This is my first time hopping back into debate after 5 years.

I did LD debate for all 4 years at Okoboji High School.

The debate style was mixed between traditional & progressive. I enjoy & vote on both forms.

Even though I can flow fairly fast spreading I haven't been around it for 5 years, so keep that in mind. I don't want to stop you from debating how you want to debate so I will say SLOW if I can't keep up & CLEAR if I can't understand you.

LD

I am okay with theory along as it is appropriate, but will vote against you if A) it is frivolous B) you are using it as a debate tactic against a less experienced debater. I feel getting more then 2-3 shells deep in a round basically ruins the debate. Winning theory isn't necessarily winning the round, don't put all your eggs in one basket.

I am okay with counter-plans & K's (that are actually relevant to the topic) but I expect your competition & link to be very clear.

I will not under any circumstances vote for performative or micropol.

THIS ISN'T PF (unless it is, see below) LINK YOUR FRAMEWORK

I expect clear extensions & will weigh dropped arguments.

My fav. NEG position was moral skepticism but won't weigh it any different than another framework.

PF

I have done some PF, but nothing serious. I judged more rounds than I have done.

I was a fan of bringing an LD style of debate to PF but also understood the people that upset.

Just because your evidence is better doesn't mean you win that argument, this is debate not 'show up with the best cut card'.

You need to explain why your evidence is preferable or better & why that evidence is key to voting for your side of the debate.

OVERALL
I want the debaters to run the round if the round stays relevant to the topic.

I prefer speechdrop but here is my email for document sharing/evidence chains if you need it:betty.stanton@jenksps.org

I'm the head coach of a successful team, and have been coaching for 18 years. I did CX in high school so long ago that Ks were new, and I competed in college.

LD: I'm a very traditional judge. I like values and criteria and analysis and clash. I want framework debate to actually mean something.

PF: I’m a very traditional judge. If the round becomes a very short CX round instead of a PF round, we have a problem. I want evidence and actual analysis of that evidence, and I want actual clash.

CX: I can handle your spread and I will vote where I'm persuasively told to with the following exceptions: 1) I have never voted on T. I think it's a non-starter unless a case is so blatantly non-topical that you can't even see the resolution from it. That's not to say it isn't a perfectly legitimate argument, it's just to say that I will probably buy the aff's 'we meet's and you might have better uses for your time than camping here. 2) If you run a K, you should firmly and continuously advocate for that K. 3) I, again, will always prefer actual clash in the round over unlinked theory arguments.

General Things ~

Don't claim something is abusive unless it is.

Don't claim an argument was dropped unless it was.

Don't advocate for atrocities.

Don't be a jerk to your opponents (This will get you the lowest speaker points possible. Yes, even if you win.)