Andrea Campfield

I did not debate in high school, so my experience judging is rooted within my 2 years coaching policy debate. Not sure if this qualifies as a paradigm, but this is what I find I look for in judging a round:

1. I am focused on the policy topic at hand as I judge. I am listening for reasonable arguments for or against adopting the policy in question. While I am open to good kritik strategy, I find way out there theory argument is a distraction to the task of quality civil debate and begins to sound like conspiracies on facebook. If you go off case, stay in bounds.

2. I also have found that habitually calling out abuse or lack of educational integrity and hoping it sticks or confuses is also a distraction. Definitely do so if there is merit, but if you have to try to win on calling foul all the time, what does that say about the strength of your own research and prepped case? Proving or disproving the validity of the topic is the debater’s job, and for me, the best job wins.

3. I also like an organized, respectful debate with clarity in speaking and questioning. Quality is better than quantity, so if a spread is merely to befuddle the opposing team, it will not serve well if I cannot understand your words. I don’t want to be befuddled.

4. I am also looking for your personal investment in the topic. Although we have to get through case cards, I am more interested in the debater’s response to the material.

5. And finally, I find that how both teams use cross X comes into my decision making, as well as the aff’s response to a solidly built neg block. Final rebuttals are key.

Again, not sure that’s a “paradigm”, but it’s honest. I am a work in progress, and I learn new things each time I judge. I hope you teach me a new trick!

LD is Value Debate. Propositions of Value

CX is Policy Debate. Propositions of Policy

Schools/Affiliations: Program Manager - Tulsa Debate League, Coach - Will Rogers High School

I currently compete in NFA LD on the college circuit, I competed in policy debate in high school for 3 years, I was a finalist for NUDL debater of the year 2023

General Paradigm
Left to my own devices, I’d approach the round from a policymaking point of view, but I know that few rounds boil down to such a paradigm. In light of that, debate is a game of sorts and I’m willing to let the debaters decide how it should be played. I can’t see myself voting against an affirmative on a stock issue like inherency.

Speed
Clarity, of course, is key. If I can’t understand you, then I can’t flow you and I likely won’t be inclined to vote for you or the position(s) I don’t understand. Look for cues (not flowing, a blank look on my face).

Line by Line
I prefer line by line debate. I believe you need to flow and I don’t think a team is obligated to share analytical arguments in a flash/speech doc. If the debate becomes disorganized because of your inability to stay on the flow, that’ll likely cost you in some way. Debate, at its essence, is about a clash of ideas...therefore clash is an essential ingredient to a good debate round. A round between two teams who neither extend their own arguments, nor address the specific attacks made on these arguments, is not a debate round, and such a round begs for intervention on my part.

Decision Calculus
I am loathe to intervene in a round, but will do so if neither team presents a clear comparative analysis of the issues in the round. You need to tell my why I should vote for you and make that clear in the final rebuttals.

Framework
I’ll start with my paradigm, you tell me where to move to, and convince me of why I should do so, if you’d like to change the framework. Any framework should make it possible for both sides to win and shouldn’t be rooted in a rejection of debate as an activity (though it’s possible I could be convinced otherwise).

Topicality (or any other procedural/theory argument)

I will vote on topicality. I think the negative has to construct a fully formed argument to convince me I should do so, complete with a reason that the violation committed by the affirmative is worthy of giving them the loss. I’m not as inclined to be convinced by a reverse voter argument in t, but affirmatives can defend themselves by attacking one or all of the components of a typical T argument and win the issue. Other procedurals tend to get decided based on actual, rather than, potential abuse.

Kritiks

. Despite my knowledge about some of the authors and their positions, I’m usually able to discern when the student speaking knows as little or less than I do. I prefer that if you’re going to make the k an issue, that you know it inside and out, and be aware of the inherent dangers in speaking quickly to a judge who may know less than you do, and who you are trying to convince. Real world alts are pretty much a requirement.


Performance
Do what you will, I’ll listen. Prefer they be relevant to topic.

Counterplans
I am good with counterplans, conditional is fine, but don’t get too feisty in this regard. Deep counterplan and pic theory give me headaches, so slow down and talk me through it.

Multiple Worlds

No thanks...multiple conditional positions are fine, but not contradictory advocacy. Can’t be convinced otherwise on the matter so save your time.

If you can find out who my high school partner was and mention them in your speech, Ill give you an extra speaker point.

3NRs and My Decision
I will give an oral critique if time allows and reveal decision if permitted by tourney expectations, but I will not enter into an argument with either team about my decision. I can handle a question or two, but make sure it’s a question. Look, I am always going to do my best, but I’m sure I’ve gotten the decision wrong a time or two, and I hate it when I do. That being said, my usual answer when teams argue why they lost is: I’d feel the same way if I were you, but next time debate better. Then I mark their speaker points down for being rude. Live to fight another day, and be aware that you might see your judge again down the road.

Prep Time

i will be lenient as we learn the online format, but that being said, I’m losing patience with the time taken up by flashing files even during in-person debates. Be efficient.

Put me on the email chain tekahmorales03@gmail.com

Charles Page High School 22’ - OU 27’

Conflicts: Charles Page High School, Sand Springs - Will Rogers High School, Tulsa

I don't care what you run, just have fun and explain it well for me

I will flow on paper (if I have it) so make sure your speaking is well enunciated, this being said speed doesn't matter as long as you're clear on tags and postings.

I’m absolutely terrible with making sure I fill out the comments and RFD fully, I tend to forget since I give oral feedback and my RFD’s aloud - if you’d like for me to type some stuff out in the comment let me know and I will make sure to write feedback ballots

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.)