2020 Okmulgee Invitational
2020 — Okmulgee, OK/US
Michael Adamson Paradigm
Shannon Adamson Paradigm
Cheyann Benn Paradigm
Catherine Blair Paradigm
Trevin Castro Paradigm
Joseph Farrell Paradigm
Julie Kulla Paradigm
Jessica Matthews Paradigm
I am a policy coach with a little experience with Lincoln Douglas. This year was my first year to coach public forum. My favorite debates don’t take us down a rabbit hole that has nothing to do with the topic. I can flow spreading but would like the tags and sources clear. If you point out a card over and over I will want to see it. The first thing I will read is what you (or your opponent) didn’t read to make sure the card isn’t out of context.
Bob Odle Paradigm
Ashlee Overall Paradigm
Ronald Stephens Paradigm
My LD paradigm is super simple. I'm okay with all types of arguments as long you can prove a strong value/criterion link. I'm a traditional LD Judge, I won't knock progressive but I do ask that you are clear in your argumentation. I flow and I expect arguments to not be dropped and extended throughout the round. Besides that, I enjoy a fun round so don't be rude but don't be passive. Again I'm open to whatever just make sure that your arguments are clear, logical, and have a strong Value/Criterion Link.
PF is very similar, hit me with your creative arguments. I generally vote for winners based on which team can either give me the biggest impacts or who can give me a good amount of strong arguments.
Also if you are reading this, just an FYI please time yourselves so I don't have to interrupt you. Again I'm super laid back so just make sure that arguments are very clear and logical.
As you can tell by this paradigm that I'm somewhat lazy. So if you have any specific questions feel free to ask before the round AND do not be afraid to ask me what you can improve after the round or for advice.
If you try to post-round or debate me because of the results of the ballot, I will shut it down immediately but feel free to ask for critiques.
Amy White Paradigm
David Wright Paradigm
As for CX, I lean in the traditional direction of favoring well-researched and crafted AFFs that link to the topic, solve genuine harms and produce plausible advantages. NEGs need to produce offense and defense arguments, looking for clear on-case attax and Off-case flows with specific links and significant impacts and CPs that are competitive. T args are usually a waste of time with me unless NEG can prove serious abuse of the topic. I'll vote on the K if I can buy the Alt. I ask to see cards on regularly. As for speed, if it is clear, I can flow it, and if I can flow it I can weigh/judge it. I'll yell "Clear" once, and after that, if the speaker is unintelligible, I put down my G2.
In LD, I flow everything--even CX. I look for good Framework clash/comparison and weighing which V/C will carry the round. Contentions must clearly link to the FW, backed up by solid evidence. I'm looking for debaters who can cover both flows thoroughly and offer a clear, concise pathway to getting my ballot. Try to stay steady and organized. Present good voters and weigh them against your opponent. I will listen to progressive strategies if they make sense to me.
With PF, I flow it all, but I in all honesty, I am looking for the team that can articulate the best scenario, back it up with stellar evidence, speak with authority and avoid making CX a pissing match.