I will adopt the debaters' paradigms and hear just about any type of argument as long as analytics are given to explain. I won't intervene by providing my own links or analysis if debaters just read cards at me.

Likewise, give me a framework and tell me how to weigh the round. In LD, I want this to be explicitly stated, even if it is a progressive framework. I'm fine with a non-traditional framework. Just explain it to me. In PF, the framework may or may not be explicitly stated, but I should be able to easily extrapolate a standard.

It is imperative that debaters give voting issues and impact calculus linked back to the framework. If you don't, I'm stuck comparing argument to argument.

I am fine with both progressive debate or traditional debate. A bit of speed is fine, but I would prefer that it not rise to the rates in CX. Also, keep in mind that more isn't necessarily better. Be strategic. Introduce what you think you can reasonably handle. I'm fine with debaters kicking out of arguments. Funnel arguments down to what is really important and viable in the round.

Kaitlyn Hurst
Norman High 17'
University of Oklahoma 21'

Kaitlyn is unqualified to judge debates. -Lawrence Zhou 

Background

I debated for Norman High School (OK) for 3 years. Attended the Oklahoma State tournament twice, placing second most recently. I attended NSDA nationals my senior year. I'm most experienced with traditional debate but I have exposure to progressive styles. I can handle pretty much anything if done well. 

Preferences Speaking Preferences

• Speed is generally fine. I'm somewhat familiar with high speed rounds but I'm not comfortable with intense spreading especially if you know you aren't going to be 100% clear the whole round. I'll say clear if I can't understand you.
• Slow down for important information (tags, card info, etc.)

Framework

• I think the framework debate is important to the round but it's not a deciding factor. I prefer a holistic approach to the resolution and will decide based on everything you present me
• Value/criterion aren't necessary. Do what you want to do, I can follow.

Theory

• I default to competing interps.
• Weighing is crucial
• I will listen to potential abuse as an argument.

CX

• CX is binding.
• Don't lie or intentionally obscure your answers.
• I don't care whether you sit or stand, but be engaged.

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.

How to Get Good Speaks

• Show me clash
• Don't just tell me not to vote for "them", give me a reason to vote for you.
• Be polite and respectful. If you are overly aggressive and rude not only is that off putting but it takes away a lot of your legitimacy in the round.
• Clarity

Why should I pref you?

I am knowledgeable on a wide array of arguments and comfortable judging a round anyway it unfolds. I can evaluate your framework, or your theory shell, or your performance, or your poetry, or your policy aff. There is nothing I'm unwilling to watch, flow, and engage with. I am a flexible judge with the desire to watch you read whatever you want and are good at. I have multiple years of diverse debate experience ranging from traditional LD, progressive policy debate (including multiple performances cases) and public forum.

How do you feel about K's?

I like them. Establish a clear link to the affirmative, provide an explanation of the alternative, and explain the literature. I LOVE debates with passion. I feel like debate should be a place where we can talk about anything and everything- please feel free to do that in front of me. I want to hear your narratives, poetry, and hot take on capitalism.

How do you feel about framework/theory/topicality?

Framework makes the game work. I love a good framework debate- keep it clean, technical and provide voting issues. I can definitely get down with a solid framework debate- keep the nuance. I can really appreciate a shell that is personalized to around and not just read directly off a computer. Potential abuse isn't really a voter, but maybe you can convince me.

Can I run my policy aff in front of you?

Absolutely! Have internal links to your impacts and weigh them!

What do you NOT like?

When people are rude to each other in the round. I would also prefer you abstain from using gendered language- including terms like "you guys". I like when oponnents are kind, knowledgeable, and non-problematic.

How do you evaluate a round?

However the debaters tell me to. If I am instructed to evaluate a round through a certain framework, I will. If I am told to evaluate through a role of the ballot, or a role of the judge, I will. I prefer to evaluate based off clear framework and impact weighing- good old magnitude, timeframe, and probability.

matthew4thepeople@gmail.com

Matt He/Him/His

Put me on the email chain and I hope you get my ballot!