LD paradigm

I am opposed to spreading.  I teach communication, and speaking at a rate that your opponent cannot follow is not communication.  If I set my pen down and stop trying to flow your argument, you should take that as a clue that you need to slow down or lose the round even if you have superior arguments or evidence.

Additionally, be nice.  You can be respectful of your opponent and still be competitive.

For LD, I will neutrally evaluate the round using the below three-prong method, with greater emphasis on elements A and B. I am open to classic and contemporary styles and thoughts so long as it makes sense and is fully supported in the case. Most importantly, have fun and enjoy the round.

A. Case and Analysis

1. Defining the Values: Did the arguments presented focus on the values implicit in the resolution? Is the case itself cohesive?

2. Establishing Criteria for Evaluating the Resolution: On what basis (universal, moral, social, political, historical, legal, etc.) is one value proven by the debater to be more important than another?

3. Weighing Importance: Are the values advocated in support of the resolution more important than the values diminished by the resolution, or are alternative values supported by the negative enhanced by the resolution?

4. Application of Values and Criteria: Did the debaters apply their cases by filtering appropriate arguments through the value and criteria?

B. Argumentation

1. Proof: Did the evidence presented pragmatically justify the affirmative or negative stance? Did the reasoning presented philosophically justify the affirmative or negative stance?

2. Organization: Are the ideas presented clearly, in a logical sequence, and with appropriate emphasis?

3. Extension, Clash, and Rebuttal: Did the debaters fulfill their obligation to extend their own arguments? Did they appropriately refute the contentions of their opponents by exposing weaknesses or inconsistencies?

C. Presentation

1. Expression: Were language, tone, and emphasis appropriate to persuasive communication? Please be respectful at all times.

2. Delivery: Were gestures, movement, and eye contact audience-oriented and contained natural persuasive communication components?

3. Rate: Was the rate of delivery conducive to audience understanding? (Spreading may not be feasible under virtual conditions.)

Language borrowed from UIL, emphasis and additions my own.

------------------

For PF, the round will be evaluated as it is argued by the speakers. Focus on the advocacy of a position derived from the issues presented in the resolution, not a prescribed set of burdens.

Debaters should advocate or reject the resolution in manner clear to the non-specialist citizen judge. Clash of ideas are essential to debate.

Debaters should display solid logic and reasoning, advocate a position, utilize evidence, and communicate clear ideas using professional decorum.

As for plans and counterplans, please be aware of both NSDA and OSSAA guidance.

NSDA: In Public Forum Debate, the Association defines a plan or counterplan as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Neither the pro or con side is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions.

OSSAA: Neither the pro nor con is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan, defined as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions.

Crossfire time should be dedicated to questions and answers rather than reading evidence. Evidence may be referred to extemporaneously. It should also be professional and balanced by each side.

No new arguments may be introduced in the Final Focus; however, debaters may include new evidence to support prior arguments. I am always listening for evidence. Per the NSDA's Evidence Rules, "[i]n all debate events, contestants are expected to, at a minimum, orally deliver the following when introducing evidence in a debate round: primary author(s)’name (last) and year of publication."

I graduated from Norman North in 2019 and OU in 2022 with dual degrees in political science and professional writing. I am an English teacher and debate coach at US Grant High School and a two-time published poet.

From 2012-2019, I competed in PF, LD, Congress, and all IEs. LD and Congress are by far my favorites. I've been to regionals, state, Nats, and TOC.

I have judged in the West OK circuit since January 2023 and was a coach and judge for Norman/Norman North at Nationals 2023.

Being a respectful, charismatic speaker is most important. The most persuasive speakers are expert storytellers. I'll happily choose the more compelling storyteller over the person with the most cards. Crack a joke. Show personality.

PF should be treated on balance, so I will carefully follow where there is clash of arguments. I want to see offense and defense. I will treat LD similarly, but FW will always matter more in LD.

In LD, if you do not have a FW, then I will default to your opponent's. If you do not make it applicable to your own case, then the opponent will win on that voting issue. If you both have a FW, I want you to tell me where your FW interacts with the other. Does it encompass theirs? Does it narrow the scope? Why does that matter?

I also like to see creative arguments. Bring a fresh perspective. Big K fan when done right, but my preference will always be for traditional LD debate.

TLDR:

PF: 1. speaking 2. clash of impacts 3. FW (maybe)

LD: 1. speaking 2. FW clash 3. impacts, I debate trad, but theory is fun sometimes.

Things to avoid and other notes:

Ad hominems.

Straw man arguments.

Inundating your opponent with evidence and telling me "Judge, they dropped my 2nd and 43rd responses you must vote on that." (I will not vote on that.)

Adaptability is critical to success. So while certain strategies/etc are allowed and often welcome in the nat circuit, I will expect competitors to adapt to their judges' paradigms. Learning how to read a room is a valuable skill. Good luck to all competitors and don't forget to have fun!

I have experience with PF and Congress. I love listening to logical arguments created by linking evidence. If you are going to speak 250+ wpm please provide me with a copy of your documents so all points can be fairly evaluated.

My email is kaelyngcarpenter@gmail.com

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.

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.

Note: A large volume of illogical evidence will not outweigh well-reasoned logic.

If you want information from cx to be weighed in the round make sure to bring it up in a speech.

Theory:

Friv: Do not waste my time with shoe theory, formal dress theory, apple-laptop theory, or any other variation.

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.

PF: I’m tech over truth and will flow any argument no matter how crazy it may seem. With that being said, it needs to be convincing enough on your end. If you use framework tell me why I should prefer your framework and why your contentions flow under your it. If neither team convince me on their framework, I will default to cost-benefit analysis. I’m fairly confident with any speed, but if you’re speaking so fast that you lack clarity then you should probably slow down. I will vote based mostly on impacts so please please please impact weigh at the end of every speech. I do not flow crossfire. That is time for you, not for me, so if something important is brought up during cross, make sure to bring it up in your next speech.

LD: Pretty much the same thing but swap framework with value/value-criterion. Explain how your criterion links to your value and why your value is more important than the opposition. Also, explain how your case flows across both values.

I absolutely love the framework debate, please explain to me how I know your impacts achieve your framework. FRAMEWORK IS HOW I AM SUPPOSED TO VOTE IN THE ROUND.

I am comfortable with all forms of arguments: K's, Counterplans and plans, Theory, Reverse voting issues, ETC. Just explain yourself and don't assume I know the literature.

If you exhibit any discrimination towards your opponent or me it will be extremely difficult for you to get a ballot from me.

I appreciate a good speaker and someone who stays confident, NEVER GIVE UP any solid argument could persuade me to vote for you

Good Luck!

I’m cool with whatever. Run your case however you think it’ll be best.

I’ll vote for who I think wins.

Open to squirrelly cases

More likely to judge on clear and evident lines of logic

Prefer clear voters

If you don’t say it, it doesn’t count

Parent judge- but have been judging for 2 years.

Judge LD + PF.

Impact based weighing > evidence, but both are important.

Spreading: I've only had one person I couldn't keep up with, so it doesn't bother me.

Ask for email

Judge Paradigm For Policy:
I enjoy progressive debate. Feel free to run theory or any Ks you want. I accept spreading in policy, but make sure your links, impacts, etc. are clearly labeled and signposted when you present your case. (I'm not the best at flowing, so helping me flow is to your best interest).

.... for Public Forum
I consider PF to be a middle ground between LD and Policy. Try something new, and have fun! I try my best to match my RDF to the flow of the debate, so work well with your partner to rebut opponent's case and extend your own arguments. (Look below for more general information on my paradigm).

...for LD Debate

Philosophical Approach: I approach LD debate as an opportunity to engage with the complex issues of ethics, values, and moral reasoning. I value clarity, logic, and ethical considerations in the arguments presented. I do not have preconceived biases or preferences for any particular moral framework or side of the resolution. My role is to fairly evaluate the debaters' arguments based on the principles of sound reasoning, ethical consistency, and persuasive communication.

Role of the Judge: My primary role is to objectively evaluate the arguments presented in the round. I will assess the clarity, relevance, and strength of the debaters' contentions, and I will prioritize well-structured and logically sound arguments. I will not intervene in the debate but rather base my decision solely on what is presented in the round. Debating the role of the judge, or the role of the ballot, or the purpose of debate is fair game.

Argumentation and Framework: I believe that both debaters have an equal burden to present and defend a consistent framework that applies to the resolution. I encourage debaters to engage in value clash and address the criterion effectively. If a debater chooses to run a value or criterion, they should explain how it directly links to the resolution and the ethical implications of their framework.

Evidence and Warranting: I value the use of relevant and credible evidence to support arguments. Evidence should be clearly cited, and debaters should provide warranted explanations to connect their evidence to their arguments. I will not evaluate unsupported claims or arguments without proper reasoning.

Clarity and Communication: Clear communication is essential. Debaters should enunciate their arguments, speak at a moderate pace, and avoid jargon or overly technical language. I encourage debaters to use signposting and roadmaps to guide me through the flow of the debate. If I cannot not understand you, I can't flow your case, so be careful when spreading.

Rebuttal and Clash: I expect debaters to engage in substantive clash. Effective rebuttals should address the main points made by their opponents, demonstrating where arguments are impacted or fall short. I appreciate when debaters extend key arguments and explain why they should be prioritized in the round.

Time Management: I will closely follow the time limits set in the round and expect debaters to do the same. Effective time management is crucial for a well-structured and organized debate.

Etiquette and Respect: Debaters should treat each other, the resolution, and the judge with respect. I will not tolerate any disrespectful or offensive language or behavior. Constructive engagement is key to a productive debate.

Flexibility: While I appreciate clarity and structure, I am open to evaluating unconventional arguments or styles of debate, as long as they adhere to the fundamental principles of ethical reasoning and argumentation.

Final Thoughts: I am here to facilitate a fair and educational debate. My decision will be based on the quality of arguments presented, not personal preferences or biases. I encourage debaters to approach this round with a commitment to ethical reasoning and persuasive communication.

Remember that different judges may have slightly different paradigms, so it's a good practice to adapt your approach to fit the preferences of the judge in each specific round.

Last Updated 12/5/2021

Ishmael Kissinger
Experience: 3.5 yrs for The University of Central Oklahoma 02-05 (Nov/JV & Open)
14 yrs as Coach @ Moore High School, OK
Policy Rounds Judged: Local ~10
Policy National/Toc - 2
LD Rounds Judged Local: 0
LD National/TOC - 0

PFD - Local = 0

PFD Nat Circuit - 0

Email Chain: PLEASE ASK IN ROUND - I cannot access my personal email at school.

*Note: I do not follow along with the word doc. I just want to be on the chain so that I can see the evidence at the end of the round if necessary. I will only flow what I hear.

LD -

Just because I am primarily a policy judge does not mean that I think LD should be like 1 person policy. Small rant: I am tired of us making new debate events and then having them turn into policy... If you are constructing your case to be "Life & Util" and then a bunch of Dis-Ads you probably don't want me as your judge. If you are going for an RVI on T in the 1AR you probably don't want me as a judge. I don't think that LD affs should have plan texts. If I were to put this in policy terms: "You need to be (T)-Whole Res."

Affirmatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their Criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that affirm the whole resolution.

Negatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that negate the whole resolution.

CX

I tend to consider myself a flow oriented judge that tries to be as tab as any one person can be. Absent a framework argument made, I will default to a policy-maker/game-theorist judge. I view debate in an offense-defense paradigm, this means that even if you get a 100% risk of no solvency against the aff, but they are still able to win an advantage (or a turned DA) then you are probably going to lose. You MUST have offense to weight against case.

Generic Information:

Speed is not a problem *Edit for the digital age: Sometimes really fast debaters are harder for me to understand on these cheap computer speakers.

T & Theory need to be impacted with in round abuse. As the debate season goes on I tend to err more toward reasonability than I do at the beginning of the year. This is usually because as the debate year goes on I expect Negative teams to be more prepared for less topical arguments. This is generally how much judges operate, they just don't say it. I typically don't vote on potential abuse, you should couch your impacts on potential abuse in very real-world examples.

Please make impact calculus earlier in the debate rather than just making it in the 2nr/2ar

Kritiks are not a problem, but I am not really deep into any one literature base. This may put you at a disadvantage if you assume I know/understand the nuances between two similar (from my point of view) authors. **If you are going for a K or an Alt in the 2NR but are unsure if the aff is going to win the Perm debate and you want me to "kick the alt" and just have me vote on some epistemic turn you're only explaining in the overview of the 2NR you are not going to enjoy the RFD. If you think it's good enough to win the debate on with only a :30 explanation in the overview, you should probably just make the decision to go for it in the 2nr and kick the alt yourself.

When addressing a kritikal aff/neg I will hold you to a higher threshold than just Util & Cede the political, I'll expect you to have specific literature that engages the K. If this is your strategy to answering K teams I am probably not your "1."

I don't have a problem with multiple conditional arguments, although I am more sympathetic to condo bad in a really close theory debate.

CPs are legit. Just like judges prefer specific links on a Dis-Ads I also prefer specific Counter-Plans. But I will evaluate generic states/int'l actor CPs as well.

Dispo = Means you can kick out of it unless you straight turn it, defensive arguments include Perms and theory. (My interp, but if you define it differently in a speech and they don't argue it, then your interp stands)

DAs are cool - the more specific the link the better, but I will still evaluate generic links.

Case args are sweet, especially on this year's (2019) topic.



Personal Preferences:

Really I have only one personal pref. If you are in a debate round - never be a jerk to the opposing team &/or your partner. I believe that our community has suffered enough at the hands of debating for the "win," and although I don't mind that in context of the argumentation you make in the round, I do not believe that it is necessary to demean or belittle your opponent. If you are in the position to be facing someone drastically less experienced than yourself; keep in mind that it should be a learning process for them, even if it is not one for you. It will NOT earn you speaker points to crush them into little pieces and destroy their experience in this activity. If you want to demonstrate to me that you are the "better debater(s)," and receive that glorious 29 or maybe even 30 it will most likely necessitate you: slowing down (a little), thoroughly explaining your impact calc, clearly extending a position, then sitting down without repeating yourself in 5 different ways. If you opt to crush them you will prob. win the round, but not many speaker points (or pol cap) with me.

Hello, my name is Bri :).

If you have questions please email me: briannalemaster1120@gmail.com

About me

I competed at Westmoore High School for 4 years where I was a 4x national qualifier and in multiple state final rounds. I also currently coach multiple events including all the debate events and some specific IE events. I also beat Taylor Rafferty in a debate round once.

TLDR: General Debate Things

1. Tech>Truth. This obviously excludes racist, homophobic, and other hateful sentiments.

2. You should be crystalizing and summarizing your best arguments in your last rebuttal speech going for everything is not in your best interest.

3. Clash is the most important thing for me in debate if you don't do it or are just avoiding it the round will probably not go well for you.

4. SIGN POST PLEASE. If you don't your speaker points just like your signposting won't exist.

Trad LD

1. Framework is pretty important to me especially when im looking at what arguments to prioritize in the round.

2. Since progressive debate is becoming more common among the local circuit I'm fine with speed and counter plans etc.... All I ask is that if you're gonna do it please format it correctly and just call it a counter plan or a "K" or whatever don't try to hide it as a contention.

3. 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).

4. Your framework and your case should be able to match properly I don't want to see a Kant framework and then a bunch of extinction arguments I might sob internally.

PFD

1. FILL YOUR SPEECH TIMES. You already don't have a lot of time use it wisely!

2. Please don't make Grand Cross a big disaster please be civil and nice.

3. Make sure to carry your arguments all the way through final focus if they are not carried through I won't use it in my decision.

4. Public Forum Debate is called Public Forum for a reason it is supposed to be as accessible to a general audience as possible there shouldn't be a high use of progressive argumentation or debate lingo.

5. Don't be one of those teams that paraphrases evidence you will instantly lose all credibility.

I am a business executive in Oklahoma City, OK with graduate degrees in theology and international relations.

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.

In general I should be considered a lay judge. I have a history with Speech and Debate as well as a background in political science, but I prefer debaters that can communicate with a diverse audience. I used to say that I was okay with fast talking, but found that students would either start to spread beyond my comfort zone or speak incoherently. I theoretically am open to all T and K arguments as I think policy debate gets stale after one year of the same debate. I have to warn all debaters though that I do not often vote for them as they are often presented as either a time suck or with unclear components.

Stock Issues: I know this is very basic, but my favorite debates are the ones where the AFF presents a well researched plan with clearly labeled stock issues and relevant evidence. The NEG then can bring up relevant DAs and convince me that the plan is somehow flawed. The debate should be sign posted, clean on the flow, and use logic or evidence to address all points of contention with one or more responses.

Counterplans: Most CPs are on the table as long as they take into account uniqueness. If you want to adjust the timeframe, there needs to be a compelling reason. There needs to be a clear piece of evidence about the harms of doing something at a particular time. The same logic applies to consult CPs, give me specific evidence about why your proposed org is better. AFFs should avoid the perm. Just argue the CP (weigh agency, timeframe, etc.). Likely unpopular: I don't like the 50 states fiat. There are legitimate reasons as to why a federal actor is uniquely important, depending on the situation. The only time 50 states unanimously adopt a policy is when its federally mandated ( feel free to tell me if I'm wrong). Mobilizing resources to fund a plan is different than mobilizing 50 state governments to incorporate an uniform policy.

T/K: I am never sure how to accurately convey my position on these arguments. I think in a perfect world, they are mechanisms that bridge educational/institutional gaps between debaters. However, I rarely vote on them because of poor links and labeling. The shell should be outlined somewhat like stock issues. Let me know the interpretation, violation, standards, and voters. It should be noted, "education" isn't a voter. You have to tell me what education does for us outside of the round. If you're running topicality, you should do your best to address your opponents case. Too many times I have heard students run topicality and spend 8 full minutes talking about how they had no time to come up with an adequate response. Not only is that speech terribly repetitive, it seems self defeating. Topicality should be used to bridge legitimate gaps in research, but even in the worst case we are all still capable of debating with logic. A legitimate K will demonstrate an actual barrier that prevents a contextual discussion.

Oversimplified ex. I don't like: K must be resolved before the Resolution because of more pressing impacts. Oversimplified ex. I do like: K must be resolved before the Resolution because of specific reasons that prevent/affect a contextual discussion of the plan.

Extinction Arguments: The more steps/links it takes to get to Nuclear War the more likely you are to lose me. The argument needs to have uniqueness and probability.

Evidence sharing: This is wildly unpopular, but I do not believe that judges should be on the evidence chain. While there are occasions where the actual card in question is unclear, debate is about the speaker's ability to read, evaluate, and respond to the opponents evidence. When judges look over evidence they expose themselves to bias. Additionally I have found when I look over evidence, I start to make arguments for students myself. The best way to avoid this is to not get involved at all. If your opponents' evidence is poorly written, power tagged, etc. TELL ME. Read me the quote in question with your interpretation. That is the best way to evaluate these disputes.

Decorum: I absolutely do not need us to treat each other like we are in MUN. However, we need to set basic rules of respect. Ex, one speaker accuses another of cheating because they have a disagreement over interpretation is definitely disrespectful. Not only does that kind of behavior unnecessarily aggravate your opponents (or even your teammate I have seen), it makes me feel as though the character judgement is intended to manipulate judge perception.

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.

Hi!

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

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

Debate-

• Tech over Truth

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

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

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

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

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

Speech-

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

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

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

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

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

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

Former Parlimentary Debate competitor at Cameron University (2005-2007). Coach PF- 5+ years LD - 3 years. Basically I understand policy, but I don’t like judging it, necessarily.

I will entertain any arguments in-round as long as they are developed with appropriate impacts/voters. If you want to argue topicality for an entire round, fine (I love words. Words are important). Just tell me why it's crucial to do so. Kritiks, sure! Just tell me why I need to vote here first. Is there abuse in-round? Tell me where, and specifically how it harms you/the activity, etc. and why that matters. This is your round to strategize in however you see fit; I don't have any real predisposed dislike for any argument. However, poor arguments are still poor arguments and will not win. Irrelevant arguments won't win either, no matter how fancy they sound.

Clear, significant impacts make it easy for me to vote for you. Don't make me do the work for you or your team, because I won't.Sure, it would be nice to end the contention at "and this leads to more discrimination." Spell it out for me, otherwise I will shrug and say, "So what? Who cares?" Be sure to pull them through to your final speeches.

One thing that will work against you: Speed. I know you have a lot of material to cover, and often both teams will be fine with speedy arguments. I'm not going to vote against you for spite, but I WILL drop arguments on the flow. If you are okay with that, just be prepared for the vote to possibly not go your way... even if you put 87 responses on your opponent's disadvantage. I'm not a speed debater, so I won't be able to follow you. If you feel your opponents are using speed against you as a tactic, I will listen to a speed K and possibly vote on it... IF IT'S WELL DEVELOPED. As I said, I won't vote for a speed K simply because I don't prefer this style; Poorly developed arguments will not win me even if I tend to share your viewpoint. Bottom line: If you want to improve your chances of winning, don't speed one another out of the round-- you'll likely flow me out of the round too.

— I’ve gotten MUCH better over the years. I don’t encourage speed, still, but I’m pretty good at

getting it all down.

I do enjoy debators who at least attempt to add some persuasive flare in their speeches, but I do NOT wan you to focus on delivery at the expense of content and analysis.

If I do get stuck in an LD round, you must spend some time convincing me that your value and criteria are better than your opponents. I've had two sides argue with fantastic evidence to support their values, counter-values, with NO clash about which one is superior. I'm a libra, so it's already a task for me to try and choose between two equal, yet differing options. INCLUDE A FANTASTIC JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR VALUE IF YOU WANT TO WIN ME IN LD.

• I’m only experienced in traditional LD and some PF, so if you plan on running anything progressive, you’re gonna need to be pretty clear about it. I probably won’t vote on anything off-topic unless your opponent is completely lost.

• I’m pretty flow-oriented so point out extensions and tell me where you're cross applying arguments.

• Don’t be rude to your opponent at all.

• I don’t mind a definition debate as long as it’s clever and not just semantic distraction.

• I like it if you can delegitimize your opponent’s evidence and explain clearly why your evidence is better. This makes it easier to vote in a close round.

• I can keep up to a speed of like 7. Anything past that I’ll likely miss stuff

• USE CROSS. Use it to set up arguments, use it to make your opponent look dumb, or whatever. I would hate to watch three minutes of clarification or 1 minute of a failed setup. I’m not gonna vote off of it, but I’ll dock speaks for bad use of cx.

FRAMEWORK

• Framing is just a way for me to evaluate your arguments.

• Don’t make it a voting issue.

• Even if you “win”

• Even if you win the framework debate I can still vote for your opponent if they can use it.

You can ask before round about anything else.

I am a blank slate judge. Pretty much any argument goes as long as I cannot deduce it is fake, like purple dinosaurs are taking over the world or something. I have done PFD for four years. I have dabbled in all types of debate. I've done some speech as well. I am laid back, take with that what you will, just respect each other and the round. Will not flow CX (unless something crazy happens), carry the points into your speeches. CX is for the debaters to get information from their opponents and the judge is a spectator at that point.

I am a flow heavy judge so make sure to emphasize the important stuff and tell me what to weigh in the round. I usually try to narrow down the debate to three different main arguments (most clash) or one linear path, if the debate is one sided. I don't want to do the debating for you and that would be a disservice if I just looked at the flow sheet and decided that way, VOTER ISSUES ARE IMPORTANT :)

Hello! I’m Morgan Russell and I am the head coach for Norman North High School in OK. We're relatively traditional style debaters, but part of my team does compete on the circuit 8 or so times a year. Before that, I competed in CX and PF in high school, assistant coached through college. So I’ve dabbled in it all.

Overall: My philosophy on debate whoever debates better should win. However, my personal opinion of arguments or strats shouldn't matter, so I default to weighing brought up by debaters whenever possible. I do believe Aff and Neg need to interact with each other's cases.

I’ll judge the round based off what you give me, and won't judge based off what I'd do, but what y'all did.

Add me to the email chain! morgannmrussell@gmail.com

LD: I think framework is important, but it’s not everything. You need evidence and solid analytics to back it up. I prefer we not spread, but I'm fine with some speed, if I can't understand I will say “clear” once or twice. From there, if it doesn’t make my flow, I can’t weigh it. I’m fine with Ks and Plans in LD.

PF: PF was made to be more accessible, so I don’t like when it gets too new wave. It’s not “mini-policy.” You can use debate jargon, but don’t just read cards the whole time. I need impact calc.

CX: It’s all fair game. As far as spreading, I’m okay but with Zoom it’s more difficult to understand. I will say “clear” once or twice if I can’t understand. From there, if it doesn’t make my flow, I can’t weigh it.

I did LD for 3 years at Bishop McGuinness and now I do policy at OU.

Include me on the chain:

blaine3252001@gmail.com

Lincoln Douglas /Public Forum Debate

I prefer a more conversational approach to debate, as opposed to spreading. A few well developed and explained arguments are often more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments that are less well developed. Debating debate for debate's sake misses the point of these events.

In Lincoln Douglas the Value & Criterion framework is key to weighing the round. This framework should be extended through the round. Philosophy and moral arguments are fundamental to Lincoln Douglas Debate. Linking impacts and drawing logical, reasonable conclusions earns points with this judge.

I'm less impressed by the "card shuffle" than by reasoning, impacts, and solid argumentation.

Individual Events

A Note On Trigger Warnings

By knowingly and intentionally bringing a piece that can and will trigger people, you have made the room a potentially unsafe for participants. By asking people who will be triggered to leave the room, you are singling out people with trauma and making their private matters public.Tournaments are public and educational - asking people to leave a round denies them access to the educational environment.

Issuing a trigger warning does not solve the problem of choosing traumatic content that could harm the mental health of competitors in the round. These are not "magic words" that absolve you of the responsibility of your choices. If you want to show that you care about triggering people, don't select triggering content.

I would strongly advise choosing appropriate, non-vulgar and non-triggering content appropriate to the educational setting that can evoke emotion and showcase your talent without knowingly & intentionally traumatizing other students and judges who may choose to suffer rather than singling themselves out in public, or being denied fair access to the educational setting by being asked to leave.

I did policy debate at Jenks for four years, now I'm debating for OU. Put me on the email chain: supersalok@gmail.com.

I read mostly policy stuff at Jenks and mostly critical stuff at OU, they are both valuable! I love a good case debate as well. Have fun, be smart, say what you wanna say.

Hello everyone. First time judge, do not speak too fast or else I won't understand what you are talking about. Good luck!