Monty Python Invitational
2020 — Norman, OK/US
Elina Avila Paradigm
Michael Blunck Paradigm
Nicky Brigham Paradigm
Cyrus Bryant Paradigm
Amanda Burchfield Paradigm
Emily Busey Paradigm
Kassidy Carsten Paradigm
Matt Cheek Paradigm
Lettie Clifton Paradigm
Lori Crawford Paradigm
I will hear just about any type of argument as long as you give analytics to explain. I won't intervene by providing my own links or analysis if you just read cards at me. Likewise, give me a framework and tell me how to weigh the round. If you don't, I'm stuck comparing argument to argument.
I am fine with progressive LD, but I would rather PF stay more traditional, other than a bit of speed (a bit-not CX speed). PF does not need to become mini-policy debate. For both LD and PF: ADV, DA, and CP are fine (if rules allow) and T if truly applicable. K belongs with CX and some LD topics, not PF.
Greg Crosby Paradigm
Katie Edmonson Paradigm
Billy Elles Paradigm
Michael Ferguson Paradigm
PF/LD: I competed in IE events in high school, but I really enjoy judging debate rounds as well. I have been judging for a little over 15 years; and I am in my fourth year coaching Harding Charter Prep HS. I prefer quality of information and sources as well as clarity and presence of speakers over speed and quantity of information and sources. The more you can tell me about the qualifications of a source, the better I can weigh them. If you give a simple (Last Name/Year) tag, you can assume I know nothing about the author. I like to see your personality as a debater and jokes/lighthearted moments are welcome as long as they are within the scope of the topic. I dislike plans and policy-style approaches to Lincoln-Douglas debate; if you want to do Policy, there's a debate for that. I believe that the heart of Public Forum debate is that it should assume any judge is a lay judge and is more informal and free of debate jargon. Limit pre-case observations and don't place impossible burdens on your opponent. Be civil and professional during cross-examination or your speaker points are toast. Use cross-examination time to ask questions, not make another speech. Use your speech time and prep time! Your constructive speeches should be as close to memorized as possible. I want to see you speaking/debating, not just reading. Cases on paper vs on a laptop gain an automatic advantage. Have fun!
Congress: Don't read word-for-word pre-written speeches. You should have an outline. Pay attention to the whole of the round, not just sitting there prepping for when you are going to talk. Keep questions concise.
Jack Franklin Paradigm
Do better than your opponents.
Asuka Gallardo Paradigm
Mollie Handshy Paradigm
Darin Herndon Paradigm
Valerie Howard Paradigm
Ryan Kelly Paradigm
Ishmael Kissinger Paradigm
Last Updated 08/30/19
Experience: 3.5 yrs for The University of Central Oklahoma 02-05 (JV & Open)
12 yrs as Coach @ Moore High School, OK
Policy Rounds Judged: Local ~10
Policy National/Toc - ~12
LD Rounds Judged Local: 0
LD National/TOC - 0
PFD - Local = 0
PFD Nat Circuit - 3
Email Chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Email for questions:
Just because I am primarily a policy judge does not mean that I think LD should be like 1 person policy. Small rant: I am tired of us making new debate events and then having them turn into policy... If you are constructing your case to be "Life & Util" and then a bunch of Dis-Ads you probably don't want me as your judge. If you are going for an RVI on T in the 1AR you probably don't want me as a judge. I don't think that LD affs should have plan texts. If I were to put this in policy terms: "You need to be (T)-Whole Res."
Affirmatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their Criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that affirm the whole resolution.
Negatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that negate the whole resolution.
I tend to consider myself a flow oriented judge that tries to be as tab as any one person can be. Absent a framework argument made, I will default to a policy-maker/game-theorist judge. I view debate in an offense-defense paradigm, this means that even if you get a 100% risk of no solvency against the aff, but they are still able to win an advantage (or a turned DA) then you are probably going to lose. You MUST have offense to weight against case.
Speed is not a problem
T & Theory need to be impacted with in round abuse. As the debate season goes on I tend to err more toward reasonability than I do at the beginning of the year. This is usually because as the debate year goes on I expect Negative teams to be more prepared for less topical arguments. This is generally how much judges operate, they just don't say it. I typically don't vote on potential abuse, you should couch your impacts on potential abuse in very real-world examples.
Please make impact calculus earlier in the debate rather than just making it in the 2nr/2ar
Kritiks are not a problem, but I am not really deep into any one literature base. This may put you at a disadvantage if you assume I know/understand the nuances between two similar (from my point of view) authors. **If you are going for a K or an Alt in the 2NR but are unsure if the aff is going to win the Perm debate and you want me to "kick the alt" and just have me vote on some epistemic turn you're only explaining in the overview of the 2NR you are not going to enjoy the RFD. If you think it's good enough to win the debate on with only a :30 explanation in the overview, you should probably just make the decision to go for it in the 2nr and kick the alt yourself.
When addressing a kritikal aff/neg I will hold you to a higher threshold than just Util & Cede the political, I'll expect you to have specific literature that engages the K. If this is your strategy to answering K teams I am probably not your "1."
I don't have a problem with multiple conditional arguments, although I am more sympathetic to condo bad in a really close theory debate.
CPs are legit. Just like judges prefer specific links on a Dis-Ads I also prefer specific Counter-Plans. But I will evaluate generic states/int'l actor CPs as well.
Dispo = Means you can kick out of it unless you straight turn it, defensive arguments include Perms and theory. (My interp, but if you define it differently in a speech and they don't argue it, then your interp stands)
DAs are cool - the more specific the link the better, but I will still evaluate generic links.
Case args are sweet, especially on this year's (2019) topic.
Really I have only one personal pref. If you are in a debate round - never be a jerk to the opposing team &/or your partner. I believe that our community has suffered enough at the hands of debating for the "win," and although I don't mind that in context of the argumentation you make in the round, I do not believe that it is necessary to demean or belittle your opponent. If you are in the position to be facing someone drastically less experienced than yourself; keep in mind that it should be a learning process for them, even if it is not one for you. It will NOT earn you speaker points to crush them into little pieces and destroy their experience in this activity. If you want to demonstrate to me that you are the "better debater(s)," and receive that glorious 29 or maybe even 30 it will most likely necessitate you: slowing down (a little), thoroughly explaining your impact calc, clearly extending a position, then sitting down without repeating yourself in 5 different ways. If you opt to crush them you will prob. win the round, but not many speaker points (or pol cap) with me.
Seth Kordic Paradigm
PF debater for 2 years with a some experience in LD.
What I am okay with:
- Progressive debate (K’s, Theory, Tech, etc)
- Spreading (IF you flash me your files)
- Yes you can time yourself
- Off-case arguments
Framework is obviously always important, but I do heavily focus on the contention level debate. Tell me how to weigh the round or I'm going to go off of straight impact calculus. Keep things organized and easy to follow on the flow because I am a flow orientated judge. Also, MAKE SURE TO EXTEND.
Madison Lovell Paradigm
Alexander Miller Paradigm
Ron Mullan Paradigm
Jan Mullan Paradigm
Calvin Ong Paradigm
If I had to choose between framework and case, I choose framework.
Otherwise, do your best! I recognize effort. :)
Bret Ozee Paradigm
Jody Pedigo Paradigm
Tyler Pipkin Paradigm
- Be respectful, but don't waste your time asking your opponents for permission for things like the first question.
- This means treading the fine line of being aggressive and respectful.
- I like to see crystal clear clash on the flow. Please when framing rebuttals go in order down the flow. Do not bounce around.
- Provide clear links between your value and criterion and the rest of your case.
- At the end of the day your value and criterion are most important to me in LD. I want to see clear links and evidence upholding those.
ABSOLUTLEY NO SPREADING.
Kate Roberts Paradigm
Allyssa Robertson Paradigm
Ian Stone Paradigm
Hello! My name is Ian Stone, and I did a mix of traditional Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum throughout my 4 years in high school. I am currently a debater on the OU Parli team. I am down for pretty much all types of argumentation. I think Oklahoma LD is often far too restrictive on the types of arguments debaters are supposed to run. Definitely feel free to spread, run a k, run theory, run weird link chains or do whatever you want in front of me. I will attempt to be as tab as possible. I enjoy funky arguments that either make me laugh or learn about something new. I will give you better speaker points if you run something I haven't heard before or if you do something unique and interesting in round. If I can't understand you I will clear you, but I am usually cool with most speed. I am pretty kind when it comes to speaker points most rounds, as long as a debater does not say something racist, homophobic, transphobic, or sexist. If you do, I'll dock your speaks and talk to your coach. Also, just be comfortable in the round. You don't have to ask me to use your phone as a timer or anything like that, just you do you. Also, I think it's dumb/prohibitory to dress up for debate, but that's a different subject. Don't worry if you don't have a tie in front of me or anything like that lol. Also, I definitely do not want to shake your hand after the round. I've touched enough clammy debate hands from my time as a competitor.
As far as traditional LD goes, I think that framework by itself is unimportant. The only time framework matters is if it is coupled with impacts. It is just a weighing mechanism, but people in traditional LD sometimes do not grasp that. It is not a voter in and of itself. Tell me how evaluating the round through your lens (the criterion) affects the big picture of the round. Also, values are usually pretty dumb, I definitely will not vote off of a value. Like, don't even read one in front of me probably? Kind of a waste of time to talk about IMO. Also, I do not want to intervene in the debate, so weighing is pretty critical. If there are any more questions feel free to ask me before the round! I disclose every round so stick around if you want me to tell you how I voted. More people in Oklahoma need to disclose because it makes tournaments way less stressful and better for competitors! Please be nice in round. In high school, I absolutely hated it when people were just obnoxious in round. I still hate it in college. Lets all just hang out, have a good discussion, and have fun. If you're mean to your opponent or talk over them a bunch in CX your speaks will definitely be affected. Also, if you're being mansplain-y or weird I'm going to dock your speaks.
For email chains, questions, or extended criticism: email@example.com
Robin Stroud Paradigm
My name is Robin Mitchell Stroud and I'm primarily an LD judge for Norman High School in Norman, Oklahoma.
I didn't compete in high school debate, however, have earned four degrees (BA, MHR, MEd, PhD) and am very comfortable with argumentation in a competitive setting across a breadth of subjects. Educational areas of concentration include:
* Bachelor of Arts (psychology)
* Master of Human Relations (international/intercultural relations)
* Master of Education (foundations of education)
* Graduate certificate (women’s and gender studies), and
* Doctor of philosophy (gender studies; religious studies and philosophies of education)
I am newer to judging in circuit/progressive tournaments, however, have experience and very much enjoy judging in traditional ones. See my preferences for each below.
PHILOSOPHY/FRAMEWORK: I enjoy philosophical/theoretical argumentation and value a strong and clear framework. Be explicit in how your contentions support your framing (when presenting your case and throughout the round).
ARGUMENTATION: Arguments shouldn't merely be repeated in rebuttals. Debaters who extend and develop them will do better in front of me as will debaters who clearly articulate and extend their warrants and impacts.
EVIDENCE: Please don't be repetitive with evidence. Repetitive evidence doesn’t equal more weight, and solid analytics can take out that kind of evidence. While evidence is good, please ensure that it's useful and efficient to your argumentation and soundly ties to your framing.
SPEAKER POINTS: Be respectful. Be confident. Engage with questions in CX. Signpost.
NOTE: If both debaters are okay with bringing circuit style argumentation and speed into a traditional round, I'm okay with it.
Aside from these, be sure to have fun!
PHILOSOPHY: I like and am most experienced with philosophical/theoretical argumentation and enjoy it best in a round. I am accustomed to weighing arguments under dense philosophical frameworks and can understand it if you do the same.
FRAMEWORK: I appreciate strong and clearly communicated framing. If I don't understand how the framing and argumentation engage in a round, I won’t vote on them so please make sure they are clear. While I am most familiar with a traditional structure, I am comfortable judging others. If you can explain your framing and properly weigh with it, I'm open to just about anything.
EVIDENCE: Please don't be repetitive with evidence. Repetitive evidence doesn’t equal more weight, and solid analytics can take out that kind of evidence. While evidence is good, please ensure that it is useful and efficient to your argumentation and soundly ties to the framing.
KRITIKS: I like a debate that is grounded in critical argumentation. I’m well versed in certain kinds of critical, feminist, pragmatist and theo/alogical theories, and am pretty comfortable voting on other kinds of critical arguments if they are explained well in the round.
POLICY: I'm okay with policy style arguments.
SPEED: I like to flow rounds and am generally fine with speed. Just be sure to slow down for tag lines so I can capture them correctly. If you’re going to spread at a super-fast speed, you'll need to flash your case to me.
SPEAKER POINTS: Be respectful. Be confident. Engage with questions in cross examination. Signpost. And again, if you spread, make the taglines clear.
T/THEORY: If you're going to run a T argument, you'll need to do a very good job explaining it and its impact on the round.
If you’re sharing documents, please add me to the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Aside from these, be sure to have fun!