The Jenks Classic 2023
2023 — Jenks, OK/US
LD/PF Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I mostly judge Lincoln Douglas, but I have coached all events offered by the NSDA and the OSSAA. I was the coach at Cascia Hall from 2007-2021 and have worked at the Tulsa Debate League since 2023.
I am more comfortable with a more traditional style of debate, but will make my best effort to judge the round in front of me, even if it isn't stylistically what I am most comfortable with. That being said, no matter what style you prefer, debate is pretty much the same. Tell me how to make an evaluation and then tell me why you win under that evaluation.
If you have more specific questions, I'm happy to answer them before the round begins if all competitors are present.
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
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.
I want to hear you speak clearly and with confidence! I do not like spreading but you can do it as long as you sign post. Eye contact is important to me and etiquette matters above all else. Be kind and cordial to your opponent(s). Just do your best and have fun :)
LD: I'm pretty traditional. I like values and criteria and evidence and clash. If you read a K or a bedtime narrative, I will stop flowing the round and take a nap. I have a speed threshold of "don't" and if you could please keep the jargon to a minimum, that would be great. Theory is cool, in theory, but it shouldn't be an entire framework. I like long walks on the beach, and a good tennis match. Also, don't shake my hand at the end of the round.
PF: Um....win more arguments than the other team. Go. Fight. Win.
Hello, my name is Samuel Meier (in round please refer to me as "judge" and my preferred pronouns are he/him if you choose to approach/contact me out of round). I was a student at Jenks High School with 4 years experience in Lincoln-Douglas Debate (LD), 2 years of experience in Domestic Extemporaneous (DEX), 1 year experience in Mock Trial, 1 year experience in Public-Forum (PF), and minor experiences in other events (such as FEX, HD, and some knowledge of other events). I have competed at Nationals, State, Districts, and Regionals prior to this year in debate and went to State finals and Nationals in Mock Trial. I am perusing a double in PolSci and Busi before transferring to Law School (Criminal Prosecutor). If you would like any tips/info then I will help you if you ask. Now straight to the paradigm:
For All Debates -
I will judge based on court rules - I will not do work for either side and exclude my own personal preferences in the debate. As a judge in a debate, I will uphold integrity and independence and avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. I will perform the duty of deciding the round based fairly, impartially, and diligently but include personal critiques outside of the decision in personal virtual commentary or oral feedback with either both opponents present or dismissal of one before commenting to the other and vice versa depending on the comfortability of the competitors and/or coaches/tournament.
In all rounds, I will judge it based on the evidence that is brought up within the round and what is said within the round. If a debater may infer an argument but not extend upon it, then it will be discarded. Also do not ask me to disclose or make public comments on the merits of a matter pending or impending on the round. If it is a novice round, then I may disclose but otherwise, I will not unless recommended by the tournament provider.
In your last speeches, you should always make a big-picture argument about why you should win the debate. If you can't tell me why you should win, you probably shouldn't. I will not vote for a side solely because an argument was dropped or unanswered. The team making an argument has a continuing responsibility to explain 1) why it is true and 2) why it matters. If your opponent drops an argument, you may note that failure to respond and extend the argument through, but you should still make an argument that you're right and that I should care. Remember that I am judging how persuasive your argument is. Cards can provide some support for your argument, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient to make a winning argument. Unless the card is providing hard data, all it proves is that someone said something that you are now saying. It may be more or less helpful, depending on its credibility. Always justify the reasons why your argument is correct. If you can't explain your argument, I won't accept it. Feel free to reference your cards in the debate by their name and date to save time if you prefer so. Note that I may occasionally miss an author or point during the debate but that will not have an impact on the round. A representation of a personal weighing standard is shown below:
For framework (LD) - personal analysis=relevant evidence - Framework > Evidence. For LD I will look into your framework to decide what arguments to consider in the round and then who wins the round.
For debate in general - personal analysis
I’m also not a fan of in-round judge intervention. If you feel like there is a NSDA violation (or whatever the associated debate association may be), then make that argument in round in which depending on the severity, the round will either be stopped, and the violation will be considered within the rulebook or considered at the end of the round.
If there is disclosure before or in round, then please add me to the email chain or whatever form you may be sharing in. My email is email@example.com. Upon the event of a debater sharing cards, I will base the “weight” of the card on what is shared. I will still consider the card but if it is low standard then I will not have high expectations for refutations. I may discard the card in the round only if the opposing side points out the flaws that may be in the evidence and not by my own observations.
I can typically keep up in a debate and flow, but I do not base my decision based on how many arguments you can compile on the opposing side. The round will be fully judged on how much you convince the judge.
I do not have any triggers associated with cases, but discriminatory language is not to be used. If you are to use trigger words that many consider, then please use a trigger warning for me and your opponent. I am comfortable at whatever speed you read at and leave the interpretation of the speed up to the debater. If you read too fast, then I may lose details in the debate and if you read too slow then you may not get your point across.
I generally pay attention in the debate so if you fib then you may have reduced speaker points, but it will not lose you the round unless brought up by your opponent.
Tech > Truth
Evidence quality and comparison are very important in the round. You should be constantly telling me why your cards are amazing and maybe better than your opponents or some ignorant person.
If my ballot is not the same as the 2NR/2AR, then something is wrong.
Evidence ethics is important depending on NSDA rules, I may auto-close but allow the debate to continue.
Please don’t ask me to keep time for you. I will keep the official time but do not ask me in a debate to give you time signals or the speech times (exception for novice). I expect you to be familiar with your event enough to keep your own time if you’re in a debate.
This is a pet peeve, DO NOT let your timer continuously go off after a speech. When it goes off then turn it off.
You can use debate lango with me, I've done it for a while, so I think I know almost all the terms whether progress/trad.
If I am smiling, then it doesn't always mean a good thing. Sometimes I could be thinking you're doing something dumb.
Finally, if you try to make friends with me to get the ballot/favor then it won't work. If that is your intention, then forget it. I will make friends, but it will not give you any brownie points.
Traditional Debates -
If you signpost, please extend your arguments, try not to drop anything, and give an offensive reason as to why I should vote for you as opposed to a defensive one as to why you don't lose.
Personally, I consider the finding of the most frivolous extravagant argument that “no one will think of” as misguided. Don’t be afraid to argue those points in front of me but just know I will need more links in the case for further understanding and foundation.
I generally value things sequentially. I use whose value/criterion or framework is winning to determine which arguments and impacts to weigh and subsequently who 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 will evaluate the round as follows on my ballot:
Whose framework I view from-->what arguments weigh under that framework-->which side wins under this evaluation
I would like to see links and consistency between your framework and your contentions. Read Kant and utilitarianism arguments then I will cry.
Please don’t paraphrase as most debaters may lie in round. I won’t drop you for paraphrasing, but it will hold less weight in the round to me and you will be held to the same standards as if you actually are quoting/cutting the card (NSDA rules [again if brought up by the opponent will I then consider if it is round altering])
Impact calc and evidence comparison is good, and I prefer it. On a personal level, I appeal more to numerical comparison in order to do a good true impact calc.
For the current LD resolution (SO): so far, I have not developed any preferences over the current topic aside from the following; first, define the limitations of the "right to housing" - is it universal (all throughout the US [no limitations] which is the expected def), US citizens specific, tenant specific, or income specific, etc. Second, please don't run the UDHR as a FW. Third, you can run Maslow (Hierarchy of Needs) but I'm not too familiar with the nuances if you are. Fourth, this topic sounds extremely aff bias and I'll expect "big stick" impacts from the neg in most cases. Polit disads will probably have strong links and I don't imagine negs defending the squo policies of de facto criminalization. Fifth, LD isn't policy orientated so aff don't worry too much unless the neg runs a FW against it (ought implies can [rec Kant]). From a progressive standpoint I'll most likely expect the AHA with hyperspecific polit links or IL/DV. On the neg for progress I expect a CP/Disad structure (such as living wage/UBI [just be careful of perms like the UCC topic]) and most often feasibility arguments (equality fw). Sixth, it appears we are repeating past topics more and this is word for word the 2016 topic. From a surface google search I can already find a ton of cards and I expect some of you to find the same. I won't downvote on your "borrowed" cards/cases, but I recommend doing some of your own work for self-explanatory reasons. Finally, please show what the “right to housing” means - is that equal opportunity, equal access, etc. (nationalizing the housing market or the govt actually ENSURING housing). Honestly a progress plan text wouldn’t be bad in this topic. For progress: cap, HR, humanism, complex systems, coherdian, suffering, morality, ethics, etc. wouldn’t be bad Ks for neg and I’ll probably expect them.
Obviously, since I have competed in LD for a long time then this will be the longest part of the paradigm and will cross apply to the other debates: I appeal more to the traditional style of debaters rather than progressive, and my preference is the appeal although I will not vote against you for being progressive, just remember the importance of some factors. I am comfortable with philosophical debates although I do not have complete extensive knowledge of some philosophers. The ones I am comfortable with are Kant, Aristotle, Rawls, Marx, Mills, Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke, and a couple of others. Although I am in conformity with these authors, I would prefer you to still explain your philosophical standpoint and how it is upheld within your case to follow proper judging. One thing that is a pet peeve for me in LD is when debaters are “attacking” the framework (FW) in the round and compiling inconsequential attacks on the value/criteria (an example would be saying that justice is not achieved because we hurt the economy, hurt society, hurt the environment, and the FW flips, etc.). If you are going to attack specifically on the FW, then make it specific to the FW and not attacks against the case. For criteria attacks I prefer the Pizza Test, Links attacks, Question of the Resolution, Overlimit, Prior Question, Method, Metaethics, Ought Implies Can, Link Comparison, Vagueness, Warrant, and Is/Ought Fallacies. If you don’t know what those are then it’s fine. If you are to use any refutations on the FW, then make sure they are well explained. I believe FW is the most important part of the debate. I prefer a traditional framework, with clear contentions and signposting throughout the round. Remember that LD is value-based, so I will be looking for you to carry your Value/Criterion through the entire round and link all arguments back to this value. Your argument should have a solid framework to support it and it should be topical. I am looking for big-picture arguments, so please don't get lost in the minute details. Explain, support, and defend each of your arguments. Show me how your argument applies to the topic, your position, your opponent's position, and the impacts. Don’t worry about covering the whole flow. Pick some points you want to win over and go for it. If you run counter plans remember that the neg's job is to negate the resolution. If your counterplan gives me no reason to reject the resolution, or if the aff makes a persuasive perm I probably won't vote neg on the counterplan. The counterplan must be thorough and exclusive otherwise I will probably not vote on it. When you are the affirmative, I do reside over you the burden of proof. Although this may seem unfair, it is your obligation to prove the resolution sufficient to affirm and give me no reason to automatically default the ballot to the negative even if you are evenly matched. For the negative, I don't expect you to prove the resolution true nor uphold necessarily the other side. To put this in perspective for anyone who thinks that that is vague or unfair, what I am saying is that the negative is negating the WHOLE resolution. For instance, if the resolution is, "Resolved: The United States ought to prioritize x over y." then I don't feel it is your initial obligation to uphold y in the resolution but only prove why it is immoral to prioritize x. Now if the affirmative prove that x is better than y in some way then I feel you must prove y to be better than x or why the squo is better than x. If the resolution is about the moral obligation of an institution, then note that I may accidentally take a form of a "culturally imperialistic" stance from my innate bias that may influence all of focus of actors. I am not familiar with an absorbent number of countries and their histories, policies, governments, etc. and so I fear that if the resolution debates from a moral obligation, then I may judge from my own United States perspective. On the other hand, if it is a resolution of practicality, then I will try to judge from the actor's point of view. To make debaters more comfortable, I will try to reside the personal foundation of your topic enough to understand it and what the resolution is talking about for a background but that does not diminish your clarification. If you run a Kritik (K) and you feel confident in your K, I will listen to it like any other argument. In my view, a winning K is pertinent to the affirmative case and/or the resolution in general and has a clear, feasible alternative. If you run a K with an argument that contradicts the K, then I will not consider the K. I've rarely voted neg because of a K, mostly because negative teams tend not to run them well. If you don't understand the Kritik well enough to explain it, don't run it. Normally I would prefer for the debaters to clearly and concisely state the resolution and the resolution terms but as I am in debate then it is not as much of an obligation of understanding. When defining the resolution terms, I would not recommend defining every word in the resolution as you lose the judge's attention after a while. Just get the key terms in. When hearing your case, I will be looking for you to define your values. Did the arguments present focus on the values implicit in the resolution? Is the case itself cohesive? If your value is not defined in the round and is not upheld within your case, then it will not be considered. If you just state your value is Morality without substance, then I will not like you. You can run morality (and other abstract values) just know it is completely subjective and broad so I may side with the opposing side with the interpretation of it unless you define Morality in which case you should probably change your value. When establishing a criterion for the resolution I expect the basis of the value to be proven to be important by one debater or the other. The criteria should be the lens in which you observe your value and that is how I will observe it. So, if I evaluate through the lens of mitigating structural violence, then only arguments that link to that will be observed. If you do not have linkage to your FW in the debate, then I may discard the FW of that side. The main question I am looking to be answered in weighing importance is: 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? I also expect the debaters to apply their FW throughout the entire debate. If you are running observations, I am personally against using above 3 prongs and 3 observations in the round and especially if they are inconsequential. If you do state an observation in the round, then I expect it to be mentioned later on and be an important topic of the debate. If you mention a prong, then I expect it to be upheld and clearly told how it is so. When arguing I expect there to be proof of your argument. Did the evidence presented pragmatically justify the affirmative or negative stance? Did the reasoning presented philosophically justify the affirmative or negative stance? Refutations should include a claim, data, and warrant format. If any are excluded, then I will have less of a regard for the arguments. If you bring up a specific numerical impact analysis, then I will effectively view that as a higher standard than implicated impacts in the round. That being said, be considerate of what impacts you choose and don't make them inconsequential/the same as your others. When you are refuting, I don’t necessarily need hard analytics or evidence in the arguments unless needed although refer to top of the paradigm for my system of weighing. Simple logistical refutations are great. But for example: If your opponent says that the economy is boosted by said action by 30% and you say that the economy is not boosted then I expect there to be analytical evidence supporting your argument about how it is harmed by said action unless it is common sense in which you should still explain. I expect your arguments to be organized and ideas presented clearly, in logical sequence, and with proper appropriate emphasis. If your case does not include an impact, then it gives me no reason to vote for your case as it gives me no reason to care. For extending, clashing, and rebuttals I expect the sides to fulfill their obligations. 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? I also consider the presentation of the debater for speaker points. Speaker points do not dictate who wins the debate but rather who was the better speaker. That being said, speaker points are determined as follows:
Expression: Were language, tone, and emphasis appropriate to persuasive communication? Please be respectful at all times.
Delivery: Were gestures, movement, and eye contact audience-oriented and contained natural persuasive communication components?
Rate: Was the rate of delivery conducive to audience understanding? (Spreading may not be feasible under virtual conditions.) If there is a virtual tournament, then I will not hold technical difficulties against your speaker points and prefer you to keep your camera on. Also, definitions should not be abusive and if they are then I may not consider them as much in the round.
Note that I am generally very liberal with how many speaks I give out just because I understand that some judges give more speaks out than others so unless I really am considering it, then I will give you full speaks.
I'm looking for strong initial arguments that will be crystallized as the round goes on, and I expect your final speech to contain an explanation why you should win. I am looking for big picture arguments, so please don't get lost in the minute details. Explain, support, and defend each of your arguments. Show me how your argument applies to the topic, your position, your opponent's position and the impacts. I don't mind speed as long as you are clear; I hate speed if you're bad at speed. Please reference the above listings under LD for further preferences and please don't make messy rebuttals. In general, just make god arguments, give me some clash, contextualize your topic well, and you should be fine. I like some framing in PF, especially when you’re talking about foreign policy. Also be careful in CX: you should be asking each other questions not having a conversation.
And a note about generalized solutions, BE CAREFUL. I really have mixed feelings about these, and you may well have to defend the concept of a generalized solution in your speeches. To my understanding, it should go something like “we shouldn’t be doing the resolution when x is a better alternative.” Also feel free to debate on if it’s a plan or a generalized solution but just know I have a looser view so just be careful. Of course, if you use them well then you’ll be fine but don’t be abusive with them.
Fair warning: I have little experience with policy. But similar to PF, make good arguments, give me some clash, contextualize, and you should be generally okay. Every policy round is different, and I will go where you lead me. Any arguments are fair game. Feel free to run Ks, CPs, Ts, Pics, Sparks, FW, etc (as long as the tournament allows, sorry novices). I don’t think there’s much you shouldn’t do in general. Policy rounds should be very productive.
You should slow down (a little) for taglines, authors, and important quotes in your cards. If you maintain a constant speed throughout your speech, I (and any other judge) will likely miss something. Please refer to the LD listings on speaks preferences.
Although I generally will let the debaters establish their own rules for the debate, here is some information on my voting:
On-Off Negs -
I probably do not vote for negative teams who make no effort to respond to the affirmative. If you ignore the 1AC, you'll probably lose. I emphasize "probably" because I will begrudgingly vote for one-off negs when the affirmative has responded poorly.
Topicality: Topicality debates should focus on standards and voters, which should be specific to your definition. I'll probably vote negative when they've shown that the affirmative plan falls outside any definition that is fair, predictable, and flexible enough to accommodate a variety of topics. In those rounds, the negative should show 1) their interpretation is reasonable, 2) the affirmative falls outside that definition, and 3) the affirmative interpretation is unreasonable/bad for debate. I probably won’t vote neg when they use a definition that is too restrictive (e.g., only x is topical) or when both teams have reasonable definitions. In other words, if the negative's argument came down to "our definition is better" rather than "our definition is good and their definition is bad," I will not vote negatively on topicality.
If you feel confident in your Kritik, I will listen to it like any other argument. In my view, a winning Kritik is pertinent to the affirmative case and/or the resolution in general and has a clear, feasible alternative. If you run a K with an argument (CP, DA, etc.) that contradicts the K, I won't like you. To be honest, I've rarely voted neg because of a K, mostly because negative teams tend not to run them well. If you don't understand the Kritik well enough to explain it, don't run it. Tip: If you've run a K to throw the other team, you've probably thrown yourself as well.
I’ll probably vote negative on counterplans that are competitive with the affirmative case and are mutually exclusive from it -- that is, counterplans that prove we should not adopt the resolution. I've never voted negative on a topical counterplan. That said, you are welcome to try.
Because debate is a game, I'll entertain theory. I'll probably vote on theory only when one team has demonstrated that their opponent's strategy/argument is so abusive or unfair that it functionally derails the debate. I'll vote aff on theory when the negative functionally ignores the 1AC and begins a new conversation. I'll probably never vote negative on theory but consider it when deciding whether to accept or reject a perm to a counterplan.
Non-Oratory Speech -
Treat me like a parent judge. Most likely have no clue what's going on except in POE and DI.
Oratory Speech (OO, INFO, SO) -
Like non-oratory speeches, I do not have extensive knowledge on these events, but I get the general idea.
For OO and INFO:
I will focus more on the quality of your speech, the message in your speech, and the delivery of it.
All the same stuff as the other two but I won't really focus on the quality of the speech (ie. how its written) because you didn't write it (or at least I assume you didn’t)
I’ll most likely be critical of your speech but not towards my own bias. I will judge off timing, number of sources, background information, and the quality of your speech.
Quality of Speech > Timing > Sources > Background Information
Quality of Speech > Background Information > Timing > Sources
If you have less than a 5:30 speech (and this is dependent on the other speakers) then you will most likely not get a 1, 2, or 3. Please please please include background information in FEX. The more fluid and convincing you are, the more I’ll pay attention. If it is online, then I’d prefer you to show your hands at all times to prevent cheating and ask you to stand. Be fair. Be smart. Play by the rules.
In conclusion, most of the debates judging preferences are cross applicable although there are minor differences between each debate due to the expected styles and type of resolution. Additionally, I cannot cover everything in this paradigm or in my ballots (nor do I expect you to read all of it) and I don't expect you to completely appease me or convince me. I probably have my own set opinion but will judge from a clean POV. If you have any questions before or after, then email me at the one listed above or ask me in person. Goodluck.
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!
Simply put: The best argument will win.
My background is in Lincoln-Douglas and Student Congress in high school, and now a policy coach.
Speaking style: Slow it down a little. Show me that you understand the arguments, and the vocabulary by not tripping over your words.
Argumentation: Understand your cards. If you cannot show me you understand the card during CX or rebuttal, you will not win the round.
Clear, cohesive arguments that show me you understand the very basics of debate (claim, warrant, impact) will win my rounds.
Joke cases are my favorite in debate and I enjoy hearing them whenever they are used. If you run one and your opponent does I will not be angry but instead, laughing harder than both teams combined. If you guys do run these asinine cases, I won’t care if you laugh and will not deduct speaker points for humor. Whoever uses joke cases deserve to advance and spread their joy so I take it upon myself to facilitate this process. My paradigm for these cases is preferring whatever team has more absurd arguments. The more ridiculous the case, the more the stupid impacts, and that’s were my vote lies. You don’t need to make logical sense, you just need to be incoherent and stupid.
I will downvote you if you spred in Lincoln Douglas. You’re not smarter or more adroit than you opponent if you can sputter off more words. Persuade me and speak normally. If kids really think than an outsider would view prog as a debate, they would be utterly disillusioned. If you are running a progressive case, I don’t care what theory, disad, or impacts you use. I all view those as the same thing worth equally and will judge the debate like I judge traditional LD.
My preferred form of debate. I look at framework and dropped arguments the most. I prefer ought=can then ought=moral obligation. If you can show me why we can’t do something then I cant derive a moral obligation for what isn’t possible. You can’t run any progressive arguments like Ks and you are not allowed to spred. Dropped arguments are another thing I look at subordinate to FW. I flow everything and when you say your opponent dropped your srguments, I will always prefer your side. I look at new arguments made by both sides and will always remember what the other side mentioned in their last rebuttal. I’m not a judge that always gets convinced on the last speech. If anything, if both sides are tied on everything I vote neg. That’s bc if the Aff world is equal to the status quo, it would be a waste of time, money, and energy to change what ever we already have for something equally worse or good. I prefer both sides clash then run an observation that one sides doesn’t need to.
Hello! This is my first year judging so I am still new to things. I am not a fan of spreading, please articulate.
I do flow, but only what I hear.
I do time, but that's addressed later in the paradigm.
I am ready before each speech so just debate like I'm not there.
I WILL VOTE ON THE FRAMEWORK MOST OF THE TIME.
My LD paradigm is super simple. I'm okay with all types of arguments as long you can prove a strong value/criterion link. I'm a traditional LD Judge, I won't knock progressive but I do ask that you are clear in your argumentation. I flow and I expect arguments to not be dropped and extended throughout the round. Besides that, I enjoy a fun round so don't be rude but don't be passive. Again I'm open to whatever just make sure that your arguments are clear, logical, and have a strong Value/Criterion Link. Please don't say your card names, say the argument. I do not flow card names if you say "refer to my john 3:16 card" I will have no clue what you're talking about, but if you say "refer to x argument" I'll be on board. As a traditional judge, I like hearing some philosophy. I am not a philosophy expert but I do know the major points of the more used arguments and I wont count it as part of the RFD unless your opponent calls it out. If they don't then run with it I guess.
PF is very similar, hit me with your creative arguments. I generally vote for winners based on which team can either give me the bigger impacts or who can give me a good amount of strong arguments.
Also if you are reading this, just an FYI please time yourselves so I don't have to interrupt you. Again I'm super laid back so just make sure that arguments are very clear and logical.
CX is not my favorite so I have no real paradigm for it. Just tell me why your arguments are good. I like Ks but I hate nukes(extinction).
As you can tell by this paradigm that I'm somewhat lazy. So if you have any specific questions feel free to ask before the round AND do not be afraid to ask me what you can improve after the round or for advice.
If you try to post-round or debate me because of the results of the ballot, I will shut it down immediately but feel free to ask for critiques.
I read both critical arguments and policy ones, so just read whatever you want. Good case debate is my bread and butter. I think debate is both a game and a place to learn things but you can convince me otherwise.