My name is Kyven Acevedo (He, Him), I'm 19

Qualifications:

4 year policy debater.

I debated all 4 years for Guymon Oklahoma.

I've been a state finalist in policy debate my sophomore, junior and senior year (COVID messed up freshman year :(

State runner up in policy senior year

Other than debate I am also a 4 year foreign extemper, also state finalist and runner up in the same years as debate.

In speech events,
State Runner up Dramatic Duet senior year

1st alt to nationals Programed Oral Interp Junior year

LOOK HERE IF IM YOUR DEBATE JUDGE!!!

Ks

Any K you want to run is fine as well, I've got plenty of experience with K to understand most kritiks.

Just make sure you explain the K well, if I don't fully understand a obscure kritik I have a hard time voting on it unless its just dropped.

I think alien / humans destroy the universe cases are dumb. I am willing to vote on them if the opposing team does a bad job answering but this will probably be rare.

CPs

Go crazy. As long as you can prove competitiveness and remain mutually exclusive, you can win my vote.

For the aff, I love a good Perm debate.

DAs

I don't like generic links, use specific ones. Most of the time I treat generic DAs as time succs and wont give a team a ballot for it.

T

The neg needs to do a good job convincing me that the aff is truly being unfair. And if you really believe that the aff is outside of ground and they should lose for it, then the T debate ought to take up most, if not all, of your rebuttals.

(The same goes for arguing abusiveness)

Case

Line by line please.

Procedural

Love one another and be respectful.

Don't curse please. I don't have anything personal against cuss words and they don't bother me. But treat the debate space in a professional manner. Cussing will be an automatic 25 speaks and potential report to tab.

HOW I AWARD SPEAKER POINTS.

Good tone and speaking voice will get you good points regardless of the outcome of the debate.

The less "ums" and "uhhhs" the better.

Use all of your speaking time, especially in the rebuttals.

Most important of all, line by line. The closer you get to a perfect line by line the better points you get.

I do give out 30s to those who I believe deserve it.

Rudeness or unkind remarks/attitudes made in the round will result in a big loss in speaker points. Despite the common trend of being rude or demeaning to other teams. Being disrespectful in debate does not impress me, it makes me think of you as a child. Be adults.

Just be nice, speaker points will be awarded for kindness and mutual respect, especially if your opponent is being rude and you remain kind. Let children be children.

My middle name is a Star Wars reference and if you happen say it at any point in the debate I will award bonus speaks :)

Skiatook '17

CX debate for 4 years, IE for 3. Qualified for state 3/4 years in both divisions.

POLICY DEBATE/CX DEBATE

I love crazy/gag/unconventional arguments if you know how to run them seriously. I don't have a preference really. However, if you make it apparent that you don't know what you are doing/not defending yourself or not extending arguments then a mental note will be taken.

Use all of your given speech and prep time. If you take too long to flash then I will continue your prep time.

Your responsibility as a competitor is to have a backup copy of your standard aff and neg on paper if wifi issues happen. Blaming things on the "wifi" not working further perpetuates a delay in round.

I will allow open CX in the beginning of the year but about halfway through, I will not allow it. Doing closed CX will help you prep for Regionals and State.

If you try to take control of the round by assuming the role of time keeping for your opponent and not just for your personal use, I will deduct speaker points. It's not fair to your opponent or your judge.

TELL ME AS A JUDGE WHY YOU SHOULD WIN.

The 1AR will make or break a round for me in Debate.

IE:

-make sure you are performing a piece that fits you as a person.

-make sure your hair is neat by keeping it put up and away from your face so i can see your facial expressions

-add levels to your blocking when appropriate for the event

-MEMORIZE YOUR LINES

-USE MOST OF YOUR TIME. HOWEVER, I KNOW THERE IS NO DQ PENALTY FOR GOING OVER TIME, BUT IF YOU BRING A PIECE THAT IS SO LONG THAT IT STARTS TO DELAY OTHER ROUNDS, I WILL MAKE A NOTE OF IT ON MY BALLOT AND YOU NEED TO NAIL THE PIECE.

FX/DX

-No 2-3 minute speeches. 4 minutes minimum

-Know your stuff, if you don't, pretend you do.

-Be aware of the DQ rules for your note card word limit, although an experienced Extemp speaker who is adequately kept up to date will not cling to it like their life depends on it.

If you make a relevant Game of Thrones, The Sims, or a Shrek reference in your speech, you will get an extra speaker point.

If you can add a relevant Game of Thrones quote or reference to your speech, that could get you an extra speaker point. Also, use all your prep time.

LD is Value Debate. Propositions of Value

CX is Policy Debate. Propositions of Policy

Schools/Affiliations: Program Manager - Tulsa Debate League, Coach - Charles Page HS - Coach Webster HS

I competed in policy debate in high school for 4 years, advancing to late rounds at nationals

I’ve coached, in one role or another, for 22 years

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

I debated before kritiks were a thing, so that’s fair warning. Having said that, I’ve voted on them many times, but profess a lack of deep knowledge on some of the more theoretical positions. Deep theory, you’ll have to tell me what to do. 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.

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.

Judging Philosophy

Hannah DeLeon

Alumni from Skiatook Highschool

Hello Students, Teachers, and People, I am Hannah DeLeon, I have been in Speech & Debate for 4 years and Drama for 3. I have won 1st place in poetry, also 1st place in Cx Debate as well as some 2nd and 3rd places. I have also performed on stage 3 times with drama. I have also been apart of the crew in musical performances, one of me being the stage manager. I consider myself well educated on both debate and drama.

I view judging as a responsibility and one I take very seriously. I have decided to try and give you as much information about my preference.

Drama: Have fun, be confident, and just keep working hard!

Debate: I expect a lot from debaters to always be prepared and ready so if your reading this good job for researching your judge.

Pro-tip: FLOW---don't stop flowing just because you have a speech doc, and make sure when your speaking your partners flowing.

Topicality: is an outdated mode of thought with tries to put up fences in our brain about what we can and can not talk about. I'd prefer this not to be used but if so please run it successfully.

Style issues: Civility is important to me. Open CX is fine as well as closed CX. I allow speed as long as words are audible. Numbering your arguments or saying next is very helpful in keeping up with the debate. Detailed roadmaps are Great and preferred. Prep time doesn’t continue for 2 minutes after you saying stop please Flash evidence faster and within your prep time.

Affirmatives: I still at my heart of hearts prefer and Aff with a plan that's justifiably topical. But, I think it's not very hard for teams to win that if the Aff is germane to the topic that's good enough. I'm pretty sympathetic to the Neg if the Aff has very little to or nothing to do with the topic, or decided to drop key arguments.

Disadvantages: I like them. I prefer specific link stories (or case-specific DA’s) to generic links, as I believe all judges do. But, if all you have is generic links go ahead and run them, I will evaluate them. The burden is on the Aff team to point out those weak link stories. I think Aff’s should have an offense against DA’s it's just a smarter 2AC strategy.

Counterplans: I like them. I generally think most types of counterplans are legitimate as long as the Neg wins that they are competitive. I am also fine with multiple counterplans. On counterplan theory, I lean pretty hard that conditionality and PICs are ok. You can win theory debates over the issue of how far negatives can take conditionality (battle over the interps is key). Counterplans that are functionally and textually competitive are always your safest bet but, I am frequently persuaded that counterplans which are functionally competitive or textually competitive are legitimate.

Critiques: I like them. I think they should have an alternative or they are just non-unique impacts. I think there should be a discussion of how the alternative interacts with the Aff advantages and solvency. Impact framing is important in these debates. The links to the Aff are very important---the more specific the better. Some K lit bases I'm decently familiar with: Capitalism, Security, but some I am not So if you are running Critiques make sure you understand and are able to explain.

Things not to do: Don't run T is an RVI, don't hide evidence from the other team to sabotage their prep, don't lie about your source qualifications, don't text or talk to coaches to get "in round coaching" after the round has started, please stay and listen to RFD's, and don't deliberately spy on the other teams pre-round coaching. Please, don't read things overtly sexual if you have a performance aff--since there are minors in the room I think that is inappropriate. Also, I will not tolerate, racist, homophobic, sexist comments made in arguments or in general.

Denslow, Keith Edit 0 3… Judging Philosophy
Keith Denslow,
Skiatook High School,
Skiatook, OK

I have taught academic debate for 32 years. I have coached both policy debate and value debate on the high school level plus NDT and CEDA for 2 years on the college level. I have coached regional, district, and state champions.

I give up. I embrace the absurdity which is post-modern debate. If you debate on a critical level, then it is your burden to understand and explain the philosophical position you are advocating and offer a rational alternative to the worldview.

Topicality is an outdated mode of thought with tries to put up fences in our brain about what we can and can not talk about. It harms education and the marketplace of ideas. As a negative, only run Topicality if the argument is 100% accurate not as a test of skill or response.

It is important that anyone arguing counterplans have an understanding of counterplan theory especially how a counterplan relates to presumption. DO NOT automatically permute a counterplan or critique without critically thinking about the impact to the theory of the debate.

Style issues: Civility is important. Open CX is okay. Clarity must accompany speed. Numbering your arguments is better than “next” signposting. Detailed roadmaps are better than “I have 5 off” and prep time doesn’t continue for 2 minutes after you say “stop prep” Flash evidence faster!

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.

***Updated for 2025***
Bryan Gaston
Director of Debate
Heritage Hall School
1800 Northwest 122nd St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120-9598
bgaston@heritagehall.com

I view judging as a responsibility and one I take very seriously. I will pay attention, flow, and follow along. I will try my best to evaluate the round fairly. I have decided to try to give you as much information about my tendencies as possible to help with MPJ and adaptation.

**NOTE: I may be old, but I'm 100% right on this trend: Under-highlighting of evidence has gotten OUT OF CONTROL. When I evaluate evidence, I will ONLY EVALUATE the words in that evidence that were read in the round. Debaters, highlight better. When you see garbage highlighting, point it out and make an argument about it. The highlighting is really bad; I will likely agree and won't give the card much credit. This does not mean you can't have good, efficient highlighting, but you must have a claim, data, and warrant(s) on each card.**

Quick Version:

1. Debate is a competitive game.

2. I will vote on framework and topicality-Affs should be topical. But you can still beat framework/T-USFG with good offense or a crafty counter-interpretation.

3. DA's and Aff advantages can have zero risk.Debaters don't challenge internal-link scenarios as much as they should. They are typically weak or sometimes non-existent.

4. Neg conditionality is mostly good.

5. Counterplans and PICs are good (it's better to have a solvency advocate than not). Process CPs are okay, but I lead a little more Aff on some of these theory arguments —topic-specific justifications go a long way.

6. K's that link to the Aff plan/advocacy/advantages/reps are good.

7. I will not decide the round over something X team did in another round, at another tournament, or a team's judge prefs.

8. Be bold and make strategic choices earlier in the debate; it is usually rewarding. Sometimes, hedging your bets leaves you winning nothing.

9.Email Chain access, please: bgaston@heritagehall.com

10. The debate should be fun and competitive. Be kind to each other and try your best.

My Golden Rule: When you can choose a more specific strategy or a more generic one, always choose the more specific one IF you are equally capable of executing both strategies. But if you need to go for a more generic strategy to win, I get it. Sometimes it is necessary.

Things not to do: Don't run T is an RVI, don't hide evidence from the other team to sabotage their prep, don't lie about your source qualifications, don't text or talk to coaches to get "in round coaching" after the round has started, please stay and listen to RFD's I am typically brief, and don't deliberately spy on the other teams pre-round coaching. I am a high school teacher and coach who is responsible for high school-age students. Please, don't read things overtly sexual if you have a performance aff--since there are minors in the room, I think that is inappropriate.

Pro-tip: FLOW---don't stop flowing just because you have a speech doc.

"Clipping" in debate: Clipping in the debate is a serious issue, and one of the things I will do to deter clipping in my rounds is requesting a copy of all speech docs before the debaters start speaking. While the debate is flowing, I read along to check from time to time.

CX: This is the only time you have “face time” with the judge. Please look at the judge, not at each other. Your speaker points will be rewarded for a great CX and lowered for a bad one. Be smart in CX, assertive, but not rude.

Speaker Point Scale updated: Speed is fine, and clarity is more important. If you are not clear I will yell out “Clear.” The average national circuit debate starts at 28.4, Good is 28.5-28.9 (many national circuit rounds end up in this range), and Excellent 29-29.9. Can I get a perfect 30? I have given 3 in 22 years of high school judging, and they all went on to win the NDT in college. I will punish your points if you are excessively rude to opponents or your partner during a round.

Long Version...

Affirmatives: I still at my heart of hearts prefer and Aff with a plan that's justifiably topical. But, I think it's not very hard for teams to win that if the Aff is germane to the topic that's good enough. I'm pretty sympathetic to the Neg if the Aff has very little to or nothing to do with the topic. If there is a topical version of the Aff I tend to think that takes away most of the Aff's offense in many of these T/FW debates vs no plan Affs--unless the Aff can explain why there is no topical version and they still need to speak about "X" on the Aff or why their offense on T still applies.

Disadvantages: I like them. I prefer specific link stories (or case-specific DA’s) to generic links, as I believe all judges do. But, if all you have is generic links go ahead and run them, I will evaluate them. The burden is on the Aff team to point out those weak link stories. I think Aff’s should have offense against DA’s it's just a smarter 2AC strategy, but if a DA clearly has zero link or zero chance of uniqueness you can win zero risk. I tend to think politics DA's are core negative ground--so it is hard for me to be convinced I should reject the politics DA because debating about it is bad for debate. My take: I often think the internal link chains of DA's are not challenged enough by the Aff, many Aff teams just spot the Neg the internal links---It's one of the worst effects of the prevalence of offense/defense paradigm judging over the past years...and it's normally one of the weaker parts of the DA.

Counterplans: I like them. I generally think most types of counterplans are legitimate as long as the Neg wins that they are competitive. I am also fine with multiple counterplans. On counterplan theory, I lean pretty hard that conditionality and PICs are ok. You can win theory debates over the issue of how far negatives can take conditionality (battle over the interps is key). Counterplans that are functionally and textually competitive are always your safest bet but, I am frequently persuaded that counterplans which are functionally competitive or textually competitive are legitimate. My Take: I do however think that the negative should have a solvency advocate or some basis in the literature for the counterplan. If you want to run a CP to solve terrorism you need at least some evidence supporting your mechanism. My default is that I reject the CP, not the team on Aff CP theory wins.

Case debates: I like them. Negative teams typically underutilize them. I believe a well-planned impacted case debate is essential to a great negative strategy. Takeouts and turns can go a long way in a round.

Critiques: I like them. In the past, I have voted for various types of critiques. I think they should have an alternative or they are just non-unique impacts. Framework can be leveraged as a reason to vote Neg by some crafty Neg teams, make sure if you are going for the K framework as an offensive reason why you should win the round you clearly state that and why it's justified. I think there should be a discussion of how the alternative interacts with the Aff advantages and solvency. Impact framing is important in these debates. The links to the Aff are very important---the more specific the better.

Big impact turn debates: I like them. Do you want to throw down in a big Hegemony Good/Bad debate, Dedev vs. Growth Good, or method vs. method? It's all good.

Topicality/FW: I think competing interpretations are valid unless told otherwise...see the Aff section above for more related to T.

Theory: Theory sets up the rules for the debate game. I evaluate theory debates in an offensive/defense paradigm, paying particular attention to each team's theory impacts and impact defense. For me, the interpretation debate is critical to evaluating theory. For a team to drop the round on theory, you must impact this debate well and have clear answers to the other side's defense.

Impact framing is important, especially in a round with a soft-left Aff and a big framing page.

Have fun debating!

I am the head debate coach at Crossings Christian Schools. I graduated from the University of North Texas. I debated for four years at Edmond North High School. I have debated and judged both traditional policy and critique debate. I have also judged LD debate.

Debate what you are good at. I am comfortable judging any argument as long as it is clearly explained. However, I am more of a traditional policy debater. If you are a very K Heavy team, I might not be the best judge for you.

Email: alexaglendinning@gmail.com This is if you have any questions about my decision, debate in general, or for email chains.

Some argument specifics:

Topicality/FW: I love a good T or FW debate. I think that these arguments are critical because it determines the rules for the debate round. With this said, I do NOT like RVI's and I probably won't vote on those. With T, I need a clear interpretation of what is fair and why the other team violates that.

Theory: I love Theory debates. It sets up the rules for the debate round. I think theory could either favor the neg or be a complete wash in debate rounds depending on how it is debated. With theory debates, I need a clear interpretation of what is fair and why the other team violates that.

Disadvantages: I like them. The more specific your link story, the better. However, if you only have generic links, I will still evaluate them.

Counterplans: I like them. I believe that all counterplans are legitimate unless debated otherwise by the affirmative i.e. CP Theory. You have to win that they are competitive in order for me to vote on them.

Ks: They're fine.

Case debate: I love a good case debate. I think that this has gone out of style in current policy debate. I really want to see this come back.

Other Notes:

Use CX wisely. CX is a great tool that teams under-utilize. It is an important part of the debate round. It is in your best interest.

FLOW!!! Flowing is one of the most important things in a debate round. This is your map for where the debate has been and where the debate is going to go.

Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. If you aren't being clear, then I will not be able to understand or evaluate the arguments that you are making. I would rather you be clear than fast.

What not to do:

Do Not steal prep. Use it wisely. If you use it wisely then you wouldn't have to try and steal it. DON'T STEAL PREP.

Do Not Run T as an RVI. See the T section of my paradigm.

Do Not text with anyone during a debate round. Just Do Not use your phone at all during a debate round. The only exception is if you are using your phone as a timer. You should be focused on debating. Put your phone in airplane mode. This allows for less temptation.

Have Fun Debating!

Martin (Marty) Glendinning

AFFILIATED SCHOOLS: Southern Nazarene University, Crossings Christian School, Edmond North High School

OVERVIEW

EXPERIENCE: For those of you that do not know me, I have been judging and coaching debaters for 44 years. I was a 3-time NDT qualifier, and an out round participant at the NDT. I have coached a national champion collegiate team, CEDA Nationals out round participants, multiple high school State Champions (13), and an NSDA National Champion. Last year, I coached a team to the NSDA National Tournament and assisted another school in winning a State Championship.

VIEWS OF CURRENT DEBATE: I believe that debates have become to tech centered and not as much debate centered. Please do not ask me to be a part of an email chain or give me your speech docs. The docs frequently seem to be more eloquent and explanative than the actual arguments in the debate especially when it comes to analytics. I still flow very well and if I need to look at a card I will. (Very rare) I coached and debated many climate topics and have a good understanding of the arguments and issues involved. I have also coached and debated many legal and constitutional topics and currently teach US Government. For these reasons, I am very comfortable adjudicating both components of both current topics.

PARADIGM

If I had to describe myself, I am a policymaker or defer to the resolution. I am not a big fan of Kritiks. I feel that too often, K’s are simply generics that are argumentatively behind before they get started due to the lack of specificity and the inability to be able to explain deep philosophical issues within the confines of the time limits of a debate round which also, at times, produces little clash in a debate. If you are going to run a K in front of me, you need to have very specific links and very specific alt solvency mechanisms and evidence of efficacy. I also do not like K affs as I feel they do not meet the definition of should. Thinking about the reasons behind doing something or reciting a narrative, in my mind, does not prove reasons for implementation. I feel that the way topics are worded presumes some sort of policy implementation that can be debated at a practical and logistical level. That is not to say that I will not vote for these critical arguments, they are just not my preferred way to view a debate.

TOPICALITY:

I love good topicality debates, however, if you are not willing to commit in the 2NR, I probably will not vote for the argument. I enjoy creative definitional and grammar based interpretations of the meanings of words in the topic and how the affirmative violates those meanings within the realm of topic distortion in this debate, the topic in general, and/or possible distortions to other debates. Topicality, to me, is always a voting issue unless the affirmative wants to allow the negative to run topical counterplans, which, by the way, is fine by me as long as they meet the other requirements of a counterplan. I also do not believe in reverse voting issues but I will, and have, voted for them with good analytical reasons but you have to be very committed to the argument, just like T itself, in order to win that debate in front of me.

UNDERVIEW

MY PROCEDURALS: I will NOT tolerate rudeness or disparaging remarks from anyone, or directed towards anyone, including myself. I feel that a debate round is, and should be, a safe space intended for civil discourse. Speaker point deductions will occur for any person that chooses to deviate from this norm. The same standard applies to post round discussions. I feel that it is a judge’s obligation, if asked, to educate and be able to expand on the RFD in a civil and analytical way. At the point where these discussions become aggressive and argumentative rather than educational and informational, the discussion, at that point, is definitional over and will cease with possible speaker point repercussions. I believe it is the debater’s responsibility to “do the work”. I will vote on the arguments and evidence that are presented in the debate and I try very hard not to go beyond those parameters UNLESS the debate is so messy that I am left up to my own calculous. Therefore. I feel that Impact Calculous, Round Calculous, and clarity in analyzing those issues are vital towards winning my ballot. I still believe that this a communication activity.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Let’s have fun, civilly discuss the issues, learn new insights, and come to some new conclusions about the topics.

Good Luck to all!!

Pronouns- any pronouns are fine, he/him If you have specific pronouns let them be known before the round, if you dont respect someones pronouns your speaks will be as low as they can be, i get the occasional mispeak but if its obvious you dont give a crap your speaks will be trash.

Email-nathan.hernandez2213@gmail.com (spam my email and I will be very upset)

put me on the chain pls

Background- Debated 4 years for Guymon high school in Oklahoma (now a student-athlete at Rogers State, no college debate) under the GOAT and now NSDA hall of fame coach Michael Patterson. 2021 and 2022 policy state champ made state FEX finals a few times and won some IE events a few times at state and qualified to NSDA nationals.

side note-this is a dying activity much to my sadness, so if you are facing someone who is much less experienced than you don't be a jerk and just destroy them, help them learn and be nice and slow down a bit I'm sure a senior team doesn't need 8 off to handle a novice team, crap like this is what drives people away from the activity.

TLDR; tab ras

As far as policy and all debate really goes I try to approach every round with tabula rasa so just have fun and run whatever you normally run as long as it is not sexist, racist, homophobic, or anything hateful, i will not hesitate to vote down any team that participates in card clipping, "ism", plagiarism, i don't care how much you are winning the flow

Policy-spreading- is fine just send a doc copy

Ks- are fine but dont expect me to know your Lit base, was a huge cap/setcol/bioP/anthro debater in HS so i know them pretty well, i understand most Ks but dont expect me to understand your super complex Baudi K so please explain your warrants and your lit base

DA- is cool more specific the better. I get generic links are easy but its always smart to go with more specific links they make the debate way more interesting to judge. Also idk why people are starting to feel like they can run a 2 card long DA and that somehow covers it, i get the strategy for it but its just annoying.

theory- is cool not really a huge voter but I mean if you're winning it I will. Run whatever theory you want as long as it is not problematic (most theory debates are pretty trash but im down to be proven wrong), I prob wont vote on your RVI unless there is some fr abuse.

CPs- are cool i really really enjoy specific ones, i think PICs are kind of lazy and will be down to vote on PIC theory but its never ran it so wahtev. I always love a good CP comp debate, please make the status of your CP known or ask, trust me. I was a big CP debater my senior year so i love those guys. PLEASE HAVE A SOLVENCY ADVOCATE

T- is dope aswell make sure to extend and go for standards they are underutilized. When answering T a counter def or we meet is a good idea, probably the best idea but you cant just run that, if you drop standards you basically lose the round.

Case- is underutilized and can make or break a round i love a good case debate. SOOO much room for good clash on the flow if you use case correctly which makes the best rounds. Also pls pls pls do line by line on case, i hate having to jump around my flow. Ill do my best to put it where i think it goes but if it ends up on the wrong thing, sorry...

Speaks- are determined on how clean your line by lines are and spreading and overall behavior in the round and overall debate skill. It's not that deep bro.

random-i was a 1a/1n all through highschool and more tech>truth judge unless it just gets ridiculous with the hyper tagging. will ask for a card to be shown if i think it can deterime a round or was highly contesed throughout the debate.

Args i 9/10 wont vote-stuff that happened outside of a round, links by their schools (idc if they are a christian school), debate is a game.

args i will vote you down for running-death good (seriously..why), racism or any ism good, name calling, reverse racism.

overall just have fun be nice and enjoy yourselves. Funny jokes in your speech will be rewarded with better speaks i dont think debate should be a monolouge of zombies, crack the occasional joke trust me ill laugh even if i really dont find it funny.

i prefer if you have your cams on when speaking or doing CX/crossfire.

LD/PF-Never done it but i know the gist of it, alot of my policy paradigm applies except in PF it seems as though spreading is bad but i wont stop you. Send the docs still please and im sorry if i confuse the times with policy but ill do my best to give a good RFD and decision. Im cool with whatever LD tricks are ive judged a few rounds of both debates so i can evaluate it decently well probs not high level deabtes tho.

---

EMAIL FOR SPEECH DOCS: leigha.debate@gmail.com

---

Policy Debater at Moore High School, Moore, OK: 2008-2011

Policy Debater at the University of Oklahoma: 2011-2015

Assistant Policy Debate Coach at Moore High School, Moore, OK: 2012 - 2015; 2018 - 2020

Assistant Coach at University of Central Oklahoma: Dec. 2019 - May 2021

Assistant Coach at Heritage Hall High School, Oklahoma City, OK: Current

---

Stylistic:

For virtual debates:

Give me pen-time between arguments - and a second to move from one flow to the next. As one of the last practitioners of paper-debate and as judge who flows on paper, the cleaner and more organized the debate can be on my end, the more satisfying a decision I can give both teams.

I'm okay with observers in debates I judge, if you have affirmative consent from the teams debating. If you observe while recording, I also need to affirmatively consent to you doing so. Just ask me in the chat, that works.

I'll try to record prep time in the chat, if you end up losing your time.

- When the flash drive exits the computer, prep time is over. If using an email chain, verbally announce when you're sending the speech document out, and prep stops.

- I am fine with spreading, but I do want to hear a tag, citation, and the internals of the card. I will yell "clear" if I need.

- Let me know if you're going to have a long overview and I'll flow it on another sheet. My threshold for what I consider a "long" overview is very low, so keep that in mind. Play it safe and tell me to get another sheet, if you're on the fence about if this applies to you.

Argument Execution:

- Analysis needs a claim, a warrant, and an impact. "Extend our argument" is not an extension to me.

- Extending a piece of evidence by name and giving shallow analysis - ie: "Ext. our [blank] card here - means we turn the aff," and moving on. Without some explanation of the how and why that's true within the context of the evidence and the argument it's answering, I'm more reluctant to put in that work for you.

- I value debates where arguments are made with descriptive consistency in warrant extensions and analysis. Being able to trace the development of an argument from its introduction in evidence to the 2NR or 2AR is important to me - keep the key thesis of your argument alive in the debate. The same applies to application of warrants from a piece of evidence.

- It's awesome to see arguments that challenge the aff on a substantive level using nuanced arguments. Specific links are great and encouraged. But, I also reward specific application and contextualization to the aff when using a more generic piece of evidence. Especially in critical debates.

- In rebuttals, especially in the 1AR and 2NR, cleaning up the debate and making larger explanations of strategic, technical decisions or concessions on the flow framing-level is rewarded by me. Consider this me asking you to "write my ballot for me" in the last stages of the debate. I value analysis that not only explains to me the thesis of your advantages, disad, counterplan, or kritik in terms of substance, but also what arguments you are winning and key questions on individual flows you're going for.

Specific Arguments:

I was a critical debater for most of my career but will vote on framework and policy arguments - do what makes you feel comfortable and I will do my best to evaluate the round. I'm just probably not hyper-knowledgable on the truth-claims of the literature for your hot, new Yuan devaluation scenario, so I'll read evidence for my own personal understanding of the debate when needed for a decision. A lot of my experience in debating and coaching critical arguments are in the literature areas of settler colonialism, critical race arguments, queer theory, IR Ks, and other method debates.

---

- For those of you in a debate running a critical argument in front of me, this means I have a higher threshold for clarity in explanation and smart, explicit application to either affirmative or negative responses to your argument. A lot of the creativity in critical debate comes from application of specific warrants from your authors to the other team's argument - this is especially true in debates where you may not have a super-specific link argument in the 1NC and in high-theory debates that can devolve into word-salad. This is a basic requirement in you doing work for me in explaining the interaction between your argument and the other team's argument. Speeches that attempt to ground your theory with more concrete examples are good.

Being intentionally opaque about your position in cross-examination makes me roll my eyes a little bit (unless it's fundamental to the theory of your argument, as in some opacity-style method debates). I certainly become a little more sympathetic to the other team's frustrations when there's a sense you might be evasive during the explanation of your argument

- Theory debates are not my favorite, as I feel a lot of debaters can be unclear in their explanation of and the developing a theory argument enough for me to give it much weight inside of the round. I prefer if you give me a heads up during your roadmap to grab an additional sheet for flowing, and give the order with the new sheet with whatever argument the theory concerns. (IE: "The order is T, the dis-ad, and the counterplan with a new sheet of paper.")

Theory shells are easy to bury in a flow by couching it among other arguments and spreading right through - which is a strategy! But, in my style of evaluation and for clarity's sake, I recommend clearly signposting when you're moving onto the theory argument, taking a breath so I can quickly get my clean flow, and then begin the argument. A cleaner flow for me gives you a better chance of winning your argument.

---

CX:

I am fine with open CX, to a certain degree. Being rude, mean, and continually speaking over your opponents can lose you speaker points.

Along the same line, speaking for your partner during most of their cross-examination time (whether asking or answering) reflects negatively for speaker points. I understand there is the desire to make sure that your argument is being explained correctly, but it is more persuasive to me if a team is able to have a consistent explanation of their argument between partners.

---

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to ask me before the round.

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

Coy Moses

Sand Springs Public Schools

Speech and Debate Coach

I am a former competitor in Speech, Drama, and Debate. My primary activities were Exempt and Drama, but I dabbled in LD Debate. Thus, my experiences with Policy are rooted in working with students, coaching debate, and judging competitions.

1. I am a policy First judge, meaning I am going to make my decision primarily on the policy topic. I am listening for reasonable arguments for or against adopting the policy in question. While open to good K strategy, please keep it within reason and avoid sounding like a conspiracy theorist. If you go off case, stay in bounds. I generally find arguments grounded in real-world impacts to be the most persuasive. I like a well thought out/planned case that makes sense logically - I like to be able to connect the dots.

2. Generally: I like an organized, respectful debate with clarity in speaking and questioning. Quality is better than quantity, so spreading does not help you if I cannot understand your words. I don’t want to be confused anymore than your opponent. This is not meant to imply that I am opposed to you speaking fast, but be clear if you spread. Style and argument carry almost equal weight when I make my decision. If I’m going back and forth about which side gets the victory based on the actual arguments and evidence put forth, the team with quality and style will get the nod.

3. I will be keeping time, but I expect seasoned HS competitors to also be doing the same. Be aware of your prep time, how much you’ve used, etc. Unreasonable pauses or delay between speeches will be considered prep time. The only exception is technology/internet issues. Do not go over time on speeches; time limits exist for a reason, speaker points will be docked.

4. Here’s how I try to make my decision: I am also looking for your personal investment in and knowledge of the topic. Although we have to get through case cards, I am more interested in the debater’s response to the material. Can you clearly present key arguments in the round? Can you persuade me on your position overall? 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.

Hey there!

My name is Justin Schuffert (he/him). I'm a former debater with experience in both high school and college. My journey in debate exposed me to a wide variety of debate styles ranging from traditional policy debate to kritik. I'm tabula rasa and very open minded.

My experiences include: topicality, framework, kritik, counterplans, theory, performative expression, etc. I'm very much a 'games-person' when it comes to debate. Disagree? Let's have an debate about it and see who wins!

Please be polite to each other and have fun.


Debate Experience: Guymon High School 1999-2001, University of Central Oklahoma 2002-2004, and yearly judge on the Oklahoma debate circuit. I'm forever a 1A/2N.

Location: Tulsa, Oklahoma

Last updated 9/28/2023

Pronouns are he/him, they/them is also fine.

Email: lsmithspeechdebate@gmail.com

History:

Debated at Moore High School for 4 years

Currently a third year debater at UCO that has debated at the NDT and made it to Double-Octos of CEDA.

tldr: I have experience in both K and policy debates on both the aff and the neg as well as experience as all speaker positions. Read whatever you want in front of me. General overall note, I am a "draw lines" type of judge. If the 2nr/2ar has a bunch of args that weren't in the block or 1ar I'm going to have a really hard time evaluating the round.

General stuff:

Speed speed is fine, just make sure you're clear. If you're not clear I will say clear, if that happens more then once/frequently it will be reflected in speaker points.

Prep: I don't count flashing as prep, but I suspect someone is stealing prep when flashing I'll ask if I need to start rolling prep again and if it continues I'll start rolling prep again. Don't steal prep.

Arg specific stuff:

DA's: Make sure the DA has a clear link and generally up to date UQ. For answering DA's if going for the link turn a warrant for why the link turns o/w the link makes my decision a lot easier.

T/FW:For me to vote neg on T/fw I need a clear interp extended in the 2nr, alongside definitions if needed for the interp. I will not do that work for you, if you don't extend your definitions in the 2nr then I probably will default to not knowing what the interp means at the end of the debate. Explain the violation and why the CI doesn't solve the reasons to prefer and explain what type of affs the CI allows and why that's bad. I need to have a clear understand of the neg/aff debate models and why I need to care about the particularities of said model at the end of the last rebuttals//why the negs model is uniquely bad and why I have to care about that if just impact turning fw.

CP's: Make sure to explain how the CP solves the aff, why the perm can't solve and the nb to the cp.

theory: I'm definitely much more truth over tech in terms of the way I think about debate. With that being said I need a clear impact to theory and why that outweighs the case to make me vote on it. Nonetheless I'll vote on theory and evaluate it like I would any other arg, but this is def not my area of expertise.

K's: I love K v K debates and K debate in general. With that said, I'm most familiar with the lit areas of settler colonialism, disability studies, the cap K, and I know the bases of some queer theory and anti-blackness lit. This means when explaining the K I will most likely understand the lit to some degree, but if your reading more high theory args like Baudrillard I may need slightly more explanation than your typical blocks. In order to vote neg I need to know how the links turn the case, how the alt solves the links or how the alt solves the case and how the alt solves the links. For affs, reasons why the link turns o/w the link, how the perm functions if going to the perm, why the alt fails//why the alt can't solve the aff.

Experience

Currently the Director of Debate at Casady School.

Competed at the University of Oklahoma and Owasso High School.

Put me on the e-mail chain: snidert [at] casady [dot] org

On Evidence

Evidence quality and consistency is very important to me. I can easily be convinced to disregard a piece of evidence because it lacks quality, is insufficiently highlighted, or is not qualified.

Author qualifications are under debated and if a piece of evidence lacks a qualification then that should definitely be used in debate.

K Things General

One line should dictate how you approach reading the K in front of me:

“You are a debater, not a philosopher.”

This should be your guiding principle when reading and answering a kritik in front of me. Debaters seem to rely more on jargon than actually doing the work of explaining and applying their argument. Unnecessarily complex kritiks won't get good speaker points (90% of the time you could have just read the cap k).

I will not flow overviews on a separate sheet of paper.

If you plan on reading the K

I've got good news and bad news. I'll start with the bad news: You are very unlikely to convince me not the weigh/evaluate the aff. I'm not persuaded much by self-serving counter interpretations on framework.

That said, the good news is that I think people give the aff too much credit and most of the reasons why I shouldn't evaluate the plan are typically offense against it. For example while I don't find the FW interpretation "Debate should be about epistemological assumptions" very convincing, I will definitely vote on "the affirmative's plan relies on a flawed epistemology that ensures serial policy failure, which turns case."

If you're answering the K

While the above may seem like good news for the aff answering the K, I tend to hold the aff to a higher threshold than most in K debates. I don't think "you need a specific link to the plan" is responsive to a K of the aff's epistemology. Likewise, aff framework interps that exclude Ks entirely are pretty much a non-starter.

Theory Issues

Condo seems to be getting a bit excessive, but no one goes for condo anymore so I'm sort of stuck with it.

Tech vs Truth

I think of this as more of a continuum as opposed to a binary. I lean more towards tech than truth, but I'm not going to pretend that I evaluate all arguments with equal legitimacy. For example, I have a higher threshold for arguments like “climate change not real” than “plan doesn’t solve climate change.” I traditionally evaluate the debate in offense/defense paradigm, but there is a such thing as a 0% risk.

K affs/T-FW

I enter every debate with the assumption that the resolution is going to play a role in the round. What role it plays, however, is up for debate. I don’t have a preference between skills or fairness standards.

Common reasons I vote aff on FW:

The neg goes for too many “standards”/"DAs"/whatever-youre-calling-them in the 2NR.

The neg doesn’t even try to engage the aff’s 2AC to FW.

Common reasons I vote neg on FW:

The aff doesn’t have an offensive reasons why the TVA is bad.

The aff doesn’t even try to engage the neg’s standards on FW.

Misc

I only flow what I hear, I won't use the doc to correct my flow. If I don't catch an argument/tag because you're too unclear then *insert shrug emoji*. That said, with online debate I will flow what I hear and use the doc to correct my flow after the speech. Including your analytics in the speech document will make correcting my flows much easier.

Guaranteed 30 if you’re paper debate team #PaperDebate

My facial reactions will probably tell you how I feel about your arg.

Brock Spencer – brock.spencer.bs@gmail.com

Experience/Background - Current Assistant Coach @ Casady HS (OK) (6 Years), Judge Experience (9 years), Debated 1 year CEDA/NDT @ UCO , 4 years of National Circuit HS @ Tulsa-Union (Ok), Former Assistant Coach @ Tulsa-Union HS (Ok) (1 year)

TLDR – You do what you do best, and tell me what to do with my ballot as your judge. Write the RFD/ballot for me in the last speech. I’m down with voting for most things that have a well-warranted reason and impact behind it. Offense/Defense Paradigm. I flow meticulously and enjoy line by line debates. Debate can be super fun, enjoy yourselves!

Speaker Points - I tend to heavily reward teams who do phenomenal research/ utilize evidence in comparative ways. A newer development is that I tend to reward teams who flow well, and answer arguments on the line by line especially with numbered responses. Giving your last speech off of the flow, and not reading into a laptop is a great way to have good speaks - (Also just be nice to each other. It's a competitive activity, but doesn't have to be cutthroat.)

Speed -

Go for it! Please be somewhat clear.

(LD Paradigm is below)

(PF Paradigm is further below)

-- POLICY --

Policy AFFs --

Advantages are good....10 advantages are not.

I prefer few advantages w/ specific internal link chains that don't have 8 loosely tied together scenarios begging to lose to a security K. Update your IL UQ's - it goes a long way in front of me.

Utilize your AFF vs. off case args, too many policy affs lose because they start debating on the DA/K flow ignoring, and not using the AFF to it's potential.

K AFF’S –-

AFF’s I have read haven’t defended much so I’m definitely willing to vote for these.

The aff should still defend doing something, but this is a pretty low threshold.

Vs. K's go for perms and impact turns to Alts

Vs. FW go for DA's as impact turns.

Topicality/Theory –-

Topicality and Theory are drastically underutilized. Ya'll are letting these aff teams, and CP's get away with waaaay too much. I love creative Theory/T debates. Limits are love, limits are life!

I evaluate T similar to any DA flow from offense/defense point of view, and default competing interps, but can be swayed to vote for the aff being reasonable. I reward spec interps/violations vs. an aff.

Impact out your standards/counter standards, and make spec args as to things they did in the round that harmed ground, what they could have done based on their strat, or other potential abuse. RVIs are a non-starter, and I will evaluate "K's of T".

I will vote on Condo, but the 2ac needs to be more than 10 seconds if you're going to be going all in by the 1AR. I do think the Neg is allowed to be condo most of the time unless they have done something rather egregious that you point out.

Framework –-

Neg - I'll vote on both soft FW Interps that are creative and hard line USFG FW. Either way limits/predictable ground are most useful standards to win my ballot. Limits are love, limits are life! Point out when aff is vague/a moving target as another link to these standards. Topical Version of the AFF is the easiest way to win my ballot on FW. Typically don't vote on democratic engagement/deliberation args, but not against them.

K AFFs - make sure to leverage your impacts vs. FW. If a negative drops the AFF Impacts I’m easily swayed by the argument that AFF impacts are Impact turns to the interpretation, and why their model of education is bad to begin with.

CP –-

These should have a clear net benefit such as DA or internal net benefit. Better solvency isn’t sufficient. I often find myself voting on perms so these net benefits should be articulated as reasons why the perm doesn’t solve.

Also if you want me to kick it for you if you’re losing it that needs to be clear in the 2NR.

Cheating Cps *you know who you are* - I tend to side w/ the aff on these so you'll want to allocate sufficient time to theory in the block if necessary.

DA –-

DA's are great in debate as generics to rely on, but I'm not a fan of the trend of reading one to 2 card DA's with barely any warrants highlighted. I love a good da although. Specificity is lovely! I'll still vote for your generic topic DA, but apply it to the aff in the block.

Need clear impact calc from both the aff and the neg. - updated UQ/IL UQ will be rewarded w/ speaker points, and usually W's on the ballot!!

Both teams should use comparative analysis and explain why their ! ows, is more uq, or turns the other etc.

K’s –

Background/Preferences -

I’m most familiar with this type of debate throughout high school, and college. I "hack" for Security K's that are embedded in other K's - I find that most policy aff internal link chains are garbage, and you can make them defend things they don't want with security esque arguments. The K’s I’m most familiar with are the greatest hits of dead European dudes (Nietzsche, Baudrillard, Heidegger, Deleuze), and being from Oklahoma I hear, and have read Settler Colonialism/Cap a lot. Personally believe the Fem I.R. K is drastically underutilized, but very good in debate because there's literature on everything and it's often just true.

Links/Alts -

For your link, QUOTE THE 1ACEV evidence as link analysis for a K.- You can read your "sick" Baudrillard 81 card, but in the block there should be an explanation of the link in the context of the 1AC ev and scenarios. Alts should have a clear articulation of why it solves the AFF and the links. I also find myself voting on perms b/c the neg doesn’t do a good job explaining the difference in the aff solvency and the K alt solvency world. To help beat perms the Links should be offensive – I typically won’t vote on a link of omission. An Alt should also exist. If you read a K without an alt I default to being a non-uq DA until proven otherwise. I can be convinced why my ballot generates UQ, but that needs to be explained as a type of alternative.

For AFF's answering K's -

Net Benefits to perms are vital, as are DA's to why the ALT doesn't solve all parts of the case, or separate DA's to the ALT itself.

! Turns would be great, I don't understand why debaters don't just say arguments such as HEG GOOD. Impact turns vs. K's can be devastating. Don't debate on their ground, debate on yours.

Other K Things -

I’ll vote on roll of the ballot claims and framing issues as long as there are impacts and warrants attached to those and reasons why the other side doesn’t’ access them.

Floating Piks, and Counter Perms I'm familiar with, and will vote on, but they need to be at least predictably flagged in the block.

Lastly, I enjoy clash with K debates so if someone reads a Buadrillard AFF and your NEG is to also read Buadrillard, you're probably starting off on the wrong foot in front of me.

-- LD --

Most of what I said above in policy applies to what LD is currently, but I'll add a few specific things unique to LD.

Value/Crit -

Offense to their Value/Crit would be lovely. - Winning the framing is helpful, but more debaters need to impact out why it matters.

Use your contentions as net benefits to your Value/Criterion and DA's to theirs and explain why their FW cant access/solve your impacts. I often find myself just voting on impact calc based on which contention OW's the other because the framing debate isn't articulated enough.

K's/CP's/DA's in LD? -

Sure, why not. I'll evaluate these the same as any other argument (read above in policy for specifics)

I am willing to vote for FW args on why this isn't allowed in LD as long as you have well warranted impacts/theoretical args, but tend to think these are allowed and you should have answers if they apply to the case. Most of the time your more "Traditional case" still has very well built in answers to these types of arguments too, but often debaters are overthinking it.

Contentions -

I love creative contentions in LD to justify what should or should not be debated, but open to voting for theory arguments as to why said contention is unfair etc.

Theory -

I typically err aff on theory in LD, but can be convinced otherwise.

Read above for more specific Theory in Policy Section.

Speed -

Go for it! Please be somewhat clear.

Random Info - I find myself voting for floating pics a lot in LD rounds.

-- PF --

For PF specifically, I often find myself frustrated in PF rounds by the lack of line by line answers, and proper extension of arguments. When citing evidence you should give a tagline, an author and then read the evidence. Often PF does this in many different nonsensical orders.

Clash is really important and giving impacts that are comparative to the other teams impacts will go a long way in front of me. Make sure and respond to their cases in every speech after the first speeches.

**To see how I evaluate specific arguments such as disads, cps, t, k's etc. the above sections still apply. I believe all debate eventually just morphs into policy because whenever you give students speech times they will inevitably speak faster and utilize the modern policy style. I'm not necessarily a fan of this either way, but it is what it is. I'll still vote on traditional PF cases against more progressive styles, but need warrants as to why.**

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.)

Email (please include me):

bycxdebate@gmail.com

General notes about me and my ideas:

do what you do best

traditional policy stuff is good - generics exist for a reason - specificity is better but making the topic generic cp/da work in unique and interesting ways excites me - the way to win these debates is contextualization - if the link is just to the generic topic mechanism without mentioning the aff once that won't do any good for anyone besides the 2a

theory is something people should go for more and not be afraid to go for - i am 50/50 on just about every theoretical question so go for it

kritiks that make sense and well applied to the aff are gonna do you really well - kritiks that are generic, generally unspecific, and noncontextualized make it a lot harder to win a 2nr on the k - don't be afraid to defend things with the k either - people oftentimes get too floaty and wishy-washy - some k's are just bad though just like some cps and das are bad

counterplans and disads are a lot closer to my bread and butter - competition is for y'all to debate about, the cp should probably make some level of sense, and shouldn't be super contrived (well maybe it should be contrived idk and idc)

topicality is good and people should go for it - t should be a strategy that can be deployed in every 1nc (even if that thing is a core of the topic aff that every camp cut)

k teams are gonna do whatever so read fw or whatever you wanna call t and impact turn their lit - go for liberalism good or managerialism good or russia is worse or t - i really don't care its up to you

case neg is the best thing for you to read and do in a round - a neg strategy solely consisting of case neg would make my weekend

Oklahoma LD/PF (everything above is for CX):

again do what you do best but just because I'm a policy bro doesn't mean you auto-win if you say something progressive in front of me - if you're better at doing the typical and traditional stuff then do it and win it - obviously, try new things out but just don't expect it to be an auto win

people also seem to have forgotten about offense/defense and impact calculus - p.t.m. is a good thing people and so is doing turns analysis

similar to what I said above but people have seemingly forgotten what solvency is too - make smart solvency arguments and win that that implicates solvency - if someone defends substantial is 25% and reads a US imperialism aff then a smart neg that says "lol that means 75% of the US is still there how does that hurt imperialism" would be reading my mind