Jag Invite Online 2021
2021 — Online, OK/US
Novice PFD/LD Paradigm List
All Paradigms: Show HideI did LD and PF, went to state in LD and did not too good but I know how to debate nonetheless. I'm currently majoring in philosophy at OU, and would love to see some philosophical argumentation if you can articulate it well.
Do what you will to win, be professional, and I will attempt to be as objective as possible. If you are rude, you are likely losing and getting a 25 on speaks.
For LD, I should understand everything going on, your silly k's and cps. I don't understand why you'd want to spread, it's not useful or enjoyable if no one can understand you. But if you really need to spread, go for it.
keep your own time, it'd be silly if you weren't already watching the clock.
also, i like aggressive cx that adds some flavor to the debate. don't be rude, but also don't be too shy. you only get two cx's, have some fun.
email: mikaylacfair@gmail.com
I competed in PF all four years of high school and went to nationals in PF. I also did OO and FEX for a year each. I currently compete in collegiate parliamentary debate, but I'm also learning policy debate in hopes of switching soon. I've also judged LD. I'm also currently an international relations major at Tulane.
Paradigm:
General- Please be respectful in and out of round. If you are racist, sexist, or homophobic to your opponent or to me, I will vote you down.
Public Forum-
- Please do not argue in cross-examination, and bring up anything important from cross in your next speech as I don't flow cross.
- Signpost (tell me what you're addressing on the flow).
- Almost nothing should be considered common knowledge, you need to have evidence for your empirics, please do not assume I know all the details of one really specific event.
- Ks/Theory: So long as you properly link it, I'm okay with it. I will warn you it is difficult to do K arguments well with pf time constraints so just be prepared for that.
- Framework: Warrant your framework and weigh it against your opponent's fw. Everything should flow through this lens so be sure to link it back into your speeches.
- Evidence Integrity: Please cite all your sources (last name & year). If you cite the same source twice please make it clear that this is a different citation of the same source. Do not power-tag evidence. Refrain from paraphrasing and if you do, it better say the same thing as your card and you better clarify that you are paraphrasing. You should be referencing fairly credible people.
- Email chain/doc: Please add to me any email chains or docs you have. I won't pay much attention to the cards in those docs unless they are repetitively contested and I'm told to reference it.
- No email chain/doc: Unless a card is readily disputed back and forth, I will not call for cards at the end of the round unless one team tells me to.
- Please run reasonable arguments. I know it can be fun to do something kind of outlandish, but just be careful. Honestly, I'm okay with it so long as you explain it well and link it well.
- In general, I'm tech over truth. The flow matters. Functionality matters, don't drop anything, especially your own arguments.
- Spreading: Personally, I'm fine with SOME spreading in PF just because time constraints suck, but also everyone in round needs to understand you. You shouldn't be spreading as a means of abuse.
- tech over truth
- Please bring up framing every speech. Tell me why you won the round, not just the individual arguments.
Lincoln Douglas-
- Please give proper backing for your value criterion and repetitively bring it up throughout the round.
- The value proven to be most moral is the one I will prefer for the round so make sure you uphold this, and better yet, make sure you uphold both values in your case.
- Please impact weigh. Sometimes arguments in LD get really broad, but it's important you apply those impacts in the round (aka. tell me what they mean in context, give empirics, numerics, etc.)
- Ks/Theory: I'm totally okay with these. Link it well and make it loud. If you're running a K, this should almost always be the center of your debate and the first and last thing you discuss. At the same time, please don't ignore the case debate.
- Evidence Integrity: Please use reliable sources and don't power tag anything. If you cite a source twice with two different cut portions please make it clear which is which or have a speech doc that can do the same. If you paraphrase anything please make sure you're actually
- tech over truth
- Please explain why you are overall winning the round, not just individual arguments. This should be connected to the value debate and general framing of the round.
Lastly, I understand that debate can be stressful and sometimes the decision of a judge may seem unreasonable or unclear, so if you have any questions about my decision/comments feel free to email me at mikaylacfair@gmail.com
Overall, spark clash and have fun!
Hello!
I'm Grant and I've debated quite a bit for Norman North
Email Chain - gjgoering@gmail.com
TLDR: I'm fairly tech. I'll try not to intervene if possible. I'll vote for pretty much anything with a good warrant, but I need to believe your argument could really happen, so explain it to me! Other than that I will do my best to adapt to you and how you like to debate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOW I JUDGE:
- Debate is an educational game, make strategic decisions but ground yourself in truth
- Tech > Truth, That isn't an excuse to under-warrant args: I need to understand what I'm voting for or I won't vote for it
- I default util unless I'm told otherwise
- I presume for the team that lost the flip, if I can't know that then I default first speaking team
- I like cross but won't evaluate anything unless it's in a speech (feel free to skip grand if both sides agree, 1 min prep), cross is binding
- I default 28.5 speaks
- I disclose after the round, if you want to respectfully tell me why you think I was wrong in my decision I would love to hear it! I want to be the best judge I can be
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PREFERENCES:
Speed:
- I can handle ~260-280 WPM
- If you get over 230 WPM I would like a speech doc
- I'll give you 2 clears if I can't understand but after that anything I miss is on you
- You should get slower as the round progresses, if you are still going well over 200 wpm by summary you need a stronger collapse, of course there are exceptions for super high content rounds, but the more arguments in the back half the lower the chance that I understand the round the same way you do
Evidence:
- I don't care if you paraphrase or read off cut cards
- All evidence must have a cut card producible within 2min, after that period I will assume it doesn't exist and you will lose at least .5 speaks, if it is a repeat issue I'll be very open to a evidence ethics IVI
- If you misparaphrase to the point where the meaning of the evidence changes I will: stop the round, drop you, and set your speaks to the lowest allowed by the tournament whether that is 25, 20, or 0
- Same goes for any brackets you add to cards if they change the meaning then I will drop you
- That being said I read cut card and I know sometimes you need to bracket words to make it read correctly
- You should tell me about all questionable evidence (I WILL REVIEW IT IF TOLD TO)
Prep Time:
- Don't steal prep or your speaks go down (I will call you out on it)
- Flex prep is fine
- I don't care when you take prep
Speeches:
- 2nd Rebuttal needs to frontline
- Summary and FF should be mirrors: if I don't hear it in Summary I won't vote on it
- Only thing that should ever be new in 1st Final is responses to 2nd Summary's implications and weighing
- FF should be all about telling me how / what you have won, I want a story
-The threshold for a response to weighing gets lower the later you introduce it, if I get some totally new pre-req weighing in 2nd Summary any decent response in 1st Final will knock it off my flow
Progressive Debate:
My Prefs:
1 (Preferable) - 5 (I am not your judge)
- Topical Debate 1
- Theory 3
- Ks 4 (I don't know any of the lit, so it will be hard for me to evaluate but I will try if you feel you absolutely have to read it)
- Tricks/Friv Theory 5 (Get verbal confirmation with the other team or TKO)
- Non-T Ks 5
- If you are reading a framing argument (developing world, prioritize women, extinction good, etc) I would really prefer you read it in constructive or at the latest rebuttal. Every time I've seen framing introduced in 1st Summary the round falls apart on both sides so just read it in your case if you are going to read it
- My understanding of an RVI is that if Team A is reading a shell and winning No RVIs Team B can still gain offense by turning the shell. To clarify, an RVI only means that a team doesn’t lose if they have no offense on a shell they presented, if you want me to evaluate the round differently you need to explain why in round
- I personally think disclosure is bad for small schools and that big schools should be disclosing, however I’m not going to intervene for either side. Debate how you want, and exemplify the norms you think are good but if there is ANY performative contradiction for any shell you've read at the tournament and its gets pointed out in the round its a TKO so if you are reading theory you better have been reading that shell every time the violation occurred at the tournament
- Friv Theory is bad, don't read it (Formal cloths, Macbooks, etc.) The only exception is if both teams give verbal confirmation to me that they would like to have a Friv theory round in which case I'd be happy to judge
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reach Out If You Have Any Questions!
Hi, my name is Bri :).
If you have questions please email me: briannalemaster1120@gmail.com
About me
I competed at Westmoore High School for 4 years where I was a 4x national qualifier and in multiple state final rounds. I competed in LD, PF but trad and circuit debate. I also currently coach multiple events including all the debate events and some specific IE events. I also beat Taylor Rafferty in a debate round once. Currently on the OU policy team.
TLDR: General Debate Things
1. Tech>Truth. This obviously excludes racist, homophobic, and other hateful sentiments.
2. You should be crystalizing and summarizing your best arguments in your last rebuttal speech going for everything is not in your best interest.
3. Clash is the most important thing for me in debate if you don't do it or are just avoiding it then the round is probably boring and I will be doing my crossword while flowing.
4. SIGN POST PLEASE. If you don't your speaker points just like your signposting won't exist.
Trad LD
1. Framework is pretty important to me especially when I'm looking at what arguments to prioritize in the round.
2. Mostly for non-OK debate- Since the progressive debate is becoming more common here I'm fine with speed and counter plans etc.... All I ask is that if you're going to do it please format it correctly and just call it a counter plan or a "K" or whatever don't try to hide it as a contention I know the difference. Include me on the file share if you want or email chain. I do not really like seeing identity K's but again run what you have prepared.
- Oklahoma debate - guys honestly since this is a trad circuit I would avoid running k's or cp or anything like that since the reality is your competitors will not know how to respond and it will make it an unfair round. I would recommend not running that stuff in general here it will not help you win a round and although I do policy I debate on this circuit so I know what goes. If you're going to try to run something funky because you think I'll evaluate it. I won't but you can try. Typically there is no point in running arguments that your opponents can not respond to correctly
3. If you signpost, extend your arguments, try not to drop stuff, and give an offensive reason why I should vote for you instead of a defensive one, you'll be in very good shape. (Offense = why I'm winning, Defense = why I'm not losing). I will not vote off drops if they are not brought up, but I think it works in your favor if you bring up drops especially If your opponents do not address your entire case.
4. Your framework and your case should be able to match properly I don't want to see a Kant framework and then a bunch of extinction arguments I will cringe.
PFD
1. FILL YOUR SPEECH TIMES. You already don't have a lot of time use it wisely!
2. Please don't make Grand Cross a big disaster please be civil and nice.
3. Make sure to carry your arguments all the way through the final focus if they are not carried through I won't use it in my decision.
4. Public Forum Debate is called Public Forum for a reason it is supposed to be as accessible to a general audience as possible there shouldn't be a high use of progressive argumentation or debate lingo. Also, I really do not vote off fw more impact clac take that as you will but if you make fw your entire voter I'm most likely not going to weigh it that heavy. Before you run impact calc as your fw think to yourself on what the point of that is. ( I will give you hint there is no point).
5. Don't be one of those teams that paraphrases evidence you will instantly lose all credibility. I will read cards if the other team tells me to call for them. This should not even be something I have to say, but I coach teams and cut evidence for them so there is a very good chance I know what your cards say.
6. Make sure you have been well versed in the lit and case your reading it helps you to be able to answer questions better. That is just advice for the future.
POLICY
Just a few general things specifics are under my prefs.
1. Please add me to the email chain. My email is at the top of the paradigm.
2. Lowkey I do not spread, I do not like spreading fast but go at like 7-8/10 pace. I am not going to yell clear or anything as you but if I did not catch it and your opponents say they did not either I will throw it to them.
3. Open cross is fine.
4. If you have questions about my policy paradigm, please ask before the round.
5. Just because I DO college debate this is not an invite to run anything weird on me I have dealt with enough already.
POLICY - my current field of interest
1. Policy- and K debate - Easily what I feel the most comfortable judging. I like seeing a topical aff against a competitive cp and some dis ads. I enjoy case debates, something that needs to be done way more. On that, I am a K and policy debater so I am fine with either. If the K however needs to prove how the Aff advantages are harmful to the world of the K, so Neg when attacking a policy aff along with reading a bunch of offense etc explain how there Econ adv leads to native harm etc you will get my ballot a lot better that way because the sides interact more. Make my voters clear in the last speech - impact clac it out and clearly explain how the team can not perm or how the alt has no solvency.
2. I'm fine with theory - make your violations clear - performance K’s I know the least about I should be able to pick it up tho.
3. I will vote off anything tho lowkey as long as you make it clear why and how arguments interact and clash.
4. Things I do not like - Tricks - ugh plz don’t but if you have to it's fine
5. Make my role in the round clear and tell me to read cards if they are important etc
Background: I've been doing PF, extemp, and a little bit of IE for 4 years. I qualified to nationals in congress, PF, and extemp, and I went Top 60 in DEX.
Framework: I will weigh on framework if you tell me why it matters and how your side upholds both the best. If both teams decide to drop framework, that's fine, just don't be the only side to drop framework.
Speed: Please don't spread. If you have a lot of information on your case and you have to read a little faster that's understandable but I can't weigh an argument I can't hear.
Argumentation: Explain your arguments clearly and concisely. I am all for unique arguments as long as they relate to the topic and have an impact that matters. If you want me to vote on something, tell me why it matters and how you solve better than your opponents. Speak confidently!
LD: I have little experience in LD, but the paradigms are mostly the same. Tell me why it matters and how you solve for it best.
Extemp: Use transitions and signpost your points. Develop your arguments and use lots of cards. Don't be afraid to throw in some jokes, they make the speech fun!
Be polite, have fun, and go get that bread, gamers.
Hi, this is Joshua Meng, and I am happy to be your judge for this round. While competing please keep spreading at a minimum, and please be courteous to your opponent(s). As this is a formal debate, I do not tolerate any abusive speech. Please keep it civil, as we are all having fun.
Good Luck to All.
Hello! I’m Morgan Russell and I am the head coach for Norman North High School in OK. We're relatively traditional style debaters, but part of my team does compete on the circuit 8 or so times a year. Before that, I competed in CX and PF in high school, assistant coached through college. So I’ve dabbled in it all.
Overall: My philosophy on debate whoever debates better should win. However, my personal opinion of arguments or strats shouldn't matter, so I default to weighing brought up by debaters whenever possible. I do believe Aff and Neg need to interact with each other's cases.
I’ll judge the round based off what you give me, and won't judge based off what I'd do, but what y'all did.
Add me to the email chain! morgannmrussell@gmail.com
LD: I think framework is important, but it’s not everything. You need evidence and solid analytics to back it up. I prefer we not spread, but I'm fine with some speed, if I can't understand I will say “clear” once or twice. From there, if it doesn’t make my flow, I can’t weigh it. I’m fine with Ks and Plans in LD.
PF: PF was made to be more accessible, so I don’t like when it gets too new wave. It’s not “mini-policy.” You can use debate jargon, but don’t just read cards the whole time. I need impact calc.
CX: It’s all fair game. As far as spreading, I’m okay but with Zoom it’s more difficult to understand. I will say “clear” once or twice if I can’t understand. From there, if it doesn’t make my flow, I can’t weigh it.
for LD
i am VERY inexperienced. I do pf, so I can evaluate logic and arguments well, and thats what I'll go off of. I understand the purpose of framework and its function, but still explain your arguments well. I have experience with Ks and Theory but not much, so explain those well too. If you go fast I'll need a doc and it might hurt how well I evaluate. WOOOOOO GOOD LUCK YEAAAA
Currently, I am a college sophomore debating for the OU team
my email is blaire.debate@gmail.com
I’m still in college, so I don’t have a ton of opinions and preferences. I like quality/ well fleshed-out arguments above all else. I’m not super ideological, so give judge instruction and do what you are best at.
K- I read set col, fem, queer theory, security, extinction, and cap, if that tells you anything :)
-I will vote on T and presumption, so you must tell me what you do and how that interacts with this round, debate as a whole, or the outside world.
-A few good arguments can win a round.
T- I will vote on T, but you MUST tell me what the model of debate the other team creates looks like and why that’s bad for debate OR why they made the round functionally impossible
DA- explain your internal links
CP- I think CPs, as a whole, are good
- I need the arg to be fleshed out and compared to the AFF
- I will vote on theory args.
I did LD for 3 years at Bishop McGuinness and now I do policy at OU.
Include me on the chain:
Good, clear speaking (no spreading)