The Jenks Classic 2023
2023 — Jenks, OK/US
Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hi I'm Athena, I'm a Junior and this is my second year doing policy. My first year I placed at regionals, state, and districts, and I went to nationals, so I sorta know what I'm doing.
LD: This isn't my event so explain your value and criterion like I'm 5. I'll vote on the flow and see who explains best why they win and why they have been winning the entire time. Don't lie, and be nice to your opponents!
PF: Same thing honestly, I'm not super familiar with PF, so explain it well and I'll do my best!
Policy:Yay this is my event-
Speed- I spread when I debate so I understand going fast to get through your arguments. Although I will be flowing and will understand you when you spread, it would be much appreciated (especially on AFF in the 2AC) for you to explain your arguments thoroughly, not just rushing through cards.
Topicality- I love topicality and I can see where it can be run in every round. The thing about topicality is that as the NEG I will not buy your topicality argument unless you specifically explain how the AFF is doing you wrong by being untopical. AFF, you have to respond to and disprove every part of the NEG's topicality argument for me to buy it on your side, I need more than just a counter-defintion. NEG, you are not running topicality as a time skew, don't drop it in the 2NR, that's silly.
DA's- Disadvantages are better when they are more specific, thats just true, however I won't discredit a DA just because it has a vague link. The thing about DA's is it comes down to your ability to thoroughly explain why the impact of the DA is worse than the impacts of the AFF, or it'll be hard for me to buy it.
CP's- I am not a fan of PICs (plan-inclusive counterplans), unless you prove to me there really is a huge difference between the AFF plan and the PIC. I need to see a clear net benefit and some offense on CP's or it'll be hard for me to vote on it. If you are running a CP and a DA together do not drop one, keep them together for the entire round.
Kritiks- I really like Kritiks, on both AFF and NEG, and I will treat them like any other argument. The main ones I am familiar with are Fem, Cap, Set Col, Afro-pess, Poverty, and Orientalism, but explain any k to me properly and I will try to understand it.
Framework- I think framework is absolutely crucial to the round. Whether it is impact framing or looking at debate through a certain lens, if one side provides framework the other needs to either provide some counter-framing or explain how they fit within the framework provided. Don't drop framework either that's silly and you will probably lose. If you tell me it is the most important argument in the round I need you to show me that it is the most important argument.
Theory- If you prove where there has been abuse in round, and why that outweighs, I'll vote on most theory (However I do think Condo is a little silly). I also believe in disclosure, theres never a reason not to disclose.
Attitude- I completely understand some aggression in your arguments but thats where it stays. Remember that you are attacking the arguments, not the people who are giving them.
- If you don't extend an argument throughout the round I will consider it dropped.
- Don't gaslight please.
- For the love of god please keep your docs organized.
- Do your best and have fun!
Hi my name is Valery and I'm a junior going into my second year of policy! Here's what i like seeing in rounds:
PF: i'm okay with really anything, i evaluate on the arguments and how you present them. Not a lot to say here just be nice to your opponents and grand cross is not just two ppl talking.
LD: I'm a little more familiar with ld, but i still need a lot of explanation and analysis with value and criterion and i will evaluate on the flow so just do whatever you're comfortable with. I'm okay with prog ld bcs i'm a policy debater so i'm very familiar with it. Again be nice to your opponent, especially since you're probably in novice as your reading this and it's everyone's first few times!
Policy: Yay my event! I am a flex policy debater so i'm okay with really anything. More specifically:
Ks: I love Ks, i am obviously comfortable with cap and i ran fem ir during the nato topic a lot. I am familiar with other lit bases but they're not my expertise. Run whatever you want but explain the alt really well to me especially if it's like psychoanalysis act like i have absolutely no clue what you're talking about at all (trust me i don't).
CPs: I go in with the assumption that cps are not abusive it's up to the aff to prove why they are. I lean no where on this so just run whatever you want and i will meet you standards. Competition is huge but if the negs cp has a huge gap of competition and the aff doesn't call it out and doesn't win their args then i vote neg.
DA: yeah just make sure it has all the parts ig-- straight turns are always compelling and i'll vote on who ever did the best on the flow
Topicality: Just remember to answer everything on T, and make sure to have a counter interp
Theory: again make sure to answer everything and have everything when running theory
-Cross isn't supposed to be aggressive it's supposed to be informational and is binding if your opponent brings it up in the next speech
-Sometimes you need a break so taking a second of prep before any speech or cross is fine
-Don't say anything any-phobic or any-ist
-High speaks are just anyone who tries and isn't rude in round
Pronouns- any pronouns are fine, he/him/they/them. If you have specific pronouns let them be known before the round, if you dont respect someones pronouns your speaks will be as low as they can be, i get the occasional mispeak but if its obvious you dont give a crap your speaks will be trash. That being said dont tell me joke pronouns like "king/god" people have done that before and its not funny its just awkward and douchey.
"racism....its bad kids...dont do it"- Michael Patterson
put me on the chain pls
Background- Debated 4 years for Guymon high school with Paul Oakes sophomore, junior, and senior year in Oklahoma under the GOAT and now NSDA hall of fame coach Michael Patterson. 2021 and 2022 policy state champ made state FEX finals a few times and won some IE events a few times at state and qualified to NSDA nationals.
side note-this is a dying activity much to my sadness, so if you are facing someone who is much less experienced than you don't be a jerk and just destroy them, help them learn and be nice and slow down a bit I'm sure a senior team doesn't need 8 off to handle a novice team, crap like this is what drives people away from the activity.
TLDR; tab ras
As far as policy and all debate really goes I try to approach every round with tabula rasa so just have fun and run whatever you normally run as long as it is not sexist, racist, homophobic, or anything hateful, i will not hesitate to vote down any team that participates in card clipping, "ism", plagiarism, i don't care how much you are winning the flow
Policy-spreading- is fine just send a doc copy
Ks- are fine but dont expect me to know your Lit base, was a huge cap/setcol/bioP/anthro debater in HS so i know them pretty well, i understand most Ks but dont expect me to understand your super complex Baudi K so please explain your warrants and your lit base
DA- is cool more specific the better. I get generic links are easy but its always smart to go with more specific links they make the debate way more interesting to judge. Also idk why people are starting to feel like they can run a 2 card long DA and that somehow covers it, i get the strategy for it but its just annoying.
theory- is cool not really a huge voter but I mean if you're winning it I will. Run whatever theory you want as long as it is not problematic (most theory debates are pretty trash but im down to be proven wrong), I prob wont vote on your RVI unless there is some fr abuse.
CPs- are cool i really really enjoy specific ones, i think PICs are kind of lazy and will be down to vote on PIC theory but its never ran it so wahtev. I always love a good CP comp debate, please make the status of your CP known or ask, trust me. I was a big CP debater my senior year so i love those guys. PLEASE HAVE A SOLVENCY ADVOCATE
T- is dope aswell make sure to extend and go for standards they are underutilized. When answering T a counter def or we meet is a good idea, probably the best idea but you cant just run that, if you drop standards you basically lose the round.
Case- is underutilized and can make or break a round i love a good case debate. SOOO much room for good clash on the flow if you use case correctly which makes the best rounds. Also pls pls pls do line by line on case, i hate having to jump around my flow. Ill do my best to put it where i think it goes but if it ends up on the wrong thing, sorry...
Speaks- are determined on how clean your line by lines are and spreading and overall behavior in the round and overall debate skill.
random-i was a 1a/1n all through highschool and more tech>truth judge unless it just gets ridiculous with the hyper tagging. will ask for a card to be shown if i think it can deterime a round or was highly contesed throughout the debate.
Args i 9/10 wont vote-stuff that happened outside of a round, links by their schools (idc if they are a christian school), debate is a game.
args i will vote you down for running-death good (seriously..why), racism or any ism good, name calling, reverse racism.
25-You REALLY MESSED UP or you were a jerk.
26-probs a novice you still have a lot of work to do but you get the concepts
27-A good novice, you know the ins and outs but still missing some big factors.
28-a seasoned Vet, you know debate very well and are just missing small things that could make you better and more clean.
29-Very very very good debater, you know what your doing and have great line by lines and make well thought out and articulated args and are very respectful and are one of the best
30- TOC level debater, prob will get handed out maybe a couple times a years but this for debaters that are virtually perfect in round
overall just have fun be nice and enjoy yourselves. Funny jokes in your speech will be rewarded with better speaks i dont think debate should be a monolouge of zombies, crack the occasional joke trust me ill laugh even if i really dont find it funny.
i perfer if you have your cams on when speaking or doing CX/crossfire.
LD/PF-Never done it but i know the gist of it, alot of my policy paradigm applies except in PF it seems as though spreading is bad but i wont stop you. Send the docs still please and im sorry if i confuse the times with policy but ill do my best to give a good RFD and decision. Im cool with whatever LD tricks are ive judged a few rounds of both debates so i can evaluate it decently well probs not high level deabtes tho.
easter egg- congrats on scrolling that extra mouse swipe, if you mention my former debate partner (last name or first name) of 3 years in a speech somehow, ill bring your speaks up by 1, i won't tell you his name though.
The only requirement for arguments is that they are made and then implicated---in other words, the absolute minimum is link and impact. You can use other tools (like uniqueness) to frame or pad the impact.
I do not care for how the argument is made: a narrative explanation of one's personal antagonisms/agreements with the resolution will be weighed in the same fashion as evidence-based scenario planning. However, additional arguments should be included to ensure that opposing arguments do not make traditional framing and outweighing arguments (i.e. our DA with uniqueness is up against the minor narrative harming they read).
Evidence does not matter unless you make it matter somehow. If you copy and paste an author's words as analytics, they will get evaluated. If you make an argument that credibility is relevant to judge the veracity of certain arguments, then evidence might matter.
Unwarranted arguments will get evaluated, but the minimum response threshold is just saying 'no warrants' and they will immediately be killed with prejudice and no revival chance in posterior speeches.
Cross is binding.
Paradigm: I am Tabula Rasa, so you can even convince me to be a hypothesis tester if you want. That means the AFF can frontload the 1AC with very little evidence about how each potential BI, FJG, and SS expansion is good and I will evaluate it as affirmative arguments. But the minimum NEG threshold--"hypothesis testing bad because it's unfair," is very low.
Policy AFFs:I am not interested in some arbitrary standard of 'development' that is only judged by the amount of time spent on a given impact. It is my opinion that sufficient warrants for extinction can be read both in 10 seconds and 3 minutes. This means you can (and it is likely most strategic) read gigantic AFFs with plenty of impacts. A wide range of impact scenarios for diversified offense are also probably strategic, but not necessary. I am slightly biased against policy AFF extra-topicality, especially when it seems to be present only to spike out of common DAs and not for any legitimate procedural reason---but I am not automatically voting against it.
K AFFs: If there is an argument and an implication, it shall be evaluated. If the NEG attempts to outweigh the implications with traditional policy framing arguments like uniqueness, this will also be evaluated. You should prepare framework arguments to give your AFF a chance.
T: I default to competing interpretations and will evaluate your offense with prejudice. If your interp is that the AFF can do nothing except for transfers and the AFF interp allows only one tax, youshould not spend your 2NR on limits saying they can get infinite taxes that exponentiate with the transfers. It will get evaluated, but the threshold for AFF response is nothing, "offense mismatch" is good enough.
DAs: I am biased against affirmative intrinsicness tests.
CPs: Condo is good unless I'm told otherwise. Dispo needs to be definedimmediately by the team saying its dispo, or I will let the other team define what dispo means (basically the first team to define it gets bias). Topical CPs are probably good, but I can be convinced. I do not typically believe in textual competition, intrinsicness, or severance---I will only evaluate the functional mandate of the CP unless persuasive arguments are made for textual frames.
Ks: Go forth and conquer.
Ps: Pretty much the same as T.
The value-criterion debate seems valuable and I appreciate it; however, please think about your VC before you read it. I don't think justice links to util, and I'll probably be biased towards a team that makes this argument. The looseness of values is reprehensible and LDers searching for lay wins tend to top-load the value with vague words like 'life,' and 'joy.' These don't mean anything unless defined and typically the definitions are just as bad. I will appreciate a debater who makes an argument that "Life" is poorly defined. I think Util is better as a value because it prescribes an endpoint of maximizing utility, and criteria like pragmatism can link to this. Otherwise, it's the exact same as policy.
In terms of material fiat, the negative must advocate for the status quo. That means no "it's not a CP, it's an alternative!!!" to defend your K from rules-based objections. Only immaterial or non-fiated alternatives are permitted. An alternative is also unnecessary, as you can simply read a link and framework to implicate the link.
I think the PF rules are utterly nonsensical, but they will be enforced. If you want to avoid them, you should try going to LD or CX---educational spaces absent these rules already exist so the offense is 'non-unique,' but there is a risk of unique offense that PF's rules are good (in other words, uniqueness controls the direction of the link).
Debate: I am not particularly picky on anything, but please be respectful to your opponent(s). Feel free to run progressive arguments, but beware that I may not get them if you aren't clear.
LD: Make sure to clarify how your criterion supports your contentions! Also, don’t drop all your contentions for the sake of the value debate. Do not make all of your arguments cross-applications of your own case unless there is a legitimate clash. I vote primarily on the quality of coverage.
PF: Any speaking speed is fine, just make sure you are coherent. A heated cross-examination is fine but please don’t spend the entire time yelling at each other. I vote on the quality of evidence and general coverage.
debated at jenks high school for 4 years, judge for jenks high school now. she/her
tl;dr : slow down on taglines/analytics, tabula rasa, put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
speed: if you don’t send me something and i don’t catch it that really sucks for you.
Counterplan: i don’t think they’re abusive in general, that being said if the aff team correctly points out an instance of abuse on a counterplan and really impacts it out i could be persuaded otherwise. you should have either a specific solvency advocate or a really good reason why your generic one works. sufficiency framing should be well explained but ill def vote on it. i will not judge kick your counterplan unless you convince me i should. please for the love of god read a card with your counterplan— just the text is not enough.
disads: core generics are important but as a former 2A i know that most of them suck— tell me why and i will 100% listen to that analysis. i think evidence comparison is especially important on a DA.
kritiks: i was mostly a policy debater so im not as familiar here— you need to explain your lit for me to vote. im willing to listen to state bad arguments, but will be sympathetic if an aff team correctly asserts that the alt is vague/doesn’t do anything. rejection alts are bad. the more abusive your framework is the less likely i am to weigh it. I generally believe util but i can be convinced that i should weigh something else if you can convince me that their internal link chain specifically is faulty/bad— not just internal link chains in general. for k affs: don’t pref me. i think fairness is absolutely an impact to fw. i am not the judge for you. if you read debate bad/death good/baudrillard i do not want to hear it. I won’t lie i did go for a lot of cap good/heg good arguments in high school but pls just read what you’re good at not what you think i want to hear. i am very sympathetic to the perm double bind argument.
topicality: i do like t but please don’t run a bad t argument just because you think i want to hear it. you should have in round abuse and a pretty fleshed out explanation of your world vs. their world. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. as the year goes on i weigh t less and less. that being said, if something isn’t even tangentially related to the resolution, you are going to lose.
case: i think case debate is underutilized, you should have something more than impact d even if it is just an analytic. same thing as k’s, please be explaining your aff i need to know what is going on don’t assume i know your advantages like you do.
crossx: definitely binding, definitely checks vagueness, should be brought up in later speeches.
theory: like any other judge i really don’t want to see a theory 2nr strat but if you believe that you have clear examples of abuse and that they genuinely deserve to lose for it, go ahead. condo is good, perfcon is fine, multiple perms are good, etc.
performance: whatever. im not too jazzed about this kind of debate but if you impact out why you need to play music in the round, go ahead. If your narrative has to do with sexual violence please dont be graphic, there are minors in the room.
misc: flash isn’t prep until it gets excessive, open cx is good as long as both sides agree, i don’t think debate should be funny. if you’re here and you run “joke” off case positions i will vote you down for wasting my time. you are not nearly as funny as you think you are.
Hello I am Brandon (He/Him), I have experience in both PF and LD but have no experience in policy so if I’m judging you in policy please be patient with me I'm sure I’ll get the hang of it.
I did LD my freshman year of high-school so I have a little bit of experience but not a lot. I’m not extremely picky just be respectful of your opponents. Sound confident in yourself and your arguments. I remember how scary debate was in the beginning you’re gonna do great!
I did PF for the majority of high-school and it was always my favorite form of debate. I went to state with it my junior year so I have a good amount of experience in it. Just like I said for LD be respectful of your opponents. I know cross can get very heated and chaotic especially during grand cross I just ask you to stay respectful. When it comes to sitting or standing during your speeches I’m okay with either whatever you’re most comfortable with. I am also okay with you timing yourself but I will also keep time. Try to sound confident in your speeches. You’re gonna do great!
I have no experience in Policy but I have done some research and talked to teammates who do compete in policy to learn some. Please be patient with me I am learning with you. Like with the other forms of debate I ask that you are respectful of your opponents. I also ask that you keep the spreading to a minimum I'm okay with fast speaking just please enunciate so I can understand. I look forward to learning with and from you you’re gonna do great!
Hi, I'm Taylor. Keep in mind that my thoughts will probably change on specific aspects of debates as I judge more rounds, so I might change some things here and there in my paradigm.
My email: email@example.com
About me (If you care)
I debated at Jenks high school for four years. I mainly did Lincoln-Douglas Debate and International Extemp. During my time at Jenks on the state level, I was in 4 state final rounds between Lincoln-Douglas and International Extemp. On the national level, I was a 4x national qualifier in 3 different events, and in my senior year, I took 24th in the nation in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. I now attend ESU and personally coach a few students in LD.
General Debate Things
1. Tech>Truth; however, my threshold for responding to bad arguments is incredibly low.
2. I like Impact calc a lot. It would help if you did it.
3. Offense will get you further with me rather than defense. I don't think defense should be abandoned but telling me why you win goes much further than telling me why you don't lose.
4. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. I'm not going to do work for you if you don't extend your arguments through your last speech. I'm not gonna bother weighing it into my decision.
5. Crystalize and summarize your best arguments and why you won them in your final speeches. Generally, going for every argument on the flow is not in your best interest.
6. Time yourself. I'm terrible at it.
Note: I did traditional LD exclusively in a state where it was offered year-round and did not do policy in high school, although I have judged my fair share of policy rounds. Do what you want with that info.
1. Please add me to the email chain. My email is at the top of the paradigm.
2. My speed threshold is a brisk pace, around 7.0/10 if that is any help at all (Probably not). Don't go NASCAR speed on me. I will be very sad. Please slow down on the analytics you don't put in the doc; if I can't hear them, I won't flow them. EXTRA NOTE: Just because your opponent ignored my paradigm and went way too fast doesn't mean you should also go super fast.
3. It is essential that you have a clear roadmap and that you stick to it. The worst thing you can do is confuse me about what you're responding to.
4. Just because I'm not familiar with everything in the policy world doesn't mean I should stop you from reading an argument as that is unfair to you, but be aware that you might need to do more explaining than usual if you reading something I could be unfamiliar with.
5. Open cross is fine.
6. If you have questions about my policy paradigm, please ask before the round.
1. Policy- Easily what I feel the most comfortable judging. I like seeing a topical aff against a competitive cp and some dis ads. I enjoy case debates, something that needs to be done way more. When you are reading your perms, actually take 5 seconds to explain how it functions.
2. Topicality- Topicality is fun..... Until it's not. T feels more like a throwaway off-case position, especially as the violations continue getting increasingly ridiculous. I'm not saying you have to go for it if you read it, but I would like to feel like I know your T might be a legit way to the ballot rather than knowing it's just gonna be a time suck within the first 5 seconds you're into reading the T. With all that being said, winning the links to why the violation is legit is going to be way more important to me than harping on the impacts of the T. Sure, impacts are important, but if you're not going to put any effort into proving the T violation than why spend all that time impacting it out.
3. Theory- I find theory to be super boring mostly because it just turns into both teams reading their generic block files that I have heard for the thousandth time. That's not to say I won't vote on it. At some points, I have voted for speed theory and condo (It's been nearly a year, though), although I usually prefer to drop the argument and not the team. I'm very iffy on out-of-round theory violations being read I.E (the opposing team did something bad before the round started, so you are now reading theory). Once again, not that I wouldn't vote on it, but I don't have an objective view on what happened because likely I wasn't there ofc this isn't considering screenshots for a disclosure shell or something like that. I will reiterate what has been said about T previously: prove the violation first, then impact out.
4. K's- My experience with Ks has grown over the years. It's still FAR from my first preference to hear, but I generally feel comfortable with them. Explain how the alt functions and have a clear ROB; you should be fine. If you are reading something really abstract, you are going to have to explain it more to me, but I can catch on pretty fast. This all being said,I am probably not the judge you want to be reading a K aff in front of.
5. Performance- I am not gonna be your guy for this, do it at your own risk.
Trad Lincoln-Douglas Debate
I will NOT hesitate to drop anyone who spreads or engages in debate practices that would not be persuasive or understandable to a reasonable person—this is not negotiable. Please do not see my policy background or circuit LD experience as an invitation to make this round uninteresting for everyone involved. (This is in the context of progressive argumentation and speed at traditional tournaments)
1. If you signpost, extend your arguments, try not to drop stuff, and give an offensive reason why I should vote for you as opposed to a defensive one, you'll be in very good shape. (Offense = why I'm winning, Defense = why I'm not losing)
2. I generally evaluate things sequentially. I use who's value/criterion or framework is winning to determine which arguments and impacts to weigh and, subsequently, who's won the ballot. This means framework in and of itself is not a voter, but it has a massive impact on who wins my ballot, i.e., if you're winning the aff leads to extinction but you've conceded a Kant FW, you'll probably lose.
3. Good debaters have consistency between their value/criterion or framework and their contentions. If you're reading Kant and then a bunch of util arguments, I might cry.
4. I prefer more principled and philosophical arguments in debate. If the debate does become a question about the consequences of adopting some policy, I prefer empirical studies and examples over random predictions without evidence.
5. My standards for traditional LD have lowered a lot. Do whatever to win. I guess I don't really care anymore. I'm just sad, very, very, very sad.
Public Forum Debate
1. If I don't get a framework, I will default to Util for my framing. If you don't want me to do that, you should give me a framework.
2. DON'T paraphrase evidence. It looks lazy, shady, and unethical.
3. Don't make PFD complicated. If you weigh and crystalize at the end of the round, you will be in an excellent position to win my ballot.
Last updated: September 28, 2023
My name is Akshitha (ack-shee-tha) and I am a varsity policy debater. I have been doing policy for two years, and have gone to regionals, state, and districts.
Disclosure- Always disclose. No exceptions. I want to be on the speechdrop/email-chain
Speed- Personally I don't spread but I hear it a lot I am fine with speed.
Topicality/ theory- I know how to evaluate but still make an effort to explain it to me. Don't run dumb stuff. Both theory and topicality need to show clear abuse for me to vote on it.
Kritiks- love love love. explain your alt or I don't really care.
I don't want to hear any bigotry you will get the L.