Hello! I am an undergraduate philosophy student at Oklahoma State University in my junior year and currently compete with the ethics team. I debated throughout high school and qualified for Nationals in Public Forum in 2021.

Debate: The #1 fastest way to lose a round that I am judging is to disrespect your opponent.

I love a clean flow, so please be conscious that your arguments are well organized.

All argumentation styles are welcome but know that I am only familiar with traditional styles and may struggle with a poorly explained progressive argument. In essence, logic > uniqueness.

LD: Ensure that there is a strong link between your value and your contentions! I also like to see a good understanding of whatever your criterion is and how it applies to the viewpoint you are defending. For LD, I primarily vote based on coverage (not dropping arguments that ought not to be dropped, thoroughly analyzing your opponent's case, and adding to your defense where needed).

PF: Speak as fast as you are comfortable with. However, I can't flow what I don't hear, so make sure you are enunciating if you choose to talk quickly. I vote on evidence (statistics, empirical impacts) and coverage (see LD for description).

I judge based on how well you understand what you're saying, how clearly you communicate it, and how you control the energy of the room. I want students to strive for a balanced skillset. I will make decisions based on technicalities but I reward those who are learning how to master communication that is occurring between speaker and judge and audience.

I want to be informed, persuaded, and entertained. I will entertain every argument but I want it to have a purpose in the round. I also enjoy absurdist arguments if you can make them link. I don't enjoy watching an adult kick a toddler though-if you have clearly outmatched your opponent, you don't have to keep kicking them. I like competitors to be good sports and hate T as a time skew. The best debaters aren't afraid to actually engage their opponents.

I can follow spreading just fine but if you aren't articulate I'm likely going to zone out. I do not have a good poker face so you will be able to see exactly what I'm thinking.

All of that being said I have been either a competitor, coach, or consultant for speech and debate since 1997. I currently coach at Tulsa Community College, Edison Prep HS and Edison Prep MS and coach every event available in AFA, NFA, and PKD. I also have a student who has competed on the NDT circuit. I was hired by NSDA in 2023 to judge at nationals.

In college, I competed in limited prep policy (NPDA), IPDA (limited prep public forum), extemp, impromptu, POI, Poetry, Prose, and Dramatic Interp. I was a 5-time oklahoma state champion in college and 1st ranked seed at nationals in Team IPDA, a top speaker at IPDA nationals. I was also a national champion in DI.

In high school I competed in nearly everything. I won over 150 awards (competed in champs a lot) and was the first quad ruby from Mounds HS (the highest rank at the timeI graduated). I was also the first student in the 27 year history (at that time) of the Bethany Tournament to win top debater, top speaker, and top IE competitor. I was state champ in OO, 3rd in LD, and 3rd in DD in 2001 and 2nd in Monologe at state in 2000.

I love this activity and am willing to give feedback and advice to any student who wants it.

Competitor 2009-2013

Judge 2013-

Paradigms are silly. Rules and guidelines exist for a reason.

LD - I'm a traditional LD judge. It's philosophy debate. Listen to what your opponent is saying, and tell me why their points are silly. I don't want to hear that they dropped your subpoint 1.a.x, I'm flowing the round, I know they did or didn't. I want to know why them dropping the point matters to me. Why should I care about that one point?

On time - I keep official time, but if I'm listening to you speak, flowing, and keeping notes, I'm not going to be good at giving you time signals. Please keep your time too.

Also, don't spread. It's like when you go to a restaurant and they have 3000 things on the menu -- I'm going to assume that none of those things are amazing, and they're all mid, they just have a lot of them to distract me. I'd rather you have 2 solid arguments you know well. If I can't keep up on flowing, you're doing too much.

PF -There's four of you. Stop yelling at me. Stop yelling at each other.

Speech - Your movements, voice, face, mannerisms matter. You don't get props so you are the prop. Use it. Also, negative emotions are shown by more characteristics than "Sad yelling" -- please. Please stop sad yelling and please explore more of the emotional options.

In general, I like to think I'm not a regular judge, I'm a cool judge. That is to say -- just don't be rude, and we're probably chill.

LD is Value Debate. Propositions of Value

CX is Policy Debate. Propositions of Policy

It's cool to ask me my paradigm in round also read everything

Oklahoma paradigm:

Speaker points

25- Your speaks weren't great and you didn't add a lot of substance to the round.

27- Decent speaks, ok responses, and ok weighing basically you did your part in the round.

30- Perfect speaks and every response you read can change the ballot.

-If you want me to see a card after round I would love too see it.

-Call for cards, if like 3+ cards have horrible cutting I might consider it an auto win.

extend or lose

Defense is not sticky(ask about this in round)

Any speed is probably fine its Oklahoma.

No k's or theory.

-Do impact calc

Everywhere else:

Read all

(Tech > truth) but if you say something like the sky is actually red im not buying it without some warranting

Call for evidence it makes me happy, if the card cutting is bad enough run an ivi but dont kick substance. I will stay a while to read cards after round.

Example of bad ev: If you read 50% of people rely on fish to survive but the card says 50% of people rely on fish for 30% of their protein i'm probably not going to evaluate your impact.

Speed: 300 wpm is fine but if there isn't clarity i'm going to drop some stuff.

-Signpost clearly, line by line is not optional, and give off time roadmaps for speech order and make sure you make it clear what you're collapsing on.

-Please do weighing

-Defense is not sticky.

-extend impact and links or lose it.

-I hate blippy responses just have a bit of warranting.

-Theory is really an ehh for me I don't really like it and if I feel like you're just doing it to win, you probably don't get the ballot. Best case scenario don't run theory on me.

-I don't evaluate disclosure

-I evaluate paraphrasing theory but if you're caught a single time paraphrasing, probably an instant down vote

-no friv

-If you run SV you can't just say it's invisible to get out of proving UQ, if your evidence just says the government did this one thing one time and the other team just responds with "Bad actors will always exist, that doesn't mean the institution itself is evil, turn the argument and look to actual policy x warrant finds we help x group" you're probably not winning the round.

Speaker points

25- Your speaks weren't great and you didn't add a lot of substance to the round.

27- Decent speaks, ok responses, and ok weighing basically you did your part in the round.

30- Perfect speaks and every response you read can change the ballot.

Credentials:

I've been competing in Lincoln-Douglas debate for almost 5 years in Oklahoma. I first started on the 3a/4a circuit with the Tulsa School of Arts and Science (TSAS, before they moved to class 5A), then moved to 5a/6a last year (Broken Arrow). I have been a state finalist 6 times in events including LD and FEX. As for the national circuit, I've qualified for nationals for the past 3 years. I qualified WSD my freshman year, and then Congress for the 2 years after that. I placed top 40 in the nation in XDB in 2023. I love speech and debate and seeing new members thrive and find something they enjoy doing.

General - Debate:

Do not be rude. If you need to cut someone off in cross, do it respectfully. Overall, I don't want you to act like you're better than everyone. If anything, I want you to have fun :)

LD:

I'm EXTREMELY traditional when it comes to arguments, you will hardly ever catch me buying anything progressive. Feel free to cross-apply material in round, just explain why it applies to whatever you're cross-applying it to. I flow pretty in-depth but I DONT FLOW CARD NAMES. I don't mind you using a card name, but just remember to refresh my memory as to what argument that evidence is making. I'm also huge on philosophy and morality debates, they're the arguments that make LD what it is so PLEASE link your arguments back to your framework and the resolution's wording. Balance negs are fun too!

PF:

I don't do PF often, I've only tried it once. Apply most of the things I said for LD here, other than the philosophy and morality thing. Show me that something can be realistically done, I don't want your hypotheticals to stay hypothetical.

As a debate judge, my primary focus is on promoting a respectful and clear debating environment. Here are the key elements of my debate paradigm:

1. Respect and Decorum:

   • I place a high value on respect in debates. Competitors should treat each other with civility and refrain from personal attacks, derogatory language, or disrespectful behavior.
   • Maintain proper decorum throughout the debate, addressing your opponents and judges respectfully.

2. Clarity and Accessibility:

   • Clarity is essential. I must be able to understand your arguments to give you credit for them, so please enunciate clearly and avoid talking too fast.
   • If I cannot understand your argument, I cannot flow it.

3. Spreading:

   • If competitors choose to engage in spreading (rapid delivery of arguments), they must maintain clarity. Speed should not come at the expense of intelligibility.
   • Remember that spreading is not the only path to victory. Well-articulated, well-structured arguments can be more persuasive than sheer speed.

4. Use of Crossfires:

   • I do not consider crossfires as a time for rebuttals. Crossfires are meant for competitors to ask questions and clarify their opponent's arguments. I do not flow arguments made in crossfire.
   • Please use crossfires to seek clarification, challenge your opponent's arguments, and help me understand the debate better.

In summary, my judging philosophy is rooted in fostering a respectful and comprehensible debate environment. I believe that a respectful discourse is not only more constructive but also more persuasive. Clarity is essential, and I urge competitors to prioritize it, especially when spreading. Remember that crossfires are for questions, not rebuttals. Good luck, and let's have a productive and respectful debate!

A note about rule violations: I know the rules of debate. I am aware of both the OSSAA and NSDA rules and their various differences. I keep copies of the handbooks at the ready, so I can look up rules if I feel a rule was violated. That being said, I will weigh lies made in round in my judging decisions. Lies about cheating, evidence, drops, etc. are all weighed into my judging decision. Lying will not benefit you in my rounds. Debates should be about which team can make the best argument, not which team can trick the judge. If you need to lie to win, you did not win the round.

Notes for IEs:

I value genuine performance over screaming and fake crying every single time. Anyone can scream- few can act.

BIG NOTE: You NEED to implement trigger warnings if you have a selection with triggering content. You do not know what the experience of those in the rooms is- you could seriously hurt someone's performance by not giving a warning. You also do not know the lived experiences of your judges- they are a captive audience and you ought to give them a chance to prepare themselves. This is why dramatic pieces often get called Trauma Interpretations. That's not a compliment- it's a statement on how upsetting it is to see children acting out the most heinous trauma they possibly can in order to get reactions through shock value. If you are genuinely good- trigger warnings will not dull your performance- they will enhance it. If you rely on the shock of triggering people- consider if you are really a good actor. Trigger warnings DO NOT count against your speech time- there is literally no reason to give one.

I don't really have general paradigm for judging so I just created a tentative list of things I like and dislike.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Talented, brilliant, incredible, amazing, show-stopping, spectacular, never the same, totally unique, completely not ever been done before, unafraid to reference or not reference...:

1. Strong value and criteria that are tied into your contentions

2. Weighing impacts between both sides (Maybe your opponent has a lot of good points, but if they mean nothing in comparison to your one good point impact-wise, I could still be convinced to vote for you.)

3. Addressing all of each sides case meaningfully

4. Sign posting what you are attacking/defending as you move down the flow of your/your opponents case.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Harmful, dangerous, gross, disgusting, and should never be promoted...:

1. Having a consequentialist framework but having contentions with 0 impact

2. Underhanded shenanigans (i.e. trying to gaslight me into thinking your opponent said something they didn't, trying to say your opponent can only answer yes or no in CX, etc.)

3. 12,000 subpoints that are only 2 sentences long

4. Saying statistics are the ONLYYYY type of evidence that can prove anything ever and then having non-statistic evidence in your own case.

I am open to most any type of argumentation. I love kritiks, theory shells, topicalities, and all things squirrelly. That said, I believe spreading is an unethical practice and if I can't understand you enough to flow, you didn't say it. I have voted on probably 80% of speed Ks I have heard.

ABOUT ME:I'm a second year competitor, with most of my experience being in Traditional LD and Extemporaneous Speaking. I qualled to Nationals 2023 in USX, so I have a good grasp on competitive speaking, and debate.

LD:

I do traditional LD, so I'm going to judge traditionally. I weigh framework pretty heavily, and a lot of my voting will come off of who best upholds and supports their VC. Don't make blippy, weak arguments just to make an argument, if I hear anything like that, you will lose.

Don't drop anything.

PF: I don't know much about PF, so just try to persuade me and explain why your case is better. Simple.

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.

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.

DEBATE:

First, a little bit about myself. Hi, my name's Joe and I've done LD all four years of high school and I love it a lot, that's why I'm judging right now. Above all else, good sportsmanship is key in any debate round. I've got plenty of experience under my belt so don't worry about going to fast for me to understand, but do make sure that your opponent can understand what you're saying as well (if you plan on policy-style spreading I'd prefer to have a copy of your case to read along because I can't flow that). I count dropped arguments very heavily—if you drop something your opponent has won that point, that's just how it works. I keep my own flow but if you want those dropped points to count you better point them out in the round, I will only judge exclusively based off of what is brought up in the round (don't leave anything open to interpretation. If you have any questions please ask them before the round! I'm happy to clear up any confusion! Have a good round!

SPEECH:

Just as LD, I've also competed in a variety of speech events throughout my time in high school. Judging for this is pretty much by the event, so there's nothing very specific adive I can give you other than keep your cool—you got this!

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.

If you plan on speaking above 200 wpm, you need to send a speech doc 2 minutes before you begin speaking. If you don't, I can't guarantee that I'll catch everything you say and if I don't catch it, I can't judge it.

Please be respectful to myself and your fellow contestants. If not, your speaker points will be docked and you may lose the ballot regardless of arguments made.

I am a traditional parent/judge who votes off the flow, so if you plan on reading progressive arguments, make sure you explain them well.

Offense and Defense is sticky within reason.

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.

My paradigm is very simple. I want to hear your points, I don’t want you to spread. Simple as that.

About Me:

This is my fourth year doing LD debate so i like to think I know what I'm doing. I've done PF, watched plenty of policy rounds, as well as competed in Prog LD. I'm familiar with all speech events including extemporaneous.

ALL DEBATE: Don't let me fall asleep due to your lack of inflection while speaking.

LD:

• Framework wins you rounds, but does not lose you the round either.
• Contentions should have tangible impacts that link back to you're framework.
• Explain you're cause to me Cleary and what you're case accomplishes.
• You're attacks should be easy to follow as well as flow. If i cant follow and flow what you're defense or attacks are, then they were never said. THIS APPLIES TO ALL DEBATE.

PF:

• IMPACTS are the most important thing that i will be voting on.
• Understand the topic literature and have proper research beforehand
• Cover the most important arguments vs covering all of them

Debate Etiquette: Don't do anything that's disrespectful or that you may think is disrespectful. If you do so, you will lose the round and get minimum speaker points. Be nice and respect you're opponent.

Feedback: will write in detail everything you did wrong, and right. I will also give advice on things i think you could work on. If you have any questions Email Me: Jcmccloud06@gmail.com

I will listen and vote on any argument or style of debate as long as it is well developed and you state it clearly in your voters.

In order to maintain a collegial atmosphere, try to keep hyperbolic and sarcastic comments to a minimum. Do NOT expect me to disregard an argument because a debater says it’s stupid or wrong. Explain why it’s wrong and engage with the warrant and evidence.

EVIDENCE MATTERS. Tell me why your evidence is strong. Tell me why your opponent's evidence is weak.

Speed is fine as long as it’s clear and consistent. If you do decide to go fast, please email me your case beforehand. The tags and analytical arguments NEED to be slower so they are easy to differentiate.

Impact Calculus and Weighing will be a key factor in my decision-making. Debaters should state what they think the most important thing in the round is, why they think it’s important, and why they think I should vote for it. I am also looking for the debaters to tell me their interpretation of the ballot and specific reasons why.

Debaters should have a clear and firm defense of the arguments they wish to the present in the rebuttals. DO NOT be ambiguous with your arguments.

I don’t count flashing or e-mailing as prep but DON'T steal prep please! If you’re talking, writing or typing, prep should be running. I do request to be on the e-mail chain if there is one.

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.

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

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

POLICY:

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

LD:

The Value/Criterion debate is what I default to mostly in my evaluation of LD debates, if given no meaningful clash by the debaters on Framework. Making arguments surrounding each Framework and how they interact/should be evaluated/prioritized with regards to contention-level claims will make the end of the debate infinitely easier to decide.
If you didn't read the policy portion -- I LOVE LINE-BY-LINE DEBATE.
I am good with all means of jargon -- cross applications, turns, links, etc. these are encouraged and allow for sprinkling offense across the flows, so feel free to use them as long as they're coherent.
I am fine with progressive argumentation, but I'm not the judge to pref for one-off, throw-away theory shells -- if the argument is warranted and impacted out properly, I will evaluate it, but prefer meaningful topical engagement from both teams.

PF:
Framing/Impact calculus is probably the most important aspect of PF debate for me nowadays. The easiest way to my ballot is to do the weighing for me and tell me exactly how I'm supposed to evaluate each impact/how they interact with regards to each other within the debate space. Impact prioritization based on criteria, formalized Framework/theory arguments, etc. are encouraged.
I am fine with progressive argumentation, but I'm not the judge to pref for one-off, throw-away theory shells -- if the argument is warranted and impacted out properly, I will evaluate it, but prefer meaningful topical engagement from both teams.
Voters in Final Focus are extremely helpful, even more so if they're presented during Summary, but not required.
If you didn't read the policy portion -- I LOVE LINE-BY-LINE DEBATE.
I am good with all means of jargon -- cross applications, turns, links, etc. these are encouraged and allow for sprinkling offense across the flows, so feel free to use them as long as they're coherent.

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

In high school I was a member of Moore High Schools speech and debate team. There I competed in LD, PFD, OO and Extemp. I crossed over to policy in 2014 when I started debating for the University of Oklahoma’s policy debate team. I honestly do not care what you do in front of me. Debate is a game, a performance, I am the audience and attempt to judge as fair as possible. Persuade me. I am a black woman living in America in the year 2018 with Donald Trump as our President. That is the basic lens through which I evaluate things through.

If you are not clear I will not flow you and will not default to the speech doc.

I like framing and I like being persuaded. It makes my job easy.

Have a link to the case and not the squo. Makes it easier to vote for you.

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.

Last updated: September 28, 2023

I prefer speechdrop but here is my email for document sharing/evidence chains if you need it:betty.stanton@jenksps.org

I'm the head coach of a successful team, and have been coaching for 18 years. I did CX in high school so long ago that Ks were new, and I competed in college.

LD: I'm a very traditional judge. I like values and criteria and analysis and clash. I want framework debate to actually mean something.

PF: I’m a very traditional judge. If the round becomes a very short CX round instead of a PF round, we have a problem. I want evidence and actual analysis of that evidence, and I want actual clash.

CX: I can handle your spread and I will vote where I'm persuasively told to with the following exceptions: 1) I have never voted on T. I think it's a non-starter unless a case is so blatantly non-topical that you can't even see the resolution from it. That's not to say it isn't a perfectly legitimate argument, it's just to say that I will probably buy the aff's 'we meet's and you might have better uses for your time than camping here. 2) If you run a K, you should firmly and continuously advocate for that K. 3) I, again, will always prefer actual clash in the round over unlinked theory arguments.

General Things ~

Don't claim something is abusive unless it is.

Don't claim an argument was dropped unless it was.

Don't advocate for atrocities.

Don't be a jerk to your opponents (This will get you the lowest speaker points possible. Yes, even if you win.)