JW Patterson HS Invitational
2024 — Oklahoma City, OK/US
Lincoln-Douglas Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideAdd me to the email chain always: ashlynrae0903@gmail.com
they/she
I did LD debate for all 4 years of HS on the Austin circuit and now do CX debate at OU
TLDR: I’ll vote off of whatever you throw at me if you can win it.
Cool lets get into it,
-
tech> truth
PREFS:
Legit theory/T/extra T: 2
friv theory: 3
K (any type): 1
trad/standard policy affs:2
tricks: 4
PSA: please stop reading terrorism impacts. most of yall are loud and wrong. I have such an incredibly high threshold for them. Also please stop reading stuff about Gaza if you dont know what's happening in Gaza and are just using it as a distraction tactic. that does not mean i wont evaluate any of this but it will just make me mad and frustrated.
How to win my ballot:
Weighing is so important in front of me because I do not have a default for what comes first (ie T-FW and a K have the same weight until you tell me what comes first and why)
You should be painting my ballot in the top if the 2NR or the 2AR. The 1AR functions to try and shut doors for the Neg ballot and the 2AR should slam those door shut.
IN DEPTH OF IMPORTANT STUFF:
Theory:
I’ll vote on pretty much anything but that doesnt mean I will clap for you for winning off of friv theory.
If there is legit abuse in the round and you can provide a warrant for what the abuse IS, you should be able to win that EZ.
If you dont know what I mean when I say friv theory, then it probably doesnt apply to you.
Disclosure theory is fine if the interp for the shell is common (ex disclosing on the wiki 30 minutes before round). If it is uncommon (ex disclosing all round reports 5 hours before round) then I will count it as friv theory and won’t be super inclined to vote off of it.
So, Theory is cool if you wanna run it and I'll vote on it if you prove there is abuse.
Ks:
Ks I have the most love for. I have a pretty broad knowledge of any identity K/ social issue being talked about in round. I primarily ran performance Rage fem k, ableism k, cap ks, islamophobia ks, etc throughout high school and now do a lot of Set Col stuff. I love K debate. K v K debate is spectacular and I will happily judge that any day of the week.
I will say that there is also a big negative to K debate and that is that people dont actually reading the Lit that they are running. If you are running afropess and you tell me Wilderson doesnt mention psychoanalysis (based off true events) I’m not going to be very happy in the round. Know what you are running. I get little misunderstanding but when you misconstrued the whole CONCEPT there is very dangerous territory for being problematic in someway so just watch yourself and know your lit.
Performance is really cool. I loved doing performance. That being said, please make your performance something to do with the lit.
TRAD:
Traditional debate is not my favorite but I’m definitely not against it. I like the classics.
LD~I don’t not believe that affs are required to have a plan in LD, please do not say that in round. I beg. Pick better arguments.
In LD, PLEASE DONT DROP THE FRAMEWORK DEBATE!!!
Policy~Just make sure the link chain is clear and please impact weigh.
Tricks:
I personally hate tricks debate with the burning passion of a thousand suns. That does not mean I wont vote off of them. Tricks are very beatable. Run whatever you feel like will get you the ballot.
Phil:
Pretty chill with phil. I know enough but I still want you to do a thorough job of explaining your lit. Don’t just cruise into the room and say “well Hegel says the resolution is silly” explain. Tell me why I should care. this is especially true for LD since LD debate revolves around Philosophy and Morality so debate accordingly.
Spreading/Speaks:
I give speaks based off your performance. This means work for the 30. Make yourself clear and precise. I have ADHD so it’s hard to focus on really fast spreading so the doc is appreciated just make sure it’s marked :)
Spreading is the worst thing to judge when it cannot be understandable. You should be clear and enunciate. If not I will yell “clear”. If I have to yell clear more than twice, I will stop flowing. Pen drills are free, take advantage of that if you want to spread.
Another route to a lose a round is if your opponent calls you out for being racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, etc and your response is to CONTINUE perpetuating that behavior or to make excuses for that behavior and not own up to it. If you are just ignorant about the behavior that’s one thing, learn and move on.
Another thing I will drop speaks for is reading violent/detailed/descriptions of SA, gore, r*pe, self harm, suicide, etc without trigger warnings or notifying your opponent before round. It is your job to have a back up non-graphic case BEFORE THE ROUND. I take this very seriously.
I want the space to be respectful and competitive.
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!
Ian Horton
Pronouns: He/Him
Current College: Southern Nazarene University
High School: Crossings Christian
Email: ihorton@mail.snu.edu
If you are interested in the SNU Policy Debate program, please talk to me before or after the round!
TOP LEVEL Policy
Tech > Truth unless explicitly told otherwise.
I don't care what the content is as long as you are able to clearly and successfully articulate why it should be discussed in this round.
I do tend to lean into the Kritikal side of debate because I have always ran a Kritik, but I also debate policy, so it can go either way.
Neg: For the love of God, please do not read more than 6 Off case arguments. I refuse to flow that mess.
Aff: Go for what you please. K or Policy, doesn't matter to me.
CX: Open cross examination is absolutely fine, just don't have only one of your teammates answer all the cross-ex questions. (You technically can, but you will lose speaker points) ALSO, DO NOT BE RUDE. People being rude in debate is a huge pet-peeve of mine. Debate is supposed to be a place where we can all respectfully have discussions and disagreements about certain issues. (You will absolutely lose speaker points if you do so.)
Speed: Please sign post clearly and give me about 2 seconds or so if we are going to a new flow. You should be clear on tags, but the body of a card has a lower threshold for clarity.
Other: I am generally pretty expressive whenever I am watching rounds. If someone says something out of pocket, wrong, or right, I will make a face. (I probably shouldn't but I can't help it)READ ANTHRO AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION, I AM NOT A GOOD JUDGE FOR THIS.
Specific Policy
T:I'm not the best at evaluating topicality so you will have to slow down and clearly explain why 1) your interp is better, 2) why they violate, and 3) why that is net-bad. Reasonability is a great standard for me. If the aff's interp adds just 1 more affirmative strategy, it's going to be an uphill battle for the negative.
Framework: Ooh man! I love framework debates. I will absolutely vote on framework.
DA: DA's are fine. Do the work for me though, i.e. link, internal link, impact calc in the rebuttals.
CP: Counter-plans are fine as well. I usually do err on the aff side of condo bad, especially if it is more than 3 conditional advocacies; however, if it is just 2 conditional advocacies, I'm usually more neg leaning.
PIks: Piks are mainly good, especially when it comes to rhetoric.
K: I will absolutely evaluate K’s. I have a base understanding of most Kritikal literature (cap and empire being my main), so please feel free to do whatever you please; however, just because I understand the literature doesn't mean you shouldn't explain your arguments. Debate is a communication activity, so you should communicate. If you are running a Kritik, you will be better off having a more specific link. The less generic the link, the better. Fiat Bad is generally not a good link by itself
Everything Else
(P.s. I am not well-versed in anything other than policy debate...)
PF: Judge instruction please
LD: If your LD style is similar to policy debate, you are in a much better spot with me as a judge than traditional LD. If you're trad LD, please have more nuanced clash on the value debate.
Hi! My name is Bri :). My pronouns are she/her.
My email in case of questions or email chain: briannalemaster1120@gmail.com
Quick Bio:
I competed at Westmoore High School for four years, where I was a four-time national qualifier and in multiple state final rounds. I competed in LD and PF, as well as both the trad and circuit debates. I also currently coach multiple events, including all the debate events and some specific IE events. { I beat Taylor Rafferty in a debate round once Iykyk}. I am currently on the OU policy debate team, and I coach basically all the debate events.
TLDR: General Debate Things
1. Tech>Truth. This obviously excludes racist, homophobic, and other hateful sentiments.
2. In your last rebuttal speech, you should crystallize and summarize your best arguments. Going for everything is not the strat I would recommend.
3. Clash is the most important thing for me in debate if you don't do it or are just avoiding it then the round is probably boring and I will be doing my crossword while flowing. JK but please make the arguments interact with each other.
4. SIGN POST PLEASE. If you don't - tbh probably will not flow the argument because I will not know where it goes.
5. Guys - I will not evaluate drops or call out your opponent unless you do it first.
Trad LD - for Oklahoma If you compete on the TOC/Progressive tournament in LD you can ignore and default to policy
1. Framework is pretty important to me especially when I'm looking at what arguments to prioritize in the round.
2. Mostly for OK debate- Since the progressive debate is becoming more common here I'm fine with speed and counter plans etc.... All I ask is that if you're going to 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 I know the difference. Include me on the file share if you want or email chain.
- Oklahoma debate - guys, honestly, since this is a trad circuit, I would avoid running k's or cp or anything like that since the reality is your competitors will not know how to respond, and it will make it an unfair round. I would recommend not running that stuff in general here. It will not help you win a round, and although I do policy, I debate on this circuit, so I know what goes. If you're going to try to run something funky because you think I'll evaluate it. I won't, but you can try. Typically, there is no point in running arguments that your opponents can not respond to correctly.
3. If you signpost, extend your arguments, try not to drop stuff, and give an offensive reason why I should vote for you instead of a defensive one, you'll be in very good shape. (Offense = why I'm winning, Defense = why I'm not losing). I will not vote off drops if they are not brought up, but I think it works in your favor if you bring up drops especially If your opponents do not address your entire case.
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 will cringe.
5. Non-OK debate - run what you want, and I can keep up. Just if you are going to spread, send a speech doc
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 through the final focus if they are not carried through I won't use them in my decision.
4. Public Forum Debate is called a 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. Also, I really do not vote off fw more impact clac take that as you will but if you make fw your entire voter explain why it is the only thing you are going for. Before you run impact calc as your fw think to yourself on what the point of that is. ( I will give you a hint there is no point).
5. Don't be one of those teams that paraphrases evidence. You will instantly lose all credibility. I will read cards if the other team tells me to call for them. This should not even be something I have to say, but I coach teams and cut evidence for them, so there is a very good chance I know what your cards say.
6. Make sure you have been well versed in the lit and case your reading it helps you to be able to answer questions better. That is just advice for the future.
POLICY
- Please add me to the email chain. My email is at the top of the paradigm -
1. Policy- and K debate - Easily what I feel the most comfortable judging. I like seeing a topical aff against a competitive cp and some dis ads. I like more policy-case rounds but - On that, I am a K and policy debater so I am fine with either. If the K, however, needs to prove how the Aff advantages are harmful to the world of the K, so Neg, when attacking a policy aff along with reading a bunch of offenses etc explains how their Econ adv leads to native harm etc you will get my ballot a lot better that way because the sides interact more. Make my voters clear in the last speech - impact clac it out and clearly explain how the team can not perm or how the alt has no solvency.
2. I'm fine with theory - make your violations clear - performance K’s I know the least about I should be able to pick it up tho.
3. I will vote off anything tho, lowkey as long as you make it clear why and how arguments interact and clash and why I'm voting for u
4. Things I do not like - Tricks - ugh plz, don’t, but if you have to, it's fine. Judge kicks - this is super confusing to me, so I think that it does put me in a super confusing position.
5. Make my role in the round clear and tell me to read cards if they are important etc
Add me to the email chain: Speechdrop@gmail.com
Affiliations: Harvard Westlake (2022-)
TLDR: the debate space is yours and you should debate however you want. Don’t call me judge Jonathan and/or Meza is fine.
My GOATs: Shanara Reid-Brinkley, LaToya Green, Vontrez, Scott Philips, Krizel
Shout out: CSUF Debate, CSULB Debate, LAMDL
specific thoughts:
K: Please have a link. Framework heavy strategies have value but I am more convinced by a bigger link debate than framework no plan. That being said I don’t default to weighing the aff, or plan focus. Both sides should be able to win on either framework. Good K debating is good case debating when going for the kritik make sure to include how your links turn the case. Link contextualization is not just about explaining how the affirmatives use of the state is bad but how the underlining assumptions of the affirmative uniquely make the world worst this paired up with case take outs make for a real good NR Strategy.
FW: Clash > Fairness, but you can go for any impact you want. I appreciate carded TVAs. (K v FW) should center competing models, aff teams should have a counter interp and role of the negative as defense to T even if going for the impact turns. More convinced by impact turns than we meet. K affs should be in the direction of the topic but can be persuaded otherwise.
DAs: Should be fast and turn case. Strategic straight turns in response to disads are appreciated
Counter plans: I appreciate good competition debates. Functional > textual competition. Counterplans probably should have a solvency advocate but it is what it is. Good advantage counterplans are good.
T: Aff probably needs a counter interpretation. Standards should be impacted out
Theory: I am a good judge for theory, I am a bad judge for silly theory. Explain norm setting how it happens, why your norms create a net better model of debate. if you go for theory, actually go for it do not just be like "they dropped xyz gg lol" and go on substance. Splitting isn't horrible but extend warrants and the story of abuse. Up layer arguments must be clearly warranted out.
LD Specific:
Phil: it is a valuable aspect of LD, that being said over explanation and Judge instruction is very important for me in these debates. I lean towards epistemic confidence. phil innovation is cool.
Trix: beclear on warrants in order to beat the inevitable gut check. When answering trix calling out the silliness is fine but shouldn't be the only answer.
Speaks:I give them fr.
Hi Welcome to my Ted Talk
Prologue: I’m just a chill guy. I did PFD, Extemp, and OO for four years in high school. I did a little bit of acting for the meme, but have an appreciation for it. I studied photography and film in college, so as an artist, I like the working parts of pieces and the purpose behind every choice. I assistant coach debate at Westmoore, so my forte is debate, but I have unlimited prep time so I am comfortable with all events. All judges should have clear paradigms for every type of event so students can adapt accordingly. TELL YOUR JUDGES FROM YOUR SCHOOL! SPREAD THE WORD!
Debate PF/LD/CX
Overview:
In Round Conduct [I WILL DO THESE]:
Tech > Truth
I am a blank slate judge. I will pretend I have zero knowledge in the round and only learn things from the context you give me. Reasonability is non universal, so I should not apply my own logic of what is “true”. I do this to avoid my own research of topics and prevent ANY potential for bias. Pretty much any argument goes as long as I cannot deduce it is fake, like purple dinosaurs are taking over the world or something (If you are memeing please tell me so I can enjoy it and evaluate it in context of the round, it'll be harder to win against fairness and topicality, but I will still weigh it). EVIDENCE AND WARRENTING ARE KEY. HITTING AS MANY AREAS OF THE AS POSSIBLE ARE KEY.
2. Flow
I am a writing heavy judge so make sure to emphasize the important stuff and tell me what to weigh in the round. I use paper and pens, so I guess I’m a fossil in my twenties. I will not flow (but listen and enjoy) cross periods, bring the points into your speeches for concessions and speeding up fluff in points.
3. Frameworks/Value-Criterion/Framing/ROTB/etc.
If you tell me how to vote in the round, that becomes the ballot pathing. If your opponent does the same you must directly engage with each other. If there is no clash or engagement of framing I will default to Frankensteining the ballot directions together from both sides. Framing is not the sole reason, but a major reason to win. Regardless, 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. If the debate is confusing I’ll default to clash areas [most brought up arguments] as the path to the ballot. I don't want to do the debating for you and that would be a disservice if I just looked at the flowsheet and decided that way, VOTER ISSUES ARE IMPORTANT :)
4. Concede/Concessions/Drops/Extensions:
EXPLICITLY state and explain the merit of why this matters. If you try to game over an opponent I need to know why the drop is good. I will assume it doesn’t weigh unless you tell me. Arguments will have more weighing if extended in each speech. If you extend a dropped portion of the case, give me a quick impact statement or something of importance with it.
5. In-round context
I only evaluate what is read during speeches, sorry if you have 26 pages you didn’t read I won’t weigh it. Yelling your arguments during prep for me to hear won’t help you set up or swing my judging. Again, bring up attacks made from cross into speeches, I heard them so you can spend way less time setting those claims up.
6. Evidence sharing
Don’t hide evidence from opponents, be able to provide a copy if asked. If you can’t provide it I will default to it doesn’t exist. If it is not asked for it is fair game for plausibility.
7. Speaker Points
My philosophy is strategy first. Conciseness and effectiveness are keys to higher speaker points. Don’t spend 2:00 minutes explaining something you can say in one sentence, or don’t spend 15 seconds on a very key argument your opponent is clearly going for (slam them with lots of reasons). Speaking gooder or not, might affect my score by -1 or +1, but moves made in speeches and cross will determine my rankings. If you have a partner, give them some room in crossfire for PF. I like assertive cross, but do not obliterate your opponent or bully each other.
Specifics: (Ignore for traditional circuits, keep everything on case)
Kicks - STATE EXPLICITLY. If it is not kicked I’ll assume there is some merit to the argument. You cannot kick a turn. Kicking a turn concedes it and goes against you. If an argument is kicked that means it has been yeeted out of the round and I will no longer consider it under ANY circumstances. If there are excessive kicks it will lower speaker points. Make intentional strategic choices.
Theory - Must be brought into the debate the speech after the violation occurred, or the proposed violation sticks. Theory must be addressed first as usually it is a “think of the out of round implications” type of argument. I consider RVIs if they are strong enough, but to win off theory alone has to be blatantly clear.
Tricks - You can run them, but I’ll allow RVIs. The trick takes over the debate.
Ks - Keep them topical and lay out links to resolution. I weigh alts and roles of the ballot/judge very heavily.
CP - I rarely hear these but love a good counterplan or PIC, solve for the Aff if you are going for this. Word PICs can get messy and have theory ran against real easily.
DAs - Usually links are pretty clear so the best strategy is to aim for the impacts on both sides.
K Affs - Tough to evaluate in my experience. I’ll do my best but the right theories could deck the case for me. Prove the K has fairness.
Topicality - Yeah, be topical I guess. Needs to be brought up in 1NC.
Personal Preferences in round [PREFER, but adaptable]:
Coin flips - If the round has a coin flip, I carry giant coins so I can flip. The first team to arrive gets to call it in the air.
Disclosure - Dependent on circuit norms. If a tournament calls for disclosing evidence do it with each other 30 minutes before the round or as soon as postings blast. I will use Speech drop and make the room code in round. Email chains have difficulty or people forget to hit reply all, so this simplifies it.
Spectators - I will always allow spectators as long as they are not actively competing on the same topic. Swiper no swiping prep, other than that debate is an educational activity so even watching can provide value.
Speed - I will adapt to the speed both debaters are comfortable with, if both debaters want spreading: let the games begin. Please slow down taglines and author citations [say AND, when you are moving on to the next card if spreading, say NEXT if I need to switch papers]. Respect your opponent’s decision, but I will expect that speed from both of you (or slower) or I’ll lower speaker points to reflect it. Don’t just use speed as a way to make the debate lack clash or outspread your opponent.
Standing or sitting - I understand there may be conditions or factors that permit needing to sit for speeches and cross periods. I am good for either, if the teams cannot agree I will default to standing.
Prep time/Timing - Keep your own, but I'll use mine to verify. Tell me when to start and stop the clock. Tell me how much you used so we can compare. If I am slightly off I will default to yours. Keep your own time, I’ll have a timer but keep your own as well so I don't chance mess up.
Signpost - Make clear references about where you are attacking your opponent, cite taglines/contentions to help me keep the flow organized.
Vibe Check
Don’t be a professional hater if you are racist, sexist, transphobic, or make any other personal attack you will speedrun yourself into a loss and lowest speaks. Debate should not have any hateful agendas.
Feel free to casually tie in pop culture references, brain rot terms (better be funny), modern slang, or other quick quips during speeches. I like to see the personalities of speakers, just don’t let it distract from your case, arguments, and the round. I’ll reward .5 (if possible) extra points if you incorporate this well, at least once.
I'll give feedback if asked after the round but both sides will hear it, I won't say who won unless it is tournament norms. I do not disclose speaker points as they can be viewed as “subjective”, and lead to arguments over who got what.
Have fun! Good luck! Don’t be nervous, have a good time. My secondary goal for judging the round is passing the vibe check. Debate is a game of strategy and moving pieces to set yourself up for success.
If you have any other questions please ask me before the round when all competitors are in the room.
Congress (Developing)
Worlds (Developing)
Extemp
Overview: Extemp should be an event where you give a non-biased review of the current political state of the world, think of yourself as a political commentator. Opinions should be backed by evidence. I flow all speeches on tabroom so you can see what your speech looks like from an outsider's perspective.
Tech > Truth - Backup YOUR answer.
AGD: Do something please, I want to see personable speakers give me good arguments. It doesn’t have to be earth shatteringly funny, but hook me in and get me ready to listen.
Source count: I believe this matters for ethos and logos. I believe 7 (one in the intro and two in each body point) is the minimum you should hit. I need you to explicitly state your source so I can count it.
Structure: MOST IMPORTANT SECTION FOR EXTEMP. I want to see you have intentionality in each point. Time management is key. Everyone teaches a different structure so I won’t say what is the best version, but I want it to be clear you are organized.
Intro: Give me context about your topic. I will pretend I know nothing even if I do. My own knowledge should not stop your reasoning. Define the scope of the question, who or how many?
Points: Each point should answer the question, tie back to the question.
IE Speaking
Overview: Purpose is the biggest thing I look for. Speeches should have each part be intentional and add to the overall speech. I will not judge you based on the topic you choose, but how you deliver it [EVERY THESIS IS WORTH SHARING]. In speech it events I am more tech over truth, but not entirely (I’ll get to that below). I use a point system to avoid personal preferences, based on a -1, 0, +1. I only write down what is noteworthy. -1 means it took away from your performance or took me out of the moment. 0 is where I get to add commentary, ideas, or suggestions. These do not affect your score. +1 means it enhances your performance or you should continue to do that thing in future performances. A NEGATIVE SCORE DOES NOT MEAN I THINK YOU ARE BAD AT THE EVENT. It could mean the opposite, but it means I think you have potential and adjusting will get you where you want to be. Here are factors to consider in what I score off of;
Time: Use at least 80% of the maximum time in your event. I knock points for being under time as you could give more context, pause for moments, etc.
Tech > Truth: I pretend I know nothing about the topic even if I do, my own research should not get in the way of your delivery. Your points should develop and answer your thesis. Your solution should be tangible. I want to leave the round feeling like a general person can apply your solution.
Structure: MOST IMPORTANT SECTION FOR OO. I want to see you have intentionality in each point. Time management is key. Everyone teaches a different structure so I won’t say what is the best version, but I want it to be clear you are organized.
AGD: Do something please, I want to see personable speakers give me good arguments. It doesn’t have to be earth shatteringly funny, but hook me in and get me ready to listen.
Physicality: Does your body language give you more ethos? Do they showcase the emotions you want the audience to feel?
Transitions: Were transitions clean or were they rough?
Memorization: Make it look natural if you forget, this is a quick way to lose points. I don’t know if you forgot if you don’t show me. I will add a point if there are no slip ups.
Specific points: Do certain points of logic add to your thesis or take away from it.
IE Acting
Overview: Purpose is the biggest thing I look for. Pieces should have each part be intentional and add to the overall performance. I will not judge you based on the topic you choose, but how you deliver it [EVERY STORY IS WORTH SHARING]. As someone who studies and creates various art, I do not always view acting from a technical lens but a big picture one. I use a point system to avoid personal preferences, based on a -1, 0, +1. I only write down what is noteworthy. -1 means it took away from your performance or took me out of the moment. 0 is where I get to add commentary, ideas, or suggestions. These do not affect your score. +1 means it enhances your performance or you should continue to do that thing in future performances. A NEGATIVE SCORE DOES NOT MEAN I THINK YOU ARE BAD AT THE EVENT. It could mean the opposite, but it means I think you have potential and adjusting will get you where you want to be. Here are questions to consider in what I score off of;
Time: Use at least 80% of the maximum time in your event. I knock points for being under time as you could give more context, pause for moments, etc.
Physicality: Does your body language make the character clear or will the audience be left confused?
Pantomiming: Do you draw imagery with the scene around you? Does your environment interaction make sense?
Transitions: Were transitions clean or were they rough?
Character Development: Was your character(s) fleshed out? Do you get their motivations across? Do I get attached to them?
Memorization: Make it look natural if you forget, this is a quick way to lose points. I don’t know if you forgot if you don’t show me. I will add a point if there are no slip ups.
Scenes: Does the cutting of a scene add to the story or take away from it?
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.)