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.

*Since I wrote the following in Feb. 2017, I have become the Interim Director of Debate at the University of Oklahoma. I still haven't judged much in a very long time; I have been working with OU debaters on arguments and strategies so I know a bit more than I did when I wrote this. The rest of it is still accurate.*

I debated at KU from 1983 to 1987. I was pretty good - 1st Round At-Large Bid to the 1987 NDT. I coached at KU from 1987 to 1989. I judged the final round of the NDT in 1988.

I judged very little from 1990 until the mid-2000s. (During that time I was getting a PhD in Philosophy and starting a career in the OU Department of Philosophy. I specialize in philosophy of social science, esp. philosophy of economics.) In the last decade I have judged something like 10 college rounds - mostly at the beginning of that period - and 40-60 high school rounds.

As a judge I see myself as an evaluator of arguments. My experience is mostly with arguments where the affirmative offers a topical plan and reasons why it would be good policy to adopt it and the negative advocates an alternative proposal, the reasons for which are supposed to demonstrate that the affirmative plan should not be adopted.

I am more than happy to evaluate arguments that take a different form, even arguments about which arguments I should be evaluating (or philosophical theories or non-discursive expressions of positions, etc.). *I now know more about what non-policy debates are likely to involve. The following is still true, however.* If you want to go in such a direction, however, you should probably be clear about what you think I should be doing - for prudential reasons. I might need a little more explanation in this regard than some other judges … I am intrigued by non-policy-oriented debate, but I am less familiar with it. *Better than "intrigued" now - I quite like it. It seems like a natural sort of self-reflection on the activity. I'm still up for a good policy debate, of course.*

I was an LD debater from 2012 to 2015, PF 2015 to 2016. Rule number 1 is to be respectful to everyone.

LD: I ran LD as a traditionalist of sorts. That said, I need to see both sides engage the resolution and incorporate framework. Impact, impact, impact: tell me how your arguments matter, and why that leads to you winning the round. Voters are an essential part of a good last speech. Tell me explicitly why I should vote for you; do not leave it up to me.

PF: My role as a PF judge as that of the American juror (so sayeth the NSDA Manual). With that in mind, I see my role as that of someone with little formal debate experience. Make arguments that make sense to a lay judge. This does not mean dumb things down, but it might mean I see some things as intrinsically good. Take your time to spell out your impacts and how they differ from your opponents. Keep your evidence available and ready for your opponents, be kind to one another in crossfire, and remember to stay on point.

CX: I didn't do it as a student, but I've taken a liking to it as a judge. I can handle speed, just make sure to signpost clearly. Impacts will be weighed based on what you tell me in the round. No inherent pref for on-case vs off-case unless you frame one for me. I have a decent grasp on the concepts of T, K, DA and the rest, but maybe not by their names. That doesn't mean don't run it - if it's a good argument it will be weighed as such - but it does mean you might want to take a second to tell me why it matters in more casual terms. Basically, impact. Be respectful of everyones time in the round and we shouldn't have a problem. I'll only disclose if everyone on each team wants me to.

Speaker Points: In all categories these are awarded or deducted based on (in order):

1) Respect for your opponent(s), respect for your judge(s) and respect for your partner(s). This includes things like using appropriate pronouns, using prep time properly and honestly, and generally ensuring the debate space is an inclusive one. The fastest way to lose speaker points from me is to be rude.

2) Quality of diction and presentation, with special consideration to the speeches that follow the case presentation

3) Quality of speech structure (making effective use of your time in your speeches)

4) Verbal prompting, while sometimes helpful, is discouraged by the NSDA manual. I'll subtract speaker points starting with the second instance of prompting.

I reserve the right to deduct or award speaker points for incidental things that may come up in the round, and I'll try to provide feedback on the ballot in these cases.

I am unfamiliar with any specific literature that pertains to K's, performances, etc. That doesn't mean don't run them, just don't assume I know what you're talking about offhand without an explanation. I will not do work for you.  

I did policy debate for 3 years and Lincoln Douglas for 1 year in high school. I have coached policy debate at the high school level for 4 years. 

In regards to what you can and can't run, anything is fair game. Just be sure to explain your arguments (preferably in an overview for K's and non-standard affs) and the significance of that argument in the round so I won't vote you down based on lack of understanding. 

I won't look at cards unless there's a specific conflict on evidence that is pointed out in speech, or if there are competing evidence for comparison. 

In round voting issues (IE: Sexism, racism, ablieism, etc.) have to be proven and reasonable. 

I have experience either competing or judging every event, so I am okay with anything being run in round (if you can argue it well).

Speed is fine. If you mumble through your speech, don't be surprised if I don't flow half of it.

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.

My name is Petra [Pay-truh] (she/her). I graduated from the University of Oklahoma with a degree in Sociology with a focus in Criminology and have worked in financial crime detection and investigations. Should you feel the need to know my qualifications, I have 9 years of experience with Policy/CX and 7 of PF & LD. I competed in CX in high school, qualified to NSDA 2x, had a TOC bid, placed 3rd at state in CX, was a state quarterfinalist in LD, and have coached CX, LD, PF, and Congress. 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 advanced to semi-finals in Congressional Debate at nationals, late out-rounds in LD and PF at nationals, and late out-rounds in LD, PF, and CX at the state level.

I tend to default to policymaking, but my primary evaluation and if no debater has clearly won or told me where and why to vote, I will default to stock issues. If the aff hasn't upheld their obligation of affirming the resolution (or providing a solid case why they shouldn't), I will presume negative. I’m not a fan of vulgarity in-round. Please time yourself. Open Cross is okay, but if you don't engage or talk over your partner your points will reflect that. 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 I stop flowing you.

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 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. Cool with Ks and theory, but I have a high threshold for in-round abuse. Not a fan of plan+ / plan inclusive anything. Tell me where to vote and why.

Cross:It's probably binding, and 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: You must have a plan text and a 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 have a decent 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 solid 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 almost half my life to the activity and understand that it can be made better, so let's put in the work to make it better.

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 policymaking 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 huge 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, unless you have a theory shell to backup why not.

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. Post-rounding (asking questions is fine - I will be more than happy to explain my thought process - I'm talking 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. If you run wipeout, you better have a dang good warrant and dang good framework shell to run with it.

LD:- 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 I would like to see your version of framework or a role of the ballot. I don't really want to see a CP, DA or K read with zero interaction with the resolution or aff, but if you have one with a good argument, I'm open to it. Please dont just run a K/theory shell because you think that's what I want to hear - do what you do :)

PF: See: LD, Policy. Theory is cool, and welcomed, here too. Disclosure/paraphrasing theory - I have a high threshold of abuse here as well. Progressive/fast is cool. Traditional is cool too. Again, Please dont just run a K/theory shell because you think that's what I want to hear - do what you do :)

TLDR; If there is no clear reason given for me to vote on 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/the aff? 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, please ask! my email for chains and questions: petracvc@gmail.com

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