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.

I have been judging regularly for about 15 years; and I am in my seventh year coaching Harding Charter Prep HS in Oklahoma City. I love every single event offered for competition. They are all valid. Memes hating on particular events are lame. Follow @hcpspeechdebate on Instagram and Twitter.

LD/PFD: 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!

Big Questions: Please, please, please read the Format Manual. Then read it again. Use the Format Manual as evidence in round if you need to. Please let this thing have a chance to become its own thing before we drown it in the other debate sauces.

Policy: If I am judging round round, I apologize in advance. Something has gone awry at this tournament and I am a kind-hearted person with a semi-functioning brain that has been put in to prevent the round starting hours late. We'll make it through this together. I'm probably not gonna disclose unless tab forces me to.

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.

World Schools: Requests for POIs should rise/raise as often as needed but don't be a pest about it. You are at the discretion of the speaker. Avoid debate jargon. Rely on reason and logic. Appeal persuasively. Prop arguments should do their best to prove the resolution beyond a shadow of a doubt. Opposition arguments should be about broad rejection of the resolution, not just finding an outlier to say that one example is representative of all.

Final Thoughts: This activity is for education. Winning and excellence should always be celebrated, but not the only goal. Remember that Words Matter and Words have Power. Respect the purpose of the Pronouns and name pronunciation options in Tabroom. The NSDA has worked hard to be inclusive. Don't abuse that. #NotGarbagePeople

General:

• 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.

Value/Criterion

• 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.

Experience

Currently the Director of Debate at Casady School.

Competed at the University of Oklahoma and Owasso High School.

Put me on the e-mail chain: snidert [at] casady [dot] org

On Evidence

Evidence quality and consistency is very important to me. I can easily be convinced to disregard a piece of evidence because it lacks quality, is insufficiently highlighted, or is not qualified.

Author qualifications are under debated and if a piece of evidence lacks a qualification then that should definitely be used in debate.

K Things General

One line should dictate how you approach reading the K in front of me:

“You are a debater, not a philosopher.”

This should be your guiding principle when reading and answering a kritik in front of me. Debaters seem to rely more on jargon than actually doing the work of explaining and applying their argument. Unnecessarily complex kritiks won't get good speaker points (90% of the time you could have just read the cap k).

I will not flow overviews on a separate sheet of paper.

If you plan on reading the K

I've got good news and bad news. I'll start with the bad news: You are very unlikely to convince me not the weigh/evaluate the aff. I'm not persuaded much by self-serving counter interpretations on framework.

That said, the good news is that I think people give the aff too much credit and most of the reasons why I shouldn't evaluate the plan are typically offense against it. For example while I don't find the FW interpretation "Debate should be about epistemological assumptions" very convincing, I will definitely vote on "the affirmative's plan relies on a flawed epistemology that ensures serial policy failure, which turns case."

If you're answering the K

While the above may seem like good news for the aff answering the K, I tend to hold the aff to a higher threshold than most in K debates. I don't think "you need a specific link to the plan" is responsive to a K of the aff's epistemology. Likewise, aff framework interps that exclude Ks entirely are pretty much a non-starter.

Theory Issues

Condo seems to be getting a bit excessive, but no one goes for condo anymore so I'm sort of stuck with it.

Tech vs Truth

I think of this as more of a continuum as opposed to a binary. I lean more towards tech than truth, but I'm not going to pretend that I evaluate all arguments with equal legitimacy. For example, I have a higher threshold for arguments like “climate change not real” than “plan doesn’t solve climate change.” I traditionally evaluate the debate in offense/defense paradigm, but there is a such thing as a 0% risk.

K affs/T-FW

I enter every debate with the assumption that the resolution is going to play a role in the round. What role it plays, however, is up for debate. I don’t have a preference between skills or fairness standards.

Common reasons I vote aff on FW:

The neg goes for too many “standards”/"DAs"/whatever-youre-calling-them in the 2NR.

The neg doesn’t even try to engage the aff’s 2AC to FW.

Common reasons I vote neg on FW:

The aff doesn’t have an offensive reasons why the TVA is bad.

The aff doesn’t even try to engage the neg’s standards on FW.

Misc

I only flow what I hear, I won't use the doc to correct my flow. If I don't catch an argument/tag because you're too unclear then *insert shrug emoji*. That said, with online debate I will flow what I hear and use the doc to correct my flow after the speech. Including your analytics in the speech document will make correcting my flows much easier.

Guaranteed 30 if you’re paper debate team #PaperDebate

My facial reactions will probably tell you how I feel about your arg.

(there's always a chance I forgot to update here, so check the date on the wiki to make sure this paradigm is current)

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Thompson%2C+Nathan

Nathan Thompson
Norman HS 14
University of Oklahoma 18
Updated 15 September 2018 sitting in the cafeteria before Greenhill round 1

Background

I debated for Norman High School (OK) for four years, graduating in 2014. I qualified to NSDA Nationals my junior and senior year, breaking twice and placing 24th my junior year. I primarily debated in Oklahoma and did not have the resources to travel. I have worked at the UTNIF LD camp as an instructor in 2015, 2017, and 2018. I like email chains - nltpeasley@gmail.com

Preferences

Speaking Preferences

• Speed is fine. I will clear you twice if I cannot understand you.
• THAT SAID, please do not fly through analytics or theory. I am decent at flowing but hardly amazing; if you hit the jets while reading a bunch of blipping theory args, I am going to get lost and miss stuff on the flow.
• I only vote on stuff I've successfully flowed.
• Indicate where your cards and arguments begin and end and slow down for authors and tags.

Framework

• Value and criterion are not necessary so long as you give me a way to decide the ballot.
• Label your framework arguments as what they are - I don't like tricky preempts or prestandards that become more than what they were in the constructive.

Theory/T

• I default to competing interps, although I find I've gotten friendlier to reasonability args over the years.
• I am probably not the judge to read a half-dozen theory shells in front of - you can do it if you think it's strategic or (obviously) to check abuse, but know that I might not like it if you overdo it.
• You must have absolute clarity on what your interpretation is, especially if the text that you give your opponent is different than the one you read in round.
• I will listen to potential abuse as an argument.
• I do not know what Nebel T is and am not about to learn now. If you read anything like that, don't expect me to know any overly-specific jargon.

RVIs

• I will evaluate RVIs like anything else.
• I will evaluate 2AR RVIs in response to new 2NR theory.
• The RVI needs offense back to a counter-interp.

CX

• CX checks abuse!
• CX checks abuse!
• CX checks abuse!
• That said, I'm not flowing CX, so don't lie about what's happening there after the fact...
• Don't lie or intentionally obscure your answers.
• I don't care whether you sit or stand, but be engaged.
• Flex prep is fine as long as it's agreed to by both debaters.

Kritiks

• I am not opposed to Ks, but I'm not super well-read on the literature base; make sure you're clearly explaining what your K means and does. Remember that there are scholars who study some of these K authors for literal decades to understand them properly; you can at least give a simplified explanation here. None of us are experts.
• Make sure your alt doesn't suck. I am not enthusiastic about voting on vague K alts that you can't explain to any level of detail.
• Have clear tags.
• Your K should still link to an ethical framework.

Extension Evidence

• New evidence should only respond directly to an objection to the original argument - do not post-date the original card and do not read new offense.

Weighing

• Weighing is the difference between bad debate and decent debate. Please do it early and often. Explain your clash and interactions with their arguments.
• Give overviews in 2NR and 2AR that frame the round.

How to Get Good Speaks

• Weigh early and often through the round. Demonstrate how your arguments interact with others on the flow.
• Demonstrate a clear strategy and understanding of the importance of arguments on the flow. Don't just go for everything or straight down the flow.
• Collapse in the 2NR/2AR! It is not worth either of our time for you to go for everything every round.
• Be clear in CX. Good strategies needn't be disguised.
• Don't argue with me about my decision. I will dock you speaks.

If you are clear, I will probably give between a 28 (borderline) and 30 (perfect, you've done something laudable, or I learned something). If you are not clear, I will probably give you between a 26 and a 27.5. Any points lower than 26 will be for punitive reasons (overt aggression or rudeness, problematic, etc).

Closing

I think debate has a lot of potential for good, but it's going to take effort from both of us to ensure that it's reached. Ask me questions after round if you want. Just don't argue about the decision.

Below, you will find my paradigm (as copied from the judge philosophies wiki). A couple addendums for the Heritage Hall tournament:

1. I have judged approximately 20 rounds on this topic.

2. I find myself voting for kritiks with much more regularity than my below paradigm would seem to indicate; further, I would like to think that my competence in evaluating such kritiks has improved exponentially since first writing this paradigm.

The below information was copied from <http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Thompson%2C+Will>

High School: Debated 4 Years for Charles Page High School in Oklahoma

College: Current Sophomore at the University of Oklahoma, 1 Year of College Debate Thus Far


Overview
I view debate through an offense-defense paradigm. I am fine with spreading. I am very familiar with "circuit" style debate. I try to intervene as little as possible, and thus refer to myself as "Tabula Rasa." Nevertheless, it's impossible for me to abandon all my biases, and so the below information is an attempt to let you know what those biases are.

Topicality/Theory/Framework
I am very comfortable voting on topicality. I don't have a default preference for either competing interpretations or reasonability - I have no preference as to whether or not there has to be "actual abuse" in order to vote on topicality. It's up to you to determine my views on that subject in each round (this is the one exception to the default "offense-defense" paradigm outlined above; a team that wins reasonability can, in my mind, thereafter win the topicality debate merely with decisive defense against the other team's standards). You can be extremely untopical and win topicality, or extremely topical and lose on topicality. Theory is rarely a reason to reject the team, unless strong arguments to the contrary are made in the constructive speeches. Don't be annoying and say that perms are severence when they aren't. Competing interpretations and reasonability can also apply during theory arguments. I will be happy to listen to affs that completely ignore the topic, and I will also be happy to listen to framework arguments that force every aff to defend USFG implementation. If the negative wants to win framework against non-topical affs, they need to quantify the magnitude of the link to their standards, and also frame their offense in terms of the other team's offense (i.e., I have no idea how to compare education and striated space without your instruction). I will vote on framework against negative kritiks, but teams rarely make such framework arguments compellingly.

Disadvantages
I love them, and went for them all the time throughout high school. If anything, this probably means I'll hold you to a higher standard when you run them - this is especially true of the politics DA. You should have carded answers to common 2ac args if you want to be able to take a given DA into the block. Do impact calculus and make "turns case" args - it's really important.

Counterplans
Generally fine. Theory is underutilized by affirmative teams, since a large number of CP's are cheating. Affs need to put a substantial 2ar/1ar time investment into theory on CP's if they want to win it, though. Simply saying "perm" does not constitute an extension of a permutation - there must be a warrant as to why the perm solves. I prefer fewer, well-warranted perms to larger numbers of blippy perms.

Kritiks
I didn't go for them much, but I feel comfortable evaluating debates that involve them. Compare your offense to the other team's offense (i.e., how does the hyperreal interact with the lack) and you should be good. Explain how your alternative functions and PLEASE don't be jargon-y; even if I AM familiar with some of the jargon, it's better to make your arguments clear in the first place. If the other team doesn't understand what's going on, it's a safe bet that I don't, either. I don't find links of omission to be compelling.

Perms
The phrase "perm do both" does not constitute a reason for me to vote aff, even if the perm is dropped by the negative team. A perm MUST be accompanied by an explanation of its net-beneficiality in order for me to evaluate it in the first place. Absent such explanation, the "perm" does not rise to the standard of an "argument."

Other Stuff
I keep a close flow of the round, and I expect you to as well. I will dock you an average of one speaker point if you don't seem to flow.

I rarely, if ever, call for cards after the round. It is not my job to read your evidence, but rather your job to explain it to me. I don't care how good your evidence is if you haven't analyzed and applied it well.

I rarely give speaker points lower than a 27 or higher than a 29. Points higher than 29 are reserved for especially phenomenal, final-round quality debaters. Points lower than 27 and higher than 26 are reserved for debaters who don't seem to either try or care about their performance. Points lower than 26 are reserved for the following cases: if you are excessively rude or mean, especially to young debaters; if you cheat (steal prep, clip cards); if you use blatantly racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, ableist, or adultist slurs (note that "slurs" are distinct from phrases like "you guys," and the metaphorical use of the word "see" - using this language is probably still bad, and the opposing team should argue as much, but I won't default to lowering your speaks in such scenarios); and if you argue with me about the decision. You can certainly ask questions about my decision, but if you choose to argue with me, I feel the need to set a precedent. Too many good judges have stopped judging the activity and/or been intimidated into voting for particularly outspoken teams because of such situations.

The entire point of debate is to convince the judge of your position. 

I firmly believe the cross-examination counts in all debates and what is said in cross goes on the flow and is treated as if it is said in the constructive or rebuttal speakers.

No one is tabula rasa.

CX: Like K debate. Stock issues are key in non-K debate.

LD: Value and criteria linkage is key. You need clash.