The Jenks Classic

2018 — OK/US

Abu Bapary Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Alex Barreto Paradigm

Alex Barreto (pronouns= He/Him)

Casady 2021

I want the ev. (also post-round questions) pls-

while I stick to the flow as much as possible there are no such as pure "tabula rasa" judges and those who say they are doing you a disservice. Wherever you see bold is probably important... But what do I know?

General: I have debated for the last 2 going on 3 years, went to mich 7 soph-junior year. I am good for speed if you are unclear I will call clear.

In a attempt to be cool and give bonus speaks for references will give you a .3 boost if you are below 28.5 or a .2 percent boost if above but below 29.5- if you quote star wars(prequels), psych quote/reference, or, if you make a scooby doo analogy I will give you a .5 speak boost regardless of my initial speak giving. All of these are contingent on you doing it in a way that makes sense.(If I do not visably laugh or otherwise react tell me after the round when you did it)

If you read a Framing Contention that consists of one or more of these things Generic:"no GPW" "conjuctive fallacy"and "internal links bad" I will be mad and sad

If you read a framing contention with things specific to the aff/aff's impacts, or offensive framing like util bad, or SV violence first I will be happy.

Inserted ev other than charts/graphs(logically insertable things) will not be flowed.

Truth v Tech: Truthier args require less tech IE: I have a higher threshold for args like "warming isn't real" than I have for args like "death is bad". I also think I have higher thresholds for what constitutes an argument.

Dropped Args: If it is dropped it is true, but what it means is only as much as the warrant for it. if there are competing claims without warrants I will intervene on which ones better with no second thought if I have to, likewise if there is a warrant without a claim or you do not tell me how to evaluate/resolve it I will decide that too. My intervention will be like Scot Phillips, If an argument is unresolvable (or tough to resolve) I will use a "needs" test- the burden of explanation will be assessed to the team who NEEDS the argument to win. So for example

-on a CP permutation, if the neg would win the debate without the permutation, then the aff needs it to win- so the burden of explanation is on them

-for CP solvency, if the neg would lose if the CP did not solve the case, then the neg needs to win solvency- so the burden of explanation is on them

Conclusion: don't make me do work for you.

if somethings conceded you should not expect me to do work for you on it, you should sit on it connect it to what it gets you and tell me why it's GG because of it.

CX: It is Binding but I never flow cx if you want it to mean something YOU MUST reference it in a speech. Open CX/tag team whatever is fine but I reserve the right to say otherwise. I hate when people answer a question and then they make a little blip about how their answer was dumb or whatever, Just do it in you're speech and it makes you look like an asshat, I understand doing like once or twice but if it happens every question you should not expect high speaks. I think you have two options in CX A)be as specific as possible and answers questions in logical ways because you have a well built argument and confidence or B)be as vague and shady as possible because your arguments are trash, suspect, or you know they will win if they understand it.

T- TLDR I like some T debates but usually not enough work is done if that's you then I don't recommend going for it. Even then in lots of debates, I think that T debate against policy aff's is kinda contrived(This does not mean I won't vote on it or it is a RVI tech>truth in 85 percent of instances). These debates often become very circular "our interp is good because it gives core gound like the fill in DA, which is good ground because out interp makes it core ground"(this is 50 percent of T extensions these days I feel).As of the 1AC timer ending, I think the aff is topical no matter what they said, this is flipped if T is the 1NC. I view the T debate through an offense/defense (TECH) point of view, and default competing interps but can be swayed to vote for the aff being reasonable granted with some aff's it just confuses me how you are reasonable, Most of the time reasonability seems like it does not do anything for the aff anyway cause it is never applied to the debate. I reward spec interps/violations vs. an aff. I think interp debates are underutilized, but the quality of the interp for me matters less than the vision of the topic they provide. Disclosure never checks t offense .T IS NEVER AN RVI(seriously I will just not vote for it, No amount of tech>truth on this one). I think T subs becomes very persuasive on this topic against certain aff's.

DA: Disads are great I love them. Disads should have all 4 parts in the 1NC(uq link i/L and !) (however these things can be implicitly true IE:Israel backlash DA the link will p much be the UQ), if the disad does not have one of these things all the 2ac should say is that they do not have x when they read x we will answer it. Updated ev will be rewarded. The link debate is decided by the link debate. New 2NC link or impact scenarios are fine. If you want me to vote on the DA, I need clear 2NR impact calc/outweighs turns case analysis, I think impact work is often underutilized. more cards>less cards but smart args>confusing cards that say the same things.

CP: I need a clear net benefit. I err neg on most theory but I do kinda hate nonspecific delay/consult CP's and there is a brightline for too many conditional advocacies IE: there might not be a diff between 2 and 3 but there is a diff between 2 and 5. Solvency is not a net benefit. I think there are reasons for and against needing a solvency advocate but in a lot of instances, I find you do need one. New 2NC planks or kicking plank in the 2NC are theoretically suspicious. Perm legitimacy on this topic is highly debatable but I think what makes me want to vote for it on the neg is explaining and telling me how to evaluate the violation level of the argument IE: if the arg is "perm requires lying which is intrinsic" you need to explain why and then how that implicates your offense(their defense). I do not know why this is happening but if you just say the word "perm do both", "perm do the CP' etc... especially if you just spew them out in a row really fast, I will just not flow them because they do not constitute an argument and I will consider any 1AR/2AR explanation of them as new. "perm do both shields the net benefit" can be an argument but you should probably say "perm do both shields the net benefit because of x" to be on the safe side. Textual competition is a terrible standard unless you are pic ing out of something.

K: Framing statement-If I can't understand it enough to explain it to the other team in the RFD I won't vote for it. I am kinda well read on some postmodern areas IE:Virilio and cybernetics and being from Oklahoma hear set col and the cap k read a lot. This, however, does not mean you should read those. I find it very hard to not weigh the impacts or give the aff fiat instead you should make your FW more of impact framing question of why I should shift how I conceive the Fiated implications of the plan, I also find it hard to beleive the neg should not get the k or not be able to generate offense against reps/Discourse etc(this varies however based on the link magnitude, if the link is 5 words of one card they read it will be hard for me to justify it but if it is large portions of their cards/correlated to their authors qual's then it makes more sense for me) . ...I will not do work for you. I need link contextualization, impact debate, and alt debate. k's must-have alts but rejection is an alt and FW can make up for not needing a alt. Short overviews pls if its more than 2 min I will prob stop flowing and I would rather just hear it on the line by line. Permutations are heavily underutilized by the aff and I think textual competition is bad. Floating PIKS are probably bad and I have a high threshold for word piks(If they say an obviously easily k'ed word ALOT then I understand but if it is just one word idt if that is legit).I have read Security or cap in round almost exclusively with Security, when done correctly, is my favorite argument in a debate round. Bonus points for reading Fem IR. Clash debates are some of favorite rounds to watch and judge when done well but my bar for well is high.

Case:both sides please do it. Impact turning the aff is a power move. For case turns see DA. defense against aff these days can be devasting because of how bad internal links are. Case overviews often have the same problems I have with the K overview, if you can do it on the line by line or impact calc of other flows why do it? I think case overviews that highlight central problems, or answer a warrant that tons of their arguments had, or does some "top level" argument interaction/framing can be good but if it's just "this is the aff, this is why we solve, this why impact is bad" just do it on the line by line.

Theory: willing to vote on it.(especially when dropped)(see cp though) I try to stay as tech as possible but as a 2N tend to side neg. Granted I find perf cons compelling so don't read the cap k and an econ cp or the security k and alliance DA. Judge kick is bad. I default to reject the arg on all theory.

Planless/K aff: my fav standards are predictable limits and advocacy skills but I think there is a caveat with this, skills related to policymaking or activism I do not find persuasive and I think the impacts based around them are usually wrong, However Skills like research skills or Deliberation can be effective and material impacts such as voting or forming opinions in itself are very persuasive. I think doing those or whatever skill you end up going for is made way better by having reasons why they turn the case(view standards like disads). Fairness can be a internal link or impact. I feel like FW debates don't innovate sometimes and mirror bad 90's FW arguments, If this is how you debate FW it will end up badly for you. I think in terms of answering standards asking UQ questions like "is there fairness now" or "is their ground on a topic with just ptx and process cp's" can be very persuasive. I will base my decision off the flow as much as I can but I am predisposed to vote on T, k aff's that are solved mostly by TVA's usually will lose in front of me. I dislike pure F the Res aff's.The more related to the topic your k aff is the less likely I vote on framework. Impact turn standards. Antonio 95=25 speaks.

(unless there are explicit tournament rules because then I will 100 percent follow those)-

Despite not actively reading the ev with you in speeches if I catch you clipping or there is other ethics violation I will warn you after the speech as long as it was not serious violation because you might just not know, if you notice the other team committing a "ethics violation" you should record it and if you bring it to my attention I will warn the other team if this happens more than once I will end the round and give the "violater" 0 speaks(depending on the "ethics violation" I might end the round faster).

With all this said I have been coached and taught most of what I know from my head coach Tommy Snider so I will link his paradigm here

Dan Beruite Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Kourtni Cain Paradigm

Not Submitted

Tyler Cauley Paradigm

HH Update

Hey! My name is Tyler Cauley and I debated policy and LD at Mannford High School and CEDA/NDT policy at UCO. I will evaluate rounds purely on the flow as best as possible. I don’t have time to write a full paradigm right now (rip judgephilosophies) but if you have any technical questions feel free to ask me before the round.

Mathew Covert Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Chase Elsner Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Victoria Engledow Paradigm

Not Submitted

Keaton Gann Paradigm

Not Submitted

Bryan Gaston Paradigm

Updated for Oklahoma State and NDCA 2019
Bryan Gaston
Director of Debate
Heritage Hall School
1800 Northwest 122nd St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120-9598

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 tendencies to assist with MPJ and adaptation.

Quick Version:

1. Debate is a competitive game.

2. I will vote on Framework and T-Aff's should be topical. But, you can still beat framework with good offense or a good counter-interpretation.

3. DA's and Aff advantages can have zero risk.

4. Neg conditionality is mostly good.

5. Counterplans and PICs --good (better to have a solvency advocate than not)

6. K's that link to the Aff plan/advocacy/advantages/reps and have an alternative that is explained and solves are good.

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

8. Email Chain access please:

9. The debate should be a fun and competitive activity, be kind to each other and try your best.

**Arms Sales topic notes***

--I have noticed I tend to find that many critiques debaters like to read link to the status quo but not the plan or ending arms sales. I think the K should link to the plan, reps of the aff or solid links to the advantages otherwise it is an uphill battle--

My Golden Rule: When you have the option to choose a more specific strategy vs a more generic strategic, always choose the more specific strategy.

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 be doing to deter clipping in my rounds is requesting a copy of all speech docs before the debaters start speaking and while flowing I read along to check from time to time.

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 to 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 it. Negative teams typically under-utilize this. I believe well planned impacted case debate is essential to a great negative strategy. Takeouts and turn 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. 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 the Aff are very important---the more specific the better. Some K lit bases I'm decently familiar with: Capitalism, Security, Anti-blackness, Natives, Reps (various types), Fem IR, Anthro, Nietzsche, and Queer theory. Some K lit bases I don't know very much about: Baudrillard, Bataille, Deleuze.

Big impact turn debates: I like them. Want to throw down in a big Hegemony Good/Bad debate, Dedev vs Growth Good, method vs method, it's all good.

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

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

Impact framing-- it's pretty important, especially in a round where you have a soft-left Aff with a big framing page vs a typical neg util based framing strat.

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. I am a high school teacher and coach, who is responsible for high school kids. 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.

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 important. If you are not clear I will yell out “Clear.” Average national circuit debate starts at 28.4, Good is 28.5-28.9 (many national circuit rounds end up in this range), Excellent 29-29.9, Perfect 30 (I have given 3 in 16 years judging) they all went on to win the NDT at some point. I will punish your points if you are excessively rude to your opponents or partner during a round.

Paperless Debating (most of this is old and not necessary anymore):
1. You need to provide a readable copy of all evidence used in your speech (in one speech doc---like 2AC Round 6, do not open up 7 files on your computer and tell the other team you are reading different things from all of them).
2. You should let the other team view your speeches on their own laptops if they choose.
3. You should have a viewing computer for teams that use paper (or you must let them use one of your computers if they ask).
4. Give me a digital copy of the speech also. Why? See "clipping" below...
5. DO NOT give your opponents speech docs with all the tags and/or cites missing. This is not acceptable. You may leave out analytics (not tags) if you choose.
6. I will stop prep while you save your doc.

Have fun debating!

Jordan Gayle Paradigm

Hey. My name is Jordan. I competed in policy at Union High School in Tulsa, OK. I also competed in parliamentary style debate in college at Morehouse College in Atlanta. In high school, I read a lot of small impact policy affs, a few kritikal affs, and mostly t/k/case strats. I've judged a good number of rounds throughout undergrad and this current 18-19 debate season. I'd say that my paradigm is probably policymaker. I'm open to hearing well impacted topicality arguments and kritiks on the neg, in addition to DA's, CP's, and theory arguments. I also don't mind kritikal affs, as long as they make a good argument for why they are germane to the topic, but I do have some reservations about affs that incorporate personal narratives in their strategy. I think that debates should be educational, and I think that debaters have the right to discuss what the rules of the debate should be. I'm good with speed, as long as you clearly enunciate your tags.

In addition to all of this, I think that debaters should be respectful to one another, and I'm always open to discuss my decision and the round, if time permits.

I'm Black.

My pronouns are he/him/his. has hidden gems.


Michael Haskins Paradigm

I'm the Program Director for the Tulsa Debate League. I coach all events but my focus is policy debate. I'm open to all styles of debate and I try to minimize judge intervention in my decisions. With that in mind, I’m more concerned with argument form than argument content. Arguments can come in many forms (e.g., traditional policy arguments, kritikal arguments, narrative arguments, etc.) but I think all arguments should have warrants and impacts. I also think line-by-line and clash help me minimize judge intervention. If your debate style eschews line-by-line, that's okay, but the clash should still be present, even if it's implicit. Ultimately though, I will do my best to evaluate your round according to the terms you establish in the round. With all that said, the rest of this paradigm covers a few technical aspects of debate that I consider important.


Speech Docs

Please include me in the email chain:


I will flow where you tell me to flow. If you don’t tell me where to flow, I will flow in the way that makes the most sense to me. I'm hesitant to cross-apply for you so sign-posting and explicit cross-applications are important.


I prefer fewer pieces of evidence better explained and better applied than many pieces of evidence poorly explained and poorly applied. I think the debate community as a whole has done a poor job of teaching debaters how to evaluate competing evidence. Credentials and expert status hold less sway in my mind than the empirical and logical analysis contained in the evidence. On that note, I tend to give more weight to analytical arguments that use common knowledge examples and reasoned analysis than most judges. I consider this an important check against teams that run intentionally obscure offense on the hope that the other team will lack the evidence to respond.


Feel free to ask me questions. I love to talk debate.

Emma Hawxby Paradigm

On T: I will vote on T if it is dropped by the affirmative; it is a prerequisite to the round and I believe if the aff is not topical then the round should not have happened. However, if the aff is reasonably topical and has answered T (with a we meet, a counter-interpretation, and counter-standards) then the neg should not go for T in the 2NR.

On K’s, I do believe a few can be run in novice (like capitalism or neoliberalism) but nothing much harder than that. Understand what the alt is trying to do before running it.

On theory (conditionality, aspec, etc.): if theory is brought up in the 2AC, I will weigh it in the round, but if the opposing team has reasonably answered it I won’t give it much thought.

On CPs: I’m ok with most CPs. There isn’t much you can do that I won’t buy, although I don’t like plan plus/plan minus counterplans, especially if the aff gives me a theory reason as to why I should reject the argument, but I will tolerate them.

On case: do not drop case in the 2AC, especially solvency. The case is the whole reason for the debate, and if the aff drops case, then there’s really nothing that they’re advocating for.

I will accept just about any impact as potentially viable. Impact calculus is accepted, if not encouraged. Try to persuade my why I should buy your impacts over your opponents, especially in the 2NR/2AR.

I do not like the negative running new off case in the neg block. It puts the aff at a structural disadvantage and is mostly dirty playing by the neg. Everything you need in the neg block should have been read in the 1NC and extended upon in the neg block.

Do not run new cards after the 1AR. Minimal cards should be read in the 1AR, but after that speech it should be all analysis.

Brittany Hayes Paradigm

Not Submitted

Supriya Koya Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Han Le Paradigm


She/Her pronouns.

I'm a Moore varsity debater, and I've been debating policy for 3 years now. That being said, I've ran just about any kind of argument there is in policy, examples include: Topicality, Counterplans, Kritiks, Disads, Theory, etc.

I'm open to any kind of arguments as long as it's not offensive, examples include: racism good, genocide good, pineapples on pizza good, etc.

Clarity over speed, I'm not tryna decipher jibberish. If I can't understand it, I won't flow it. However, I don't have a problem with spreading, and I believe in being organized. Clearly signposting = me flowing your args well = better chance at getting the ballot

My email for questions/email chain is

Don't email me for questions unless it's about debate or how great I am


I'm a Moore debater, we're all filthy K hacks, enough said. I'm well versed in K lit, but I won't be making your arguments/filling in the gaps for you. Either you know what you're doing, or you don't run it. Don't try to run kritiks to get my ballot, I won't be voting for you if you don't know what's going on, even if I do like Ks. Impact calc is sexy, and so is solvency. Make sure you flesh out your arguments and clearly tell me why I should be voting for your K.

If you run anthro or baudrillard I'll hate you, but I'll still flow it.

Case arguments

They're good. They're great. They're reliable. They have your back. Use them. Please.


DAs - make sure you have a link to the AFF, I'll take generic ones but I prefer specific ones. Extend your impacts. Explain to me why the AFF causes extinction or whatever. If you thoroughly convince me that the AFF will cause the DA, it should be an easy win for the NEG.

CPs - on god, please tell me why the CP is better than the AFF. I'd prefer it if you run CPs with DAs, but you do you.


As long as it's fleshed out well and you can explain to me why this theory debate isn't just a time waster, I'll consider it.


Unlike Stephanie Dixon, a disgusting K hack, I'm down for FW and T. Unfortunately, many teams only use T and FW as a time waster instead of an actual argument, so unless the argument is fleshed out and you sell me how unfair the other team is being, I probably won't vote on it unless the other team drops it entirely. I have a high threshold on T and FW, tell me how the other team is violating your interp and tell me why your interp is better for debate.

Speaker Points

Stan Exo and I'll be more considerate to your speaker points.

Respect your opponents. Don't speak over them in CX, don't yell at them, don't be condescending, don't misgender your opponents on purpose. This will reflect on your speaker points, and if it gets extreme, it'll reflect the ballot.

Zach LeClair Paradigm

Not Submitted

Tristan Loveless Paradigm

Updated 4/11/19 for UDNC

Debating: My name is Tristan Loveless, I debated for four years at Skiatook High School in East Oklahoma. I debated 200-300 rounds over my four years between tournaments and camps. I attended Georgetown and Northwestern for camps. I did not debate in college.

Coaching: I am currently working for the Tulsa Urban Debate League as their Program Coordinator.

1 year as a program coordinator for the TDL (OK)

3 years coaching/assistant coaching Urban Debate (OK)

1 year assistant coaching Skiatook High School (OK)

Judging (Immigration):Camp tournaments, less than 10 Nat. Circuit, about 30 Oklahoma Circuit

Topics I've debated/coached: Space, Transportation infrastructure, Cuba/Mexico/Venezuela, Oceans, Surveillance, China, Education, Immigration

Simply put I’ll evaluate everything. Do what you do best.

Authors I've read: Agamben, Foucault, Marx, Freud, Giroux, Camus, Heidegger, Hegel, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. feel free to ask me if I've read X author before the round.

Policy Affirmative Case- If it’s a traditional policy aff I can follow it no problem.

Kritikal Aff- Defend something. Try to be related to the topic in some way please. I prolly haven’t read your philosophy so make it clear, I personally ran Kritikal Affirmatives my Junior and Senior year, so I’m pretty cool with this. Try to give me a clear picture of what my ballot is/does and what exactly I am voting for especially in the 2AR

DA- I’m cool with whatever

CP- On the theory debate Impact it out. The negative should have a specific solvency advocate, I'll still listen to it if it doesn't but I'm likely to buy that it doesn't actually solve if the aff makes that argument.

Theory/T- Impact the voters, tell me what the T/Theory Interp provides us in the real world. T “substantial” or T “its” aren’t super compelling arguments, and they are less so if you don’t give me voter analysis. Education isn’t an Impact, Advocacy Skills and Decision making are. Education is only an Internal Link to a real impact


General - K's are fine. Just a few notes on how I view K's: The alternative is an advocacy, so prove that the alternative is better than the affirmative. When going for the perm be sure to explain how the perm is able to solve the Impact/Link level of the flow- if the perm still links and causes the impact of the K then I'm not gonna vote for the perm. I default that the aff gets to weigh the 1AC, but if the negative wins on the flow that they don't get to weigh it then I won't weigh it.

Impact Turns- I've noticed a lot of K debaters have trouble answering Heg/Cap good in response to their K's. These are real arguments that you need to be able to answer.

In round Discourse links: If the link is in round discourse then you HAVE to explain how the perm overcomes the in round link & Impact otherwise you probably lose the perm debate.

Impact framing: I've seen a few teams going for the "future bad" framing, be sure to extend this throughout the round and cover it in your final speech- and if you're debating against these kind of arguments be sure to answer them. In short, be sure you extend and explain impact framing throughout the round and if you're the opposing team be sure to answer these kinds of arguments

Note: In the past few years I've seen negatives read K's that the rest of their strategy links too. I'm not a fan of this and am likely to vote a team down for doing this. If you don't know what I mean here are the examples from rounds I've judged:

Example 1: Negative team reads Set Col and argues that native erasure is the biggest impact, and then kicks the K in the 2NR.

Example 2: Negative team reads Fem K w/ USFG link and a counterplan that uses the USFG.


Speed is cool, be clear. I like Impact Analysis. Be creative.

Timing Stuff- prep ends when jump drive is in the opponents hand, Cross Ex starts immediately when the speech ends.

Pet Peeves- Stand during CX and when you speak. try to make eye contact with the judge. Really helps with increasing your speaker points, not just with me but with most Judges.

Feel free to ask me questions before the round!

Abigayle Lowen Paradigm

Not Submitted

Cassie Lynch Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Zachary Martin Paradigm

Not Submitted

Michael Patterson Paradigm

Not Submitted

Ty Rossow Paradigm

Not Submitted

Dennis Savill Paradigm

Current Coach of Crossings Christian School in Oklahoma since 2011. We have a 6th grade - 12th grade debate program and our varsity team debates on the national TOC circuit. I debated in high school under Martin Glendinning.

Things you need to know for prefs:

Kritiks: Oklahoma is very heavy with kritiks and non-topical affs so I am very familiar with them. I like kritiks and K affs and can vote for them.

Policy: I am familiar with policy debates and can judge those. My squad has a mix of K teams and policy teams so I am good with either.

Speed: I can handle any kind of speed as long as you are clear.

Theory/FW/T: Only if the team is blatantly non-topical will I consider voting neg or if the aff screws up. On FW heavy debates, I am not such a fan so if you are neg and hit a non-topical aff I will entertain FW but that shouldn't be your only offcase. I am a fan of seeing actual abuse in the round so you should run a generic DA to get the "no link" argument. Also, root causing with a K is a good strat for me.

Performance/non-traditional debate: Despite what some would think coming from a Christian school, I actually like these kinds of debates and have voted up many teams including LGBTQ affs and wipeout-type arguments.

I try to be a tab judge but I know I tend to vote on more technical prowess. I believe debate should be a fun and respectful activity and I try to have a good time judging the round. I think debaters are among the smartest students in the nation and I always find it a privilege to judge a round and give feedback.

I would like to be on the email chain:

Justin Schuffert Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Garrett Smith Paradigm

8 rounds

Not Submitted

Tommy Snider Paradigm


Director of Debate at Casady School

Debate is a unique activity that allows for a plethora of arguments, styles, and worldviews (that would traditionally separated by academic discipline or specialization) to clash against one another. Simply put, I love debate for its diversity. I've noticed I have a weird reputation in different parts of the country. National tournaments outside of Texas people assume I'm a K hack because I debated for the University of Oklahoma in college. Yet in Oklahoma and Texas people consider me a framework hack. The truth is somewhere in the middle.

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


General - I’ve been influence by some of the best K coaches in the country and a common theme among them, which has been ingrained in my brain, has been:

“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).

No overviews on a separate sheet of paper.

Neg - Kritiks, typically, come from literature bases that have robust explanatory power for the way the world/power/violence works, which I don't see many debaters take advantage of. Instead of using this theory as a way to control large parts of the debate, debaters start and stop at "X is the root cause."

I'm not persuaded much by self-serving counter interpretations on framework. There needs to be a very compelling reason to not let the affirmative weigh the plan. That said, 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, which results in serial policy failure."

Stop reading Antonio 95.

Affs - The easiest way to beat a kritik is to defend your aff. Don't force yourself to play the neg's game if you don't know what you're talking about.


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

See “tech vs truth” and “On Evidence.” If your Adv/DA isn't logically consistent then I probably won't vote for it. You should interrogate evidence quality and author qualifications (applies to advantages too).

On Evidence

Evidence quality and consistency is really important to me. Teams should point out when evidence is really bad (looking at you politics DA).

Tech vs Truth

I think of this as more of a continuum as opposed to a binary. I lean more towards truth than tech. 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. 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 really enjoy “clash of civilizations” debates. 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.

Stop reading Antonio 95. Yes the second time was intentional.

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.


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 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Guaranteed 30 if you’re paper debate team #PaperDebate

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

I won't flow the overview on a separate sheet of paper. Bad.

You should wear pants and a shirt while you debate.

Phil Wilson Paradigm

I vote for the team that debates the best. That's my paradigm.

If forced to pick a point of view I would call myself a policy maker. I debated for 8 years in high school and college (NDT style) and am open to just about any argument so long as it is debated well. This includes critical arguments, performance, theory, etc.

Other points that may help you adapt to me:

Speed. You can go as fast as you can read, but be clear. Most debaters try to sound fast without actually being fast. Be clear. You get more points if I can understand you, less if I don't. Did I mention to be clear?

Make arguments: Provide a claim, warrant and evidence for each argument. Number them. Explain why I should prefer yours to theirs. Help me evaluate competing claims, show me how they interrelate and how your version of the world is preferred over theirs. Help me write my ballot.

Show me you understand the chess match: Explain cross applications, contradictions, interrelationships, etc. Indict evidence and explain why yours is preferred. ARGUE THE INTERNAL LINKS. Kick out arguments you are losing to spend time on arguments you are winning (and know the difference). Grant arguments that help you. Be strategic. 

Evaluate scenarios and explain how yours is more probable, happens first, or has a bigger impact than theirs. Explain the thesis of your critical or policy scenarios, and why they force a choice for you. If you are running a critical argument be able to clearly explain the philosophy and why this is a reason to reject your opponent's worldview. I consider this activity policy debate, so even if you are making a critical argument it is best to explain its impact as if I am a policy maker.

CX: Be nice. I'm OK with open CX, but I get annoyed when the two debaters who aren't supposed to be doing the CX are the only ones talking. Let your partner try to answer before you jump in. A solid CX can get you better speaker points and earns credibility, especially if it is used strategically to set up your upcoming arguments.

T: It is a voting issue and I like good T debates. Most of them are not good. If you plan to go for T on the negative you have to commit. Explain why your interpretation is better (abuse is not a reason unless you can show how they are actually abusing in this round). I like to hear examples of cases that meet/don't meet or examples of how the interpretation impacts limits specifically.

CP: I guess I'm a dinosaur but I believe a CP needs to be a reason to reject the topic and not just the plan (i.e. it should be non-topical and competitive). I could be convinced otherwise if argued well, but that's where I start. You also better have a solvency advocate if you want me to take the CP seriously.

Theory: If you are just reading a brief don't waste your time. If you want me to vote on theory you need to explain why the other team's abuse is a reason to reject. I probably won't vote on this unless you really commit and explain why the abuse in this round justifies voting on the theory argument.

Jeremiah Worrell Paradigm

Experience: I debated for Owasso High School for 4 years (Civil Liberties-Alternative Energy), University of Central Oklahoma for 1 year (Nuclear Weapons) and University of Missouri-Kansas City for 2 (Energy, Military Presence).


tl;dr: do what you do best, and I'll try and evaluate it.


I view debate as a game through which we contest ideas and methodologies. What this means is, I'm equally as comfortable judging a straight-up policy throwdown as I am K-on-K violence. A few general things:

1. Specificity > generality. This applies to policy arguments as well as kritikal ones.

2. Impact debates are important. For realsies.

3. Framing arguments are paramount. This doesn't just mean policy style framework arguments, but epistemology, ontology, and other framing arguments as well. Not answering them is a big problem.

4. Go as fast as you want, as long as you're clear.

5. Don't be an asshole.

Some specific things:

Disads/Counterplans: yeah, sure, whatever. I'm not the biggest fan of PICs from a theoretical standpoint, but I'm not going to insult you publically for running them (unless they're like, really stupid). Counterplans need to have net benefits.

Topicality: despite my largely kritik-centric debate experience, I really do enjoy a good T debate. A few things to keep in mind:

  1. Your impacts need to be specific. It's not good enough to just say "explodes limits" and move on. They should be specific to the aff. What types of affirmatives does the aff justify, and why are those bad?
  2. Reasonability is not a complete rejection of competing interpretations, but rather a re-orientation of how we should evaluate the competition. There is no other way (kritiks of topicality aside) to evaluate a topicality debate other than by evaluating the two interpretations side-by-side. What's important is the calculus we use to make that decision, and that's what the reasonability vs competing interps debate is for.
  3. Debates over "substantially" are incredibly lame unless you have some pretty specific evidence. They better be fire. Like, my-mixtape-burns-the-house-down-when-you-play-it fire. Like, Nas torching Jay-Z on "Ether" fire.

Framework: I recognize that these debates need to happen, I just don't get excited over them. T version of the aff is pretty important, as are the framing arguments coming from the aff. This is not an argument you can expect to win with a 30 second blip unless your opponent really, really screwed up. Also, I'm not a huge fan of "Ks are cheating" framework on the aff. It's 2017. We've established that they aren't cheating. Cut better answers.

Theory: Sigh. Yes, I've won debates (plural) on Conditionality bad, Intrinsic perms bad, and multiple perms bad. Does that make them good arguments? No. Does that mean you should run them? Probably not. There are scenarios in which you should potentially contemplate maybe considering thinking about running them. Unless the neg reads 27 off case (which would be impressive, actually, considering my record is 16), I'd advise against it.

Kritiks: This is my bread-and-butter. Chances are you won't lose me with a literature base, so go ham. I have a soft spot for Marx, but anything is fair game.


madison rainey Paradigm

Not Submitted