don't bring them up.

• I don't flow cross so if you want something from cross to flow through the round bring it up in another speech. Please don't be aggressive in cross.

Speech-

• I like triangle or diamond blocking. Please make sure your structure is clear. Don't make it look like you are pacing.

• State your sources in your speech. Otherwise you are going on a long rant without any factual proof.

• Make your movement and hand gestures purposeful. You will most likely see comments about fidgeting and swaying if you are not moving with a purpose.

• It's fine if you have a notecard but please do your best to not look at it.

• I love good attention grabbers, something that relates to most anyone listening, or funny jokes!

If you have any questions, comments, or concerns please email me at sara.nichols@edmondschools.net

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.

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.

Currently, I am a college sophomore debating for the OU team

my email is blaire.debate@gmail.com

I’m still in college, so I don’t have a ton of opinions and preferences. I like quality/ well fleshed-out arguments above all else. I’m not super ideological, so give judge instruction and do what you are best at.

K- I read set col, fem, queer theory, security, extinction, and cap, if that tells you anything :)

-I will vote on T and presumption, so you must tell me what you do and how that interacts with this round, debate as a whole, or the outside world.

-A few good arguments can win a round.

T- I will vote on T, but you MUST tell me what the model of debate the other team creates looks like and why that’s bad for debate OR why they made the round functionally impossible

DA- explain your internal links

CP- I think CPs, as a whole, are good

- I need the arg to be fleshed out and compared to the AFF

- I will vote on theory args.

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.

My name is Petra [Pay-truh] (she/her). I graduated from the University of Oklahoma with a degree in Sociology with a focus in Criminology and have worked in financial crime detection and investigations. Should you feel the need to know my qualifications, I have 9 years of experience with Policy/CX and 7 of PF & LD. I competed in CX in high school, qualified to NSDA 2x, had a TOC bid, placed 3rd at state in CX, was a state quarterfinalist in LD, and have coached CX, LD, PF, and Congress. Affiliations: Cheyenne East (my alma mater) '12-'16, Edmond Santa Fe (individuals) '16-'17, Norman North '18 - present. I have been lucky enough to coach students who have advanced to semi-finals in Congressional Debate at nationals, late out-rounds in LD and PF at nationals, and late out-rounds in LD, PF, and CX at the state level.

I tend to default to policymaking, but my primary evaluation and if no debater has clearly won or told me where and why to vote, I will default to stock issues. If the aff hasn't upheld their obligation of affirming the resolution (or providing a solid case why they shouldn't), I will presume negative. I’m not a fan of vulgarity in-round. Please time yourself. Open Cross is okay, but if you don't engage or talk over your partner your points will reflect that. If you bring spectators, they must be respectful of all competitors and judges.

Speed is fine, I prefer slow on plan/advocacy statements and tags/authors. Use an indicator when switching between tags and arguments. Clarity is key to getting on the flow. I will say clear once, and if I can't decipher you after that I stop flowing you.

In the era of online debate, I suggest recording your speeches just in case of tech difficulties. I will adhere to all tournament guidelines regarding competition and tech issues. Slow down for the sake of mic processing. You probably don't need all 10 DAs. Please try your best to keep your cameras on, I understand this is not always possible.

Policy - My background is in traditional policy debate. I am well-versed in topicality and straight policy, but I will listen to just about anything you can and want to run. I appreciate creativity in debate. Cool with Ks and theory, but I have a high threshold for in-round abuse. Not a fan of plan+ / plan inclusive anything. Tell me where to vote and why.

Cross:It's probably binding, and often underutilized. Make it strategic - analyze the links, perms, make your opponents prove their solvency. If you’re being shifty and don't know what you're talking about, your opponent doesn't know what you're talking about, and I definitely don't know what you're talking about. For the love of all things sacred, don't be a jerk.

CPs: You must have a plan text and a net benefit. Tell me why it's competitive. You should probably have a really good solvency advocate. Full disclosure, I think I have only ever voted for one PIC, I think that a perm makes this a pretty easy win for Aff. I don't believe States CP gets to fiat all 50 states + relevant US territories (unless you have a decent theory shell, in which case go for it).

DAs: I love me some case-specific DA's. Do the impact analysis!! Aff too. For the love of all things holy, please make it a complete argument. I don't love seeing a 10-off 1NC with severely underdeveloped DAs that lack links and UQ.

Kritiks: I have a solid technical understanding of K's but don’t know all theory/philosophy. I'm not a philosophy hack; I won't do the work for you. It's critical that you understand what your advocacy is. If you don't know/understand, I don't want to vote for it. PLEASE don't read a K because you think I want to hear one. I would much rather hear a good, in-depth debate about what you're good at. If your K is about debate being irredeemable and a black hole...consider who your audience is. I've dedicated almost half my life to the activity and understand that it can be made better, so let's put in the work to make it better.

Topicality: Good. Great. I typically default to competing interpretations. It's not (usually) a RVI. Just like anything, read it only if you understand which violation you're reading and if there is clear abuse. You need standards. I have a higher threshold for FXT and XT because of how policymaking typically operates in the real world, but if you feel there is clear in-round abuse, knock yourself out.

Theory: Most of the theory debates I see are bad. That makes me sad - I like theory. I will listen to some well-thought-out theory any day of the week. I will consider any discourse args on reasons to reject a team, so long as their impacted out. Don't be racist/sexist, etc. Not a huge fan of framework debates because I see very few that are good. I tend to vote for world v world and real-world impacts anyway. Neg worlds should probably be cohesive, unless you have a theory shell to backup why not.

Misc: Don't be mean. Don't cheat. I'll call you on stealing prep. If you do it after I call you on it I have no issue auto-dropping you. I don't want to have to read the evidence - you should be explaining it. Post-rounding (asking questions is fine - I will be more than happy to explain my thought process - I'm talking about arguing or bringing up things you should have used to answer but didn't) won't change my ballot but will guarantee you'll get the lowest speaks possible. If you run wipeout, you better have a dang good warrant and dang good framework shell to run with it.

LD:- I did traditional LD in high school. I look for lots of work on the framework debate and framework/case interaction. If you're about progressive debate, that's cool too - but I would like to see your version of framework or a role of the ballot. I don't really want to see a CP, DA or K read with zero interaction with the resolution or aff, but if you have one with a good argument, I'm open to it. Please dont just run a K/theory shell because you think that's what I want to hear - do what you do :)

PF: See: LD, Policy. Theory is cool, and welcomed, here too. Disclosure/paraphrasing theory - I have a high threshold of abuse here as well. Progressive/fast is cool. Traditional is cool too. Again, Please dont just run a K/theory shell because you think that's what I want to hear - do what you do :)

TLDR; If there is no clear reason given for me to vote on either side, I will default to stock issues because it is what I know the best. Does aff meet their minimum requirements of affirmation? Does the negative do their job of negating the resolution/the aff? Do the off-case arguments link? Are alternatives mutually exclusive? Do the alternatives solve the aff? Impact it out. In-round, fiated implementation, and on the flow. For everything. Don't steal prep. If you have any specific questions, please ask! my email for chains and questions: petracvc@gmail.com

Most importantly, have fun, and be kind to one another! Happy debating! - P :)

Hi, I'm a political science major ( elections and campaigns emphasis), International Security Studies,and Journalism.

My pronouns are she/her, and I am a former LD, Congress and USX/IX competitor ( I also have some OO experience!).

Debate:

speak clearly when reading any pieces of evidence, otherwise I cannot ensure that I can weigh it in.

ESPECIALLY be clear about your framework, as this is one of the most important part of your case

be respectful to your opponent(s) and judge(s)

use the correct pronouns for your opponent(s) and judge(s).

I love theory, especially gender/social justice theory and constitutional theory.

CPs are great, just as long as you use them effectively

Ks are okay, just be effective as previously stated.

bigotry will not be tolerated in round.

I like to read evidence and cases for myself, so don't be surprised or alarmed if I ask to see them.

Self-timing is preferred.

If you chose to preform in a non-normative way (ie. music, rage, poetry, etc) explain why your discourse matters in terms of the debate space and why it creates a preferable or more accessible model of debate.

IE:

Dynamics are essential! If you are competing in IX/USX it can be hard to remember this, but it can really make or break your rank in round

Sources in IX/USX must be made clear or points will be taken off

I know when you're making up false or incorrect facts about policy so don't do that.

Speeches that are narrative and metaphorical are always the most fun to listen to!!