Lions Classic Moore HS

2019 — Moore HS, OK/US

Elizabeth Boomer Paradigm

I'm primarily a policy judge, so I'm pretty tab and don't really have strong preferences. However, I don't expect nor want other forms of debate (LD, PF, BQ, WSD) to look like a policy round.

A) I tend to view myself as a judge that tries to be as tab as possible. I am willing to accept any framework argument made. If no framework is set up, I will view the round as a policy-maker. I view debate as a fishbowl. What I mean by this is that debate is a place to play with different theories and ideas to form the best possible scenario. I am willing to vote neg if the status/quo outweighs the aff, but I will not make that argument for you. If you just say that in some way the aff is bad, but don’t tell me the status quo is better and warrant it out you will probably lose. In a way, if not given a framework (that is warranted out), I will go with what I am told is good. I work very hard to not let my personal beliefs have a role in the round, but I am only human.

B) Speed is not a problem; however, you must be clear. Mumbling is not the same as spreading.

C) Topicality. and Theory need to be impacted with in round abuse. I refuse to vote on potential abuse, because that can lead to a what if can of worms. I also tend to be less sympathetic to weird definitions or word pics. I am glad to listen to them and way them in round if they are warranted, explained, and not just a ten second part of the round (let’s be honest-sometimes they are just time sucks). I love to see really good theory ran by people who understand it. It is an intriguing way to play the debate game.

D) Counter Plans are fine, but make sure you can actually, legally change out the actor, etc.

E) Disads are fine. I like them as a net benefit to CPs. It makes everything pretty.

F) Kritiks are fine with me, but please realize that I do not read all of the literature in my free time. If something I hear about sparks and interest, sure, I’ll read about it. This rarely happens. I think it is ridiculous how many debaters assume that I have read all that Zizek, Lacan, or whoever the newest guru is has written or spoken. Remember that your judges and coaches have lives outside of debate. I actually really like to hear Kritiks as they can offer great offense.

G) Now onto Perms. I will vote on them, but they must be explained and not just a cheap trick thrown at the aff.

H) Behavior: Remember that this is not a time to actively work to make people feel inferior (Read: Don’t be a jerk). We lose to many students who could have thrived in this activity due to them feeling horrid after a tournament. I want to see more debaters and actors. I want to see massive inclusion of all peoples. This is supposed to be fun and educational; help us work towards that. When you face those who are less experienced that you, help make it an awesome learning experience and don’t act like you should win by default.

I) Remember that you will probably encounter the same competitors and judges throughout the year; so make a good impression.

Russell Hanson Paradigm

8 rounds

Debated for 4 years at Moore High School, and going into my third year of college debate at the University of Oklahoma.

Do whatever. It's come to this point where my paradigm is too many words and has no bearing on how I evaluate rounds. I'll give you a detailed 'roadmap' if you prefer.

My pronouns are they/them.

The following things below were written in March at 3 AM. This'll probably be confusing for you as it is for me, so defer to the words I said above.


Speed: I'm cool with it... given that clarity is always better than speed. This being said, you should emphasize certain words in your taglines and analytics to not only give you ethos, but establish certain things I should look for in your arguments. This being said, I would much rather you slow down on your taglines and distinguish them from your cards. Train effect for bonus speaks.

Kritiks: I've spent most of my debate career reading these arguments in a one-off style. Specificity is key especially to Affirmatives. Quote-pulling would be my favorite, as long as they are contextualized in your speeches before the 2NR. I've read a lot of literature whether it be cards, articles, or books, but that doesn't mean I know all of the nuances even in my best studies. I think the best strategy regardless is to win the framework debate on either team.

K AFFs: Do it. You certainly should have justifications for your method, such as reasons they're good or whether your scholarship is key for debate, the round, or even external forces. Topic ties would be better, especially to hedge back against framework teams. That being said, use case as offense.

Framework: Framework is the best example that contests two models of debate. Each team should have reasons or net-benefits as to why these models are better. What makes framework even more convincing as a strategy is to also have a Topical Version of the Affirmative (please give a plan text)... bonus if there's a solvency advocate. Otherwise win reasons as to why your model creates the best way to adjudicate fairness and/or education or why institutions like the USFG are good.

Dis-Advantages:
I think generally as a negative strategy you should have a specific and/or contextual link strategy to the affirmative. That being said, general links will probably not suffice, unless the link goes conceded. Disads are most certainly the best offensive policy strategy to outweigh the advantages of the affirmative so please do the dying art: impact calculus.

Counterplans: Counterplans are pretty cool. You should always have a net-benefit (internal and/or external) so it gives me an offensive reason that I should vote Negative. Otherwise, it gives me more of a chance to vote Affirmative either on the permutation or solvency alone. I would much rather prefer functional competitiveness on a counterplan only because I have to evaluate policy options.

Topicality: I believe the same thing goes for topicality debates: why is your interpretation a better model of debate? How does(n't) it explode or over-limit? Do I default to competing interpretations or reasonability? This is definitely a debate more about tech than truth.

Tech > truth in most instances.

I will NOT ever vote for racism/sexism/transmisogyny/ableism/etc. You'll either lose the debate round or all of your speaks... or most likely both.

Megan McBride Paradigm

Not Submitted

Michael Patterson Paradigm

I try to approach each round with a Tabula Rasa philosophy. I am willing to listen and evaluate any type/form of argumentation. I will want debaters to evaluate and frame arguments as the round progresses with emphasis on comparative analysis between those competing arguments.

Speed is generally not a problem.

Mykaela Salcido Paradigm

Why should I pref you?

I am knowledgeable on a wide array of arguments and comfortable judging a round anyway it unfolds. I can evaluate your framework, or your theory shell, or your performance, or your poetry, or your policy aff. There is nothing I'm unwilling to watch, flow, and engage with. I am a flexible judge with the desire to watch you read whatever you want and are good at. I have multiple years of diverse debate experience ranging from traditional LD, progressive policy debate (including multiple performances cases) and public forum.

How do you feel about K's?

I like them. Establish a clear link to the affirmative, provide an explanation of the alternative, and explain the literature. I LOVE debates with passion. I feel like debate should be a place where we can talk about anything and everything- please feel free to do that in front of me. I want to hear your narratives, poetry, and hot take on capitalism.

How do you feel about framework/theory/topicality?

Framework makes the game work. I love a good framework debate- keep it clean, technical and provide voting issues. I can definitely get down with a solid framework debate- keep the nuance. I can really appreciate a shell that is personalized to around and not just read directly off a computer. Potential abuse isn't really a voter, but maybe you can convince me.

Can I run my policy aff in front of you?

Absolutely! Have internal links to your impacts and weigh them!

What do you NOT like?

When people are rude to each other in the round. I would also prefer you abstain from using gendered language- including terms like "you guys". I like when oponnents are kind, knowledgeable, and non-problematic.

How do you evaluate a round?

However the debaters tell me to. If I am instructed to evaluate a round through a certain framework, I will. If I am told to evaluate through a role of the ballot, or a role of the judge, I will. I prefer to evaluate based off clear framework and impact weighing- good old magnitude, timeframe, and probability.

matthew4thepeople@gmail.com

Matt He/Him/His

Put me on the email chain and I hope you get my ballot!

Dennis Savill Paradigm

I would like to be on the email chain: dsavill@crossingsschool.org

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 is designed to be flex 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.

Pétra Van Court Paradigm

If you feel the need to know my qualifications, this will be my 9th year of experience with CX and LD. I competed in CX in high school, qualified to NSDA 2x, had a TOC bid, placed 3rd at state in CX, state quarter finalist in LD, and coach CX, LD, PF and Congress now. Affiliations: Cheyenne East (my alma mater)'12-'16, Edmond Santa Fe (individuals) '16-'17, Norman North '18 - present. I have been lucky enough to coach students who have been national semifinalists in Congress, placed 24th in PF, and several who have advanced to late outrounds at the state level in CX, LD and PF.

I tend to default to policymaking, but if no debater has clearly won or told me where and why to vote, I will default to stock issues. I’m not a fan of vulgarity in-round. Please time yourself, I'm bad at time signals. Open cx is okay, so long as you aren't talking over your partner. If you bring spectators, they must be respectful of all competitors and judges.

Speed is fine, I prefer slow on plan/advocacy statements and tags/authors. Use an indicator when switching between tags and arguments. Clarity is key to getting on the flow. I will say clear once, and if I can't decipher you after that your arguments aren't making it on my flow.

In the era of online debate, I suggest recording your speeches just in case of tech difficulties. I will adhere to all tournament guidelines regarding competition and tech issues. Slow down a teeny bit for the sake of mic processing. You probably don't need all 10 DAs. Please try your best to keep your cameras on, I understand this is not always possible.

Policy - My background is in traditional policy debate. I am well-versed in topicality and straight policy, but I will listen to just about anything you can and want to run. I appreciate creativity in debate, just tell me where to vote and why. I am v cool with Ks and theory, but I have a high threshold for in-round abuse. Not a fan of plan+ / plan inclusive anything.

Cross ex: it's probably binding. often underutilized. make it strategic - analyze the links, perms, make your opponents prove their solvency. If you’re being shifty and don't know what you're talking about, your opponent doesn't know what you're talking about, and I definitely don't know what you're talking about. For the love of all things sacred, don't be a jerk.

CPs: Have a plan text. Have net benefit. Tell me why it's competitive. You should probably have a really good solvency advocate. Full disclosure, I think I have only ever voted for one PIC, I think that a perm makes this a pretty easy win for Aff. I don't believe States CP gets to fiat all 50 states + relevant US territories (unless you can provide a theory shell, in which case, go for it).

DAs: I love me some case-specific DA's. Do the impact analysis!! Aff too. For the love of all things holy, please make it a complete argument. I don't love seeing a 10-off 1nc with severely underdeveloped DAs that lack links and UQ.

Kritiks: I have a good technical understanding of K's but don’t know all theory/philosophy. I'm not a philosophy hack; I won't do the work for you. It's critical that you understand what your advocacy is. If you don't know/understand, I don't want to vote for it. PLEASE don't read a K because you think I want to hear one. I would much rather hear a good, in-depth debate about what you're good at. If your K is about debate being irredeemable and a black hole...consider who your audience is. I've dedicated most of my life to the activity and try my damndest to keep it healthy and fun for everyone, that might not be a great strat.

Topicality: Good. Great. I typically default to competing interpretations. It's not (usually) a RVI. Just like anything, read it only if you understand which violation you're reading and if there is clear abuse. You need standards. I have a higher threshold for FXT and XT because of how policy typically operates in the real world, but if you feel there is clear in-round abuse, knock yourself out.

Theory: Most of the theory debates I see are bad. That makes me sad - I like theory. I will listen to some well-thought-out theory any day of the week. I will consider any discourse args on reasons to reject a team, so long as their impacted out. Don't be racist/sexist, etc. Not a fan of framework debates because I see very few that are good. I tend to vote for world v world and real-world impacts anyway. Neg worlds should probably be cohesive.

Misc: Don't be mean. Don't cheat. I'll call you on stealing prep. If you do it after I call you on it I have no issue auto-dropping you. I don't want to have to read the evidence - you should be explaining it. Please don't call me by my name first if you do not know me. It's mildly disrespectful. You'll probably get it wrong, and that's awkward for the both of us. Post-rounding (asking questions is fine - I will be more than happy to explain my thought process - I'm taking about arguing or bringing up things you should have used to answer but didn't) won't change my ballot but will guarantee you'll get the lowest speaks possible. I won’t weigh wipeout. If you run it, you better have a damn good warrant and damn good framework shell to run with it.

LD/PF - I did traditional LD in high school. I look for lots of work on the framework debate and framework/case interaction. If you're about progressive debate, that's cool too - but incorporate some semblance of framework or a role of the ballot. I don't want to see a CP, DA or K read with zero interaction with the resolution or aff. Again, don't run a K because you think that's what I want to hear. Theory is cool, and welcomed, here too. Disclosure theory is probably a waste of your time, unless yo are going against a CP/K/Theory shell or serious spreading.

TLDR; If there is no clear reason given for me to vote either side, I will default to stock issues because it is what I know the best. Does aff meet their minimum requirements of affirmation? Does the negative do their job of negating the resolution? Do the off-case arguments link? Are alternatives mutually exclusive? Do the alternatives solve the aff? Impact it out. In-round, fiated implementation, and on the flow. For everything. Don't steal prep. If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask me before the round! my email for chains and questions: petracorrine@gmail.com

Most importantly, have fun, and be kind to one another! Happy debating! - P :)

Kyle Wendland Paradigm

8 rounds

I want top be on the chain. kyleddebate at gmail.com

Policy (or progressive LD)

K's: I am a K debater so my threshold for these debates of contextualizing your links to the aff aren't necessarily high but there's a difference between extending a card and contextualizing it to the aff. Kick the alt or go for it I'm down for either but make sure you do either well. Explain how the alt solves the link and the impacts of the aff.

T: I'm fine with it just make sure you do a lot of interaction with the action they take (or lack their of). Give me solid impacts of why them being untopical is bad. (See FW for education impacts) On the Neg give me reasons why the aff is not only just untopical but what that does to the debate space. The way the aff wins on this is to prove your aff is reasonable or provide a CI that proves you are T and functionally limits the aff model. If you are running something critical on the aff that interacts with the topic in a nuanced well explained way you are in a good spot. If you have a reason why the topic is inherently bad and the topic is written in a way that clearly links to that critique then I'm down to reject it but it's more of an uphill battle on the limits and topic education side of the debate.

FW: FW is fine. If you wanna go for FW you should probably have a TVA that solves most of the aff. I think that debate is more then just a game. What you choose to research and educate about whether policy or critical you need to argue how your education is net better then the other sides interp.

Policy Affs: I like a good ev. debate just make ABSOLUTELY sure that the flow and the order is clean.

DA's: I like a well researched DA specific to the aff. I'm not really persuaded by the politics DA but if you think it's a good idea or you are good at running it then go for it.

CP: Needs to have a net benefit and a solvency advocate. One line CP in the 1NC with no ev or other args don't make any sense to me.

PIC/K: I honestly don't have a preference on these so long as they are well carded go for it. Aff can win on theory especially on unreasonable word PIKS

Theory: I'm fine with it just make violations and impacts clear.

I also love it when a team gives me a framing issue or a lens to look at the debate through. These are highly underutilized and often go unaddressed in debates so keep this in my mind whether you have one on case or if it is dropped in the round.

I'm fine with speed but I do want to be on the flash/chain and need to be able to understand what you are saying.

There are two things I find majorly important in debate.

First is good signposting. If I don't know where to put it on my flow then I don't know where I'm extending it and is more work on me. Please don't make me do more work then I have to.

Second, policy is open CX and that is perfectly fine for both people on the team to speak but DO NOT prevent your partner from participating in the questioning. If it's subconscious then I get it. Stop doing it and trust your partner. I have had trouble doing this going from LD to partner debate so if you are showing that you are trying to work on it then I will be more understanding. You are a team and you should act like it in round.

If you have any accommodations that are needed for the round, for example sitting down to give a speech or sitting in specific places in the room to hear then I am happy to accommodate and I'm sure your opponents will be happy to oblige.

If you have questions about my paradigms then feel free to e-mail me

Madison Witman Paradigm

Hey y’all, I’m Matt.

He/Him/His pronouns

(Please add me to the email chain: madwitman@gmail.com)

Few notes about me - I debated for four years at Edmond Santa Fe in Oklahoma where I competed in policy, public forum, and speech for a while but ended up having a successful career in LD. I participated at the national tournament for all four years in various events. I was a policy debater for a few years in college at the University of Oklahoma as well. Graduated in 2019 and ended up in Tulsa where I am a management and data ecosystem consultant for organizations devoted to social good.

**TOP-LEVEL NOTE**: I recognize debate can be tough on people in different ways and it’s not a fully-equitable sport. If there is something I can do to make the debate safer or more comfortable for you (calling you by a name not on your ballot, using a different pronoun that is listed, accommodating for a disability, etc.), I will absolutely do everything in my power to make the space more accessible and/or safe for you. If you don’t feel comfortable telling me in the debate, feel free to email me at madwitman@gmail.com.

I used to have a very long, drawn out paradigm that went through my preferences for each off-case position, debate style, etc. but I have since simplified it. I think debaters tend to overthink it and I would rather you debate how you want. Ultimately, debate gave me the space I needed to find myself and I hope it does the same for you. That said, read whatever you want to in front of me (pending it isn’t racist, sexist, transphobic, etc.). Debate how you are comfortable. I was a “critical” debater throughout high school and college but will absolutely vote on well-executed policy arguments. Please don’t feel the need to pull out your school’s old Time Cube backfile just because you read that I’m a K debater - although it would be hilarious.

Couple things:

  • I’m fine with speed in any debate format, just be clear.

  • Prep stops when the flash drive leaves the computer or the email is sent.

  • “Extend X argument” requires a warrant, not just those words

  • I value line-by-line analysis and technical debate but I think a great debater knows the art of combining ‘tech things’ with the big picture

  • If you do read some critical argument or K, don’t assume I know all of the literature base/what you are talking about. I love a well-executed K with a good explanation of the base.

  • Theory and framework are fine - just slow down a little on the blips. I flow on paper - it benefits you if my flow is as clear as possible.

I’m sure I’m missing something so if you have any additional questions, feel free to ask. Have fun and take care.