I 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.

I am a parent of a competitor and a lay judge. Speak at a pace a layperson can understand and process. Avoid using jargon so that I can hear and understand your argument. Clearly spell out the issues I am deciding the round on. Refrain from being any kind of -ist or phobic. Be proud of yourselves and enjoy this experience.

So I guess I'll start off by letting you know that I did PF and I am studying to be a coach now! Woo, yay-sies.

That being said, onto my actual paradigms:

First of all: I will almost always vote based on impact weighing; this means at the end of the round I will use any empirics to make my final decision(usually this ends up being numbers unless it is a debate where numbers are not a possibility on one or both sides). To follow impact weighing, I cannot weigh your arguments if they don't have proper links so pls and thx have links and make them obvious!

Secondly: If you are doing a speech event I will make sure you have all parts of a speech(intro, body, conclusion, sources- I have things I look for in each section) and then I will go off of speaking ability, pretty straightforward.

As a note for debates! I promise I keep track of time! I stop flowing arguments when time is up but if I let someone go a little long it's because I'm giving them just a second to figure it out!

You got this girly-pops!

I am a veteran parent debate judge. One student: a Senior in high school. I have: BS in Mechanical Engineering & Master's degree

I will attempt to flow the rounds and appreciate careful and reasonably-paced speaking, good evidence, and knowledge of your sources. Not all sources are created equal so be willing to evaluate them. The date of a source can be important --- eg, it has current up-to-date information or it is a classic or comprehensive source that has not been superseded. Convince me with good, empirical evidence and a carefully made argument, not with a bunch of PF/LD lingo.

I value the time and energy you have invested in debate and seek to put that same effort into being an attentive judge. Good luck!

The best way for you to get my ballot is doing Framework right, explain it, extend it, weigh on it, and you'll be golden. If I don't know what you want me to do with it I can't vote on it.

If you want me to vote on your impacts, weigh them, I don't want to decide which impact I Care about more, defend your impact and tell me why it's the most important.

Don't spread, if I'm going to vote on it I need to flow it.

Call things pog and your speaks get boosted, which is pog.

Background:

I'm currently a sophomore at OCU and an Economics and Mathematics double-major. I did PF and FEX for 4 years in highschool, went to nationals in both, so I'm pretty knowledgeable with how debate works and therein most argument styles (except progressive ones lol).

email for evidence chains: teegingroves@gmail.com

Quick Rundown:

Be specific and slow when delivering taglines and impacts, spread for your evidence. I have ADHD, I can only process so much information, so you need to differentiate your most important information when presenting.

My role as the judge is to determine who provides the most justified argument with respect to the topic at hand. Meaning I expect each speech to contain an argument that relates to the resolution. I'm traditional, I generally will not consider Ks, performative cases, etc unless there exists a clear and compelling reason to myself (which is not likely) to consider such an argument.

In debate, you "win" arguments by having a better justification than your opponent, and you win rounds by having better justified impacts than your opponents.

I will weigh impacts according to who "wins" framework, meaning their framework has the most desirable implications.

I only weigh arguments that you "win", meaning your link to the argument at the end of the round is stronger than any delinks or turns against it. Make sure you win arguments that best support your framework.

You can find my detailed and specific paradigm beneath, where I tell you exactly what I want to see, as well as general pointers.

Speaking:

I personally prefer faster speeches, but if you're going to speak fast just make sure your opponent and I can understand it, so enunciate, slow down on tags, etc. That said, since debate doesn't really have points, assists, or rebounds, I like to treat speaker points like a proxy for a basketball statline. What does that mean you ask? It means I give speaks based on how good you debate, so I start at 27 and move up or down depending on the quality.

So how does this look? Suppose your speeches are disorganized (you don't tell me what contention/point your responding to), you stutter a bit, and you don't really flow with what your partner is doing, I'm probably going to give you a 25-26. But if you're a decent presenter, have great analysis, great organization, are absolutely tearing up the flow and your opponent like you're the NSDA's Michael Jordan, I'm gonna give you a 30.

Argument Style:

As a general rule, sign post and have distinct taglines in your case, and in the remaining speeches tell me what argument you're responding to, just be organized.

With regards to type of argument, do whatever, OSSAA has no rules against CPs or plans in PF or LD, so go right ahead. I will vote on anything if you have the warranting and explain it clearly throughout the round. I don't care for K's, if you run one you must explain it clearly because if I don't understand it I won't vote for it. Theory and topicality args im fine with in LD, not so much in PF, once again if you do it well I'll buy it.

I really like clash, so aggressive rebuttals that are on the point with deep analytics (telling me why the argument is wrong in a nuanced fashion) and lots of turns, which means you must address the flow, the whole flow, and nothing but the flow. After rebuttal, extending arguments is essential, in most cases I will not weigh dropped arguments. Summary speeches should collapse on pre-existing arguments and weigh them, but respond to the previous speech if you must. However, do not bring up new arguments at all in the final focus or 2AR. Also, generally don't argue definitions (PF), it's a waste of time.

How to win the Round - Weighing:

First off, provide me a standard by which to weigh the round and then tell me why I should prefer that standard. I did not truly understand this until my senior year, but it's a really simple concept, and if you do this you will make it that much easier and satisfying to vote for you. However, I am aware that an explicit framework isn't going to be present in many PF rounds, and so that requires that you weigh your arguments, so here's an outline of what I should generally see:

1) Tell me the impact of your argument like lives, costs, neoliberal hegemony, whatever, just give me a reason that it matters because if it doesn't matter then I can't vote for it.

2) Compare that impact to what your opponent is arguing, and tell me why your impact trumps theirs. For example, lets say their arguments follows like "Building nuclear reactors is safer than alternative, saves like 10k lives." and your arg is "nuclear reactors are at risk of exploding b/c low staffing, costs 10k lives/reactor". You can weigh this against your opponent on magnitude because your impact is scalar meaning while they save 10k lives overall for X amount of reactors, X amount of reactors in your world puts 10k*X people at risk of dying. Or you could weigh on timeframe and say 10k people will die before the other 10k are saved. Regardless, this requires your own analysis and ingenuity.

3) Compare quality of evidence. Lets say the impacts themselves are vague or hard to argue, outweigh them by proving your study was better i.e. larger sample size, better methodology for given subject, etc.

If you don't weigh, I'll do it for you which means I'm going to default to impact calc.

Also final note, quantify your impacts. If you don't have verifiable numbers or some way to quantify what you're talking about, you better pray to god your second speaker is the next Kant because its hard to evaluate abstract and vague impacts versus clear and concrete ones.

Evidence:

I generally try to avoid judge intervention, and am a firm believer of tech>truth so you're usually going to have to be the guy that calls for evidence. I'll only weigh on evidence I call for if its blatantly unethical or outright wrong.

Regarding credentials, I rarely weigh the source of the evidence because most of the rigor in debate is done through analysis (and good analysis is self-evident, regardless of the analyzer), but there is an implicit hierarchy I'll apply in the case I do feel the need to weigh credentials:

I weigh authors on education experience, Ph.D's and tenured professors rank highest.

I weigh sources as follows: Random websites < Generic News (NYT, CNN, Fox) < Curated News (WSJ, Bloomberg, 538) < Think Tanks (EPI, Pew) < Government Agencies < Academic Journals < Respected Academic Journals (Nature, Econometrica, Energy and Environmental Sciences)

Anyways, I'm giving you such a long paradigm because I want you to do well, I want to watch a good debate. So yeah, weigh your impacts and engage the flow.

Background:

I went to Nationals in PF twice, and have qualified to nats in extemp and congress. I have some experience in LD.

PF:

Framework- I am okay with framework and will flow it across ONLY if you tell me a)Why it matters and b)extend it in every speech. If you agree with their framework, don't just say, 'I agree' - turn it. If you have clashing framework, tell me why to prefer yours.

Speaks-I'd prefer it if you didn't spread simply because this isn't policy, but If you do, it must be clear. I cannot weigh your args If I don't know what they are. Please sign post, and slow down tags. keep your own time in prep+speeches

Argumentation: I will weigh the round on contention level debate. If an argument isn't extended, it's dropped. But, if you say, 'my opponents dropped...' that will not necessarily win you the round, explain why it matters. The First Summary must frontline, address the previous speech. If you don't tell me why the argument matters, I won't weigh it. And quantify your impacts-I need to know WHY this argument matters. Tech>Truth. Impact calc is always fun!

Progressive debate-I'd prefer if it was kept out of PF.

I won't really call for cards unless it was brought up throughout the round.

LD:

Same paradigm as PF, but, I have very minimal experience in LD. I'll keep up with anything as long as you clearly explain and weigh your arguments.

Progressive debate is fine, but don't assume I know the lit.

If there's an email chain, add me- abigailharrisl03@gmail.com

Good luck!!

I did PF debate for 4 years in high school, qualified to both State and Nationals. I now work as a debate coach at Westmoore. - That being said I am familiar with most types of argumentation and styles of debate.

I vote primarily on frameworks/Impact Calc. If you don't have a framework, adopt your opponent's. You should be attempting to win on your framework and your opponent's framework, not telling me why you won on your framework and theirs doesn't matter. If there's two frameworks in a round, they're both valuable. I don't like to have to do the weighing on my own at the end of a debate, it should be clear what the round is weighed on. If you can't prove the impact calculus of your argument or why your argument matters, chances are I will not buy it.

Speed. I'm okay with mild speed, but not with spreading. I should still be able to understand what you're saying and flow without missing a lot.

Sign post what you're attacking. I prefer to see attacks going down the flow (cont. 1 first, cont 2. second, etc.) rather than jumping around. It makes for easier flowing and a more ordered argument.

Crossfire. I do not flow crossfire. If it's important bring it up in a speech.

Online Rounds. Please do not prep without timing while the other team is looking for cards or having technical difficulties. Be fair and honest. And please put me in the email chain, katelynmakjohnson@gmail.com. The faster you go the more you glitch (I really don't care if you go fast, it just happens) but if you're going to read "fast", even if you're not spreading, it would be in your best interest to send a speech doc

Argumentation. I understand the basic functions of theory and K's, but I am not well-versed in the lit. You can run those progressive arguments if you like and I will evaluate as best as I can, but just keep in mind that I might have some trouble if you are going very fast and not explaining things well for these types of arguments. It's just hard for me to follow and conceptualize these more progressive arguments, but I don't want to stop you from reading progressive arguments if that is what interests you. If you do like reading wacky substance arguments, go for it, I'm all ears.

Card Calling. I think calling for cards as a judge is interventionist, however evidence ethics is also extremely important. I will only call for a card if I am explicitly told to in a speech. If there is a piece of evidence you want me to look at, tell me in a speech, and I will look at the specific place that you tell me to look at. I try not to intervene, but I want to be fair, so if something is not right, just tell me in a speech and explain why.

Please don't ask me to time. In order to give you the best feedback and round I'd rather you timed yourselves, instead of me giving you time signals or calls for prep. 

Thank you and good luck!

I debated PF for 2 years and went to nationals in congress. I have very minimal experience in LD.

PF:

Framework- I am okay with framework and will flow it across ONLY if you tell me a)Why it matters and b)extend it in every speech. If you agree with their framework, don't just say, 'I agree' - turn it. If you have clashing framework, tell me why to prefer yours.

Speaks-I prefer presentational debate where lay judges could understand if they had to, that being said I am okay with aggressive debate and fast speaking. I like to hear full author citations including their credentials in constructive so that I know the people who you're citing are experts on the topic that is being debated.

Argumentation: The First Summary must frontline, address the previous speech. If you don't tell me why the argument matters, I won't weigh it. And quantify your impacts-I need to know WHY this argument matters.

Progressive debate-I dislike progressive debate in PF.

Cards: I will call for cards if I’m confused about it or if I think you aren’t truthful. The only important thing on cards is I will ALWAYS prefer cards with author credentials, they tell me who has the better source.

I won't really call for cards unless I think I need to do so.

LD:

Same paradigm as PF, but, I have very minimal experience in LD. I'll keep up with anything as long as you clearly explain and weigh your arguments.

Progressive debate is fine, but don't assume I know the lit.

If there's an email chain you can add my email Logankylekennedy@gmail.com

I am a business executive in Oklahoma City, OK with graduate degrees in theology and international relations.

As a judge, my priority is to evaluate the debaters in front of me as fairly as possible, regardless of personal beliefs. I have experience with LD, PF, and Congress. You may choose Trad or Tech just be reasonable and if you plan on speaking over 250wpm+, you should send a speech doc to ensure all points are evaluated.

I have three absolute rules for round:

1. Do not be condescending /disrespectful to your opponent(s) unless you feel like losing speaks and possibly the round. Passion and energy are great, disrespect is not.

2. Do not misrepresent/power-tag your evidence. You will lose the point and possibly the round, depending on the severity. This includes misusing, statistics.

3. Do not mischaracterize your opponents arguments or actions in round. Ex: insisting they dropped arguments they clearly addressed. You are welcome to tell me when you believe an argument should flow to you, although I may not agree.

I have no bias regarding theory, K's, ect. that don't break tournament rules. However, you should approach the round as if I know nothing about the argument you are running. That being said, if it doesn't make sense, I will not vote on it, you must prove your argument should win you the round. Ex: Saying your opponents shoes are a voter does not make it so.

Some specific information:

On weighing: I do not automatically way in "layers" or give preference to any specific type of argument, you need to prove that your approach takes priority.

Kritiks: Generally acceptable.

Non-T K's: If you are reading a K that is not topical It needs to be excessively relevant to the round. By that I mean that you telling me that I should vote for you because debate is sexist, will not sway me. However, If your opponent called you a sexist term or used sexist language to undermine you, I will absolutely evaluate a Kritik that concludes your opponent is bad for the Debate space. A topical statistic that you find offensive, is not reasonable ground for the K, facts and logic are critical to a meaningful debate.

Topical K's: I am fine with topical Kritiks, however you must prove that you earned the vote. I'm unbiased, so I'm perfectly comfortable evaluating anything you would like to run, Cap, Anthro, Fem, Pess varieties (I have a very high threshold for link and impact evidence here), and whatever else you can think of. As long as I believe you proved it, and you defend it, it is acceptable.

Note: A large volume of illogical evidence will not outweigh well-reasoned logic.

Theory:

Friv: Do not waste my time with shoe theory, formal dress theory, apple-laptop theory, or any other variation, unless both teams decide they just want to have some fun.

General Theory: For theory to carry a round it needs to outweigh the original purpose of debate. If there is a legitimate offence and you are enriching the round or the debate space by reading the shell, go for it, even if I don't love it, I'm willing to vote on it. You will need to do a lot of work to prove that the offense was egregious enough to warrant me dropping substance on the ballot.

CI: Counter-interps always get offense unless the team reading the shell proves that their opponents were theory-baiting, or does significant work to prove that they should get a 0-risk timesuck for whatever reason they choose. If you are willing to win on the shell, you should be ready to lose on it.

Reasonability: If you prove the offence had no effect on the round, and that you have a bright-line to fairness, I will drop the shell.

Plans: Plans are fine if the rules allow them.

Tricks: I think these de-value debate.

Performances: I have no experience with these, but if you prove its a reason to vote, I'll vote on it.

If you plan on speaking above 200 wpm, you need to send a speech doc 2 minutes before you begin speaking. If you don't, I can't guarantee that I'll catch everything you say and if I don't catch it, I can't judge it.

Please be respectful to myself and your fellow contestants. If not, your speaker points will be docked and you may lose the ballot regardless of arguments made.

I am a traditional parent/judge who votes off the flow, so if you plan on reading progressive arguments, make sure you explain them well.

Offense and Defense is sticky within reason.

I did PF my junior year for a few months so feel free to use terminology/slang

I don't have a lot of experience on LD, so I'll vote based on your argumentation

I don't have an issue with keeping times, but I'd prefer you keep your own time (extemp is the only exception to this)

I won't tolerate impoliteness during rounds, especially crossfires. There's a difference between being assertive and being rude.

PF:

TELL ME WHY YOUR ARGUMENTS MATTER. I can't vote on an issue if you don't tell me its importance

I focus on framework but explain its correlation to the resolution and tell me why I have to prefer yours over your opponent's

I like to hear the author's credentials because it assures me your sources come from experts/people relevant to the resolution.

Tell me why I should prefer your impact over your opponents.

Remember to attack arguments in an organized matter (going down the flow), it helps a lot when reviewing the round

LD:

Again, you have to explain why the arguments and impacts matter in the round, otherwise, I can't vote on it.

I'm all for progressive arguments, but you have to explain them and their connection to the resolution

Extemp:

feel free to be funny, as long as it is appropriate

Explain your points fully

Be respectful to your opponents, and best of luck!

Hello, My name is Josh!

About Me

I did speech and debate for four years at Jenks High School and have done every single debate so I'm super familiar with all styles of debate as well as speech events I have done almost every event. I was a national qualifier and multiple-time state qualifier. If you have any questions about my paradigm please ask me before the round starts!

General Debate Things

1. I like to hear well-warranted arguments and well-explained arguments anything that is under warranted will be less persuasive to me
2. Time your self I want to focus on the round (Unless you need me to do it for you)
3. I will not vote for any racist or homophobic arguments.
4. Don't be abusive or a jerk.
5. I flow the entire round but I don't flow Cross so if you make an argument bring it back up for me to flow it

Former Parlimentary Debate competitor at Cameron University (2005-2007). Coach PF- 5+ years LD - 3 years. Basically I understand policy, but I don’t like judging it, necessarily.

I will entertain any arguments in-round as long as they are developed with appropriate impacts/voters. If you want to argue topicality for an entire round, fine (I love words. Words are important). Just tell me why it's crucial to do so. Kritiks, sure! Just tell me why I need to vote here first. Is there abuse in-round? Tell me where, and specifically how it harms you/the activity, etc. and why that matters. This is your round to strategize in however you see fit; I don't have any real predisposed dislike for any argument. However, poor arguments are still poor arguments and will not win. Irrelevant arguments won't win either, no matter how fancy they sound.

Clear, significant impacts make it easy for me to vote for you. Don't make me do the work for you or your team, because I won't.Sure, it would be nice to end the contention at "and this leads to more discrimination." Spell it out for me, otherwise I will shrug and say, "So what? Who cares?" Be sure to pull them through to your final speeches.

One thing that will work against you: Speed. I know you have a lot of material to cover, and often both teams will be fine with speedy arguments. I'm not going to vote against you for spite, but I WILL drop arguments on the flow. If you are okay with that, just be prepared for the vote to possibly not go your way... even if you put 87 responses on your opponent's disadvantage. I'm not a speed debater, so I won't be able to follow you. If you feel your opponents are using speed against you as a tactic, I will listen to a speed K and possibly vote on it... IF IT'S WELL DEVELOPED. As I said, I won't vote for a speed K simply because I don't prefer this style; Poorly developed arguments will not win me even if I tend to share your viewpoint. Bottom line: If you want to improve your chances of winning, don't speed one another out of the round-- you'll likely flow me out of the round too.

— I’ve gotten MUCH better over the years. I don’t encourage speed, still, but I’m pretty good at

getting it all down.

I do enjoy debators who at least attempt to add some persuasive flare in their speeches, but I do NOT wan you to focus on delivery at the expense of content and analysis.

If I do get stuck in an LD round, you must spend some time convincing me that your value and criteria are better than your opponents. I've had two sides argue with fantastic evidence to support their values, counter-values, with NO clash about which one is superior. I'm a libra, so it's already a task for me to try and choose between two equal, yet differing options. INCLUDE A FANTASTIC JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR VALUE IF YOU WANT TO WIN ME IN LD.

Hi, I'm Taylor. Keep in mind that my thoughts will probably change on specific aspects of debates as I judge more rounds, so I might change some things here and there in my paradigm.

EDIT: A lot of my thoughts on policy have changed. You should read it if you're doing your prefs.

My email: taylorrafferty22@gmail.com

About me (If you care)

I debated at Jenks High School for four years. I mainly did Lincoln-Douglas Debate and International Extemp. While at Jenks on the state level, I was in 4 state final rounds between Lincoln-Douglas and International Extemp. On the national level, I was a 4x national qualifier in 3 different events, and in my senior year, I took 24th in the nation in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. I now attend ESU and personally coach a few students in LD. Despite my LD experience I find myself judging mostly policy rounds these days but I will see a LD or PF round every now and then.

General Debate Things

1. Tech>Truth; however, my threshold for responding to bad arguments is incredibly low.

2. I like Impact calc a lot. It would help if you did it.

3. Offense will get you further with me rather than defense. I don't think defense should be abandoned but telling me why you win goes much further than telling me why you don't lose.

4. EXTEND YOUR ARGUMENTS. I'm not going to do work for you if you don't extend your arguments through your last speech. I'm not gonna bother weighing it into my decision. Yes, to judge instruction.

5. Crystalize and summarize your best arguments and why you won them in your final speeches. Generally, going for every argument on the flow is not in your best interest.

6. Time yourself. I'm terrible at it.

Policy Debate

1. I didn't do policy debate in high school or in college. That being said, I have judged policy for a few years now and have been able to learn most of it myself. However, don't expect me to be able to know uber-specific lingo or argumentation. Obviously, doing LD debate and judging policy, I have picked up a lot, but that does not mean I know how every single perm or kritik functions. Even as someone with some success in debate I am not going to sit here and pretend like I'm going to know exactly what you're saying while you're going NASCAR speed. To solve this use your smart people skills if you have doubt that I'm going to understand your alt, permutations, standards, framing, etc.... you should probably explain to me how it functions and what it means for the debate. If you want to treat me like a lay parent judge, I really couldn't care less.

2. I'm a busy college kid who is nice enough to judge on the weekends. I have not done any research on the topic at all, and honestly, even if I did have time, I probably wouldn't anyway, this topic looks abysmal. Don't expect me to know topic-specific lingo without seeing a doc.

3. My speed threshold is around a 7/10. I will say "clear" if it gets too fast. If you are reading analytics, please put them in the document if you gonna Zoom through them, but if you really want to make me happy, just slow down on them. If you make me type out 5 perms that I have to remember by memory as you speed through them, I will probably not even attempt to flow them. The rule here is to be reasonable to me.

General Things

1. Policy (Case, DA, CP) - I love a good case debate to weigh against a few disads and a counterplan. This is going to be where you get my best quality of judging. I'm a sucker for specific links; although generics aren't terrible, I will reward specifics and good evidence quality. I will make a big sad face if case is completely ignored after the neg block seems to happen in half the rounds I judge. As far as counterplans go, I'm cool with advantage and process counterplans unless I'm given a reason not to be. This extends to conditionality as well.

2. T- I have to admit topicality is very uninteresting. Its literally the same generic files being read every time, which really isn't the fault of anyone; I just have heard the same thing for a while now. Long story short, I prefer competing interps, but I can be sympathetic toward reasonability. Not a huge RVI guy I already find T to be painful so if your trying to bait T I'm probably not gonna be enthusiastic about it. In all seriousness, if you gonna go for T, I need good work to be done on the violation and standards.

3. Theory - I have a lot of the same thoughts on theory as I do on T (shocker). Out-of-round abuses or before-round abuses are a little tricky to handle screenshots would be great for something like disclosure theory if you want to run that. I am EXTREMELY sympathetic to voting for an issue that was mentioned either on tabroom or verbally before the round that then became an abuse such as speed, pronouns, disability etc...... Just be smart, and this should never be an issue for you. That aside, most theory is really bad and is either bait or just awful interps. I'm definitely sympathetic towards reasonability and prefer to drop the argument, not the team, outside of the previously mentioned arguments.

4. K-I'm familiar with a certain level of K lit. Anything going into some deep epistemological grounds or just outright obscure, you're going to need to explain to me. Really good, specific links will get you in a good place with me right off the bat. The alt, I think, deserves some more nuance than it seems to get. If it's uber vague, tell me at least why it's sufficient to solve. Yes, weigh the aff unless I'm told otherwise. Yes perms but please explain how they function saying a perm then moving on isn't persuasive to me.

5. K affs- I will be upfront about this Im probably not your guy for this if it makes you feel any better I have voted for some K affs before. These rounds just usually get into some lit I'm not familiar with and get so fast, especially on the T framing, that I just get cooked. AC advocacy needs to be clear. Again good links matter to me. Your TVA responses should probably be really good unless you want me to find easy reason to vote neg. Most Importantly, I need to know what the K does and need some level of solvency from the K.

Traditional LD

Only Warning

I will NOT hesitate to drop anyone who spreads or engages in debate practices that would not be persuasive or understandable to a reasonable person—this is not negotiable. Please do not see my policy background or circuit LD experience as an invitation to make this round uninteresting for everyone involved. I do not think it's impressive to win the flow while making the debate as inaccessible as possible for your opponent.

General Things

1. If you signpost, extend your arguments, try not to drop stuff, and give an offensive reason why I should vote for you as opposed to a defensive one, you'll be in very good shape. (Offense = why I'm winning, Defense = why I'm not losing)

2. I generally evaluate things sequentially. I use who's value/criterion or framework is winning to determine which arguments and impacts to weigh and, subsequently, who's won the ballot. This means framework in and of itself is not a voter, but it has a massive impact on who wins my ballot. For example, if you're winning the aff leads to extinction but you've conceded a Kant FW, you'll probably lose.

3. Good debaters have consistency between their value/criterion or framework and their contentions. If you're reading Kant and then a bunch of util arguments, I might cry.

4. I prefer more principled and philosophical arguments in trad LD. If the debate does become a question about the consequences of adopting some policy, I prefer empirical studies and examples over random predictions without evidence. This is not to say I don't enjoy analytics with good warrants.

Public Forum Debate

1. If I don't get a framework, I will default to utilitarianism for my framing. If you don't want me to do that, you should give me a framework.

2. DON'T paraphrase evidence. (Unfortunately, this seems to be a big problem specifically in PFD.) For the love of god, please, when you read cards, cite the author properly and read a cut version of the evidence. If I get a paraphrasing of evidence, I will be very inclined to vote you down

3. Don't make PFD complicated. If you cover the flow well, weigh impacts, and crystalize your most important arguments in your final speech. You will be in an excellent position to win my ballot.

Debate is fundamentally a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized – speaking effectively to persuade or influence the judge.

As such, please do not speak at a pace that is not understandable to the average person or read arguments that are detached from the resolution in question.

It is your job as a debater to persuade me, meaning you also carry the responsibility to explain all the arguments presented.

I request that you maintain a healthy relationship with evidence - if you are going to make a claim, support it with evidence. Alternatively, if your opponent states something that is within the canon of common knowledge, please do not demand that they cite it. (i.e. do not demand evidence for the claim that Paris is the capital of France.)

Provide clear voters and an explanation of why you should win the round.

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

Lincoln Douglas /Public Forum Debate

I prefer a more conversational approach to debate, as opposed to spreading. A few well developed and explained arguments are often more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments that are less well developed. Debating debate for debate's sake misses the point of these events.

In Lincoln Douglas the Value & Criterion framework is key to weighing the round. This framework should be extended through the round. Philosophy and moral arguments are fundamental to Lincoln Douglas Debate. Linking impacts and drawing logical, reasonable conclusions earns points with this judge.

I'm less impressed by the "card shuffle" than by reasoning, impacts, and solid argumentation.

Individual Events

A Note On Trigger Warnings

By knowingly and intentionally bringing a piece that can and will trigger people, you have made the room a potentially unsafe for participants. By asking people who will be triggered to leave the room, you are singling out people with trauma and making their private matters public.Tournaments are public and educational - asking people to leave a round denies them access to the educational environment.

Issuing a trigger warning does not solve the problem of choosing traumatic content that could harm the mental health of competitors in the round. These are not "magic words" that absolve you of the responsibility of your choices. If you want to show that you care about triggering people, don't select triggering content.

I would strongly advise choosing appropriate, non-vulgar and non-triggering content appropriate to the educational setting that can evoke emotion and showcase your talent without knowingly & intentionally traumatizing other students and judges who may choose to suffer rather than singling themselves out in public, or being denied fair access to the educational setting by being asked to leave.

My name is Petra [Pay-truh] (she/her). I graduated from the University of Oklahoma with a degree in Sociology with a focus in Criminology and have worked in financial crime detection and investigations. Should you feel the need to know my qualifications, I have 9 years of experience with Policy/CX and 7 of PF & LD. I competed in CX in high school, qualified to NSDA 2x, had a TOC bid, placed 3rd at state in CX, was a state quarterfinalist in LD, and have coached CX, LD, PF, and Congress. Affiliations: Cheyenne East (my alma mater) '12-'16, Edmond Santa Fe (individuals) '16-'17, Norman North '18 - present. I have been lucky enough to coach students who have advanced to semi-finals in Congressional Debate at nationals, late out-rounds in LD and PF at nationals, and late out-rounds in LD, PF, and CX at the state level.

I tend to default to policymaking, but my primary evaluation and if no debater has clearly won or told me where and why to vote, I will default to stock issues. If the aff hasn't upheld their obligation of affirming the resolution (or providing a solid case why they shouldn't), I will presume negative. I’m not a fan of vulgarity in-round. Please time yourself. Open Cross is okay, but if you don't engage or talk over your partner your points will reflect that. If you bring spectators, they must be respectful of all competitors and judges.

Speed is fine, I prefer slow on plan/advocacy statements and tags/authors. Use an indicator when switching between tags and arguments. Clarity is key to getting on the flow. I will say clear once, and if I can't decipher you after that I stop flowing you.

In the era of online debate, I suggest recording your speeches just in case of tech difficulties. I will adhere to all tournament guidelines regarding competition and tech issues. Slow down for the sake of mic processing. You probably don't need all 10 DAs. Please try your best to keep your cameras on, I understand this is not always possible.

Policy - My background is in traditional policy debate. I am well-versed in topicality and straight policy, but I will listen to just about anything you can and want to run. I appreciate creativity in debate. Cool with Ks and theory, but I have a high threshold for in-round abuse. Not a fan of plan+ / plan inclusive anything. Tell me where to vote and why.

Cross:It's probably binding, and often underutilized. Make it strategic - analyze the links, perms, make your opponents prove their solvency. If you’re being shifty and don't know what you're talking about, your opponent doesn't know what you're talking about, and I definitely don't know what you're talking about. For the love of all things sacred, don't be a jerk.

CPs: You must have a plan text and a net benefit. Tell me why it's competitive. You should probably have a really good solvency advocate. Full disclosure, I think I have only ever voted for one PIC, I think that a perm makes this a pretty easy win for Aff. I don't believe States CP gets to fiat all 50 states + relevant US territories (unless you have a decent theory shell, in which case go for it).

DAs: I love me some case-specific DA's. Do the impact analysis!! Aff too. For the love of all things holy, please make it a complete argument. I don't love seeing a 10-off 1NC with severely underdeveloped DAs that lack links and UQ.

Kritiks: I have a solid technical understanding of K's but don’t know all theory/philosophy. I'm not a philosophy hack; I won't do the work for you. It's critical that you understand what your advocacy is. If you don't know/understand, I don't want to vote for it. PLEASE don't read a K because you think I want to hear one. I would much rather hear a good, in-depth debate about what you're good at. If your K is about debate being irredeemable and a black hole...consider who your audience is. I've dedicated almost half my life to the activity and understand that it can be made better, so let's put in the work to make it better.

Topicality: Good. Great. I typically default to competing interpretations. It's not (usually) a RVI. Just like anything, read it only if you understand which violation you're reading and if there is clear abuse. You need standards. I have a higher threshold for FXT and XT because of how policymaking typically operates in the real world, but if you feel there is clear in-round abuse, knock yourself out.

Theory: Most of the theory debates I see are bad. That makes me sad - I like theory. I will listen to some well-thought-out theory any day of the week. I will consider any discourse args on reasons to reject a team, so long as their impacted out. Don't be racist/sexist, etc. Not a huge fan of framework debates because I see very few that are good. I tend to vote for world v world and real-world impacts anyway. Neg worlds should probably be cohesive, unless you have a theory shell to backup why not.

Misc: Don't be mean. Don't cheat. I'll call you on stealing prep. If you do it after I call you on it I have no issue auto-dropping you. I don't want to have to read the evidence - you should be explaining it. Post-rounding (asking questions is fine - I will be more than happy to explain my thought process - I'm talking about arguing or bringing up things you should have used to answer but didn't) won't change my ballot but will guarantee you'll get the lowest speaks possible. If you run wipeout, you better have a dang good warrant and dang good framework shell to run with it.

LD:- I did traditional LD in high school. I look for lots of work on the framework debate and framework/case interaction. If you're about progressive debate, that's cool too - but I would like to see your version of framework or a role of the ballot. I don't really want to see a CP, DA or K read with zero interaction with the resolution or aff, but if you have one with a good argument, I'm open to it. Please dont just run a K/theory shell because you think that's what I want to hear - do what you do :)

PF: See: LD, Policy. Theory is cool, and welcomed, here too. Disclosure/paraphrasing theory - I have a high threshold of abuse here as well. Progressive/fast is cool. Traditional is cool too. Again, Please dont just run a K/theory shell because you think that's what I want to hear - do what you do :)

TLDR; If there is no clear reason given for me to vote on either side, I will default to stock issues because it is what I know the best. Does aff meet their minimum requirements of affirmation? Does the negative do their job of negating the resolution/the aff? Do the off-case arguments link? Are alternatives mutually exclusive? Do the alternatives solve the aff? Impact it out. In-round, fiated implementation, and on the flow. For everything. Don't steal prep. If you have any specific questions, please ask! my email for chains and questions: petracvc@gmail.com

Most importantly, have fun, and be kind to one another! Happy debating! - P :)

Northwestern University 

Norman '18

3rd Place LD NSDA Nationals. A Bid here or there. 6 Years Debating LD.

Email (Include me in Chains): matthewylie@gmail.com

------------

Bullet Point Version:

- I am an experienced debater who dealt primarily in more “traditional” styles personally, but is well versed in virtually all forms of LD

- Tech > Truth. However do not construe this to mean that you are immune from your opponent pointing out falsehoods.

- I will hear all forms of arguments, but vastly prefer topic based debate to a K that could be run on any topic (see bolded sections below)

(Generally I like Phil > “Traditional” > Policy/LARP > K > Theory, but that doesn’t mean Theory couldn't beat Phil in front of me by any stretch of the imagination)

- Impacts are important, framing even more so. Write the ballot for me at all times possible. I default comparative worlds, but can be easily convinced to become a truth-tester with the proper framing mechanism. Other rolls of the ballot aren't off the table, but are less likely to be included in my RFD. 19 times out of 20 I will evaluate the round through the perspective of the winning framework, if you lose the framework debate make sure you access your opponent's framing or the ballot will be over.

- Speed is fine, will yell clear twice before I stop flowing, and would like a doc to follow along if possible (see below for details). If the only reason you are spreading is to read multiple versions of the same card/warrant/link, expect me to nag you about it after round.

- Theory ideally should only be deployed in cases of real abuse rather than in every round. In general I default drop the arg, RVIs are acceptable but require justification.

- If you have questions please ask, more than happy to answer

------------

Long Form:

I come from a more traditional HS debate background in Oklahoma, however I also engaged with progressive debate at the national level and dabbled heavily with the arguments -if not the style- of circuit debate.

I believe debate is an academic game that requires you to adapt to the judges in front of you, but that judges must also adapt to their surroundings. If I'm at a circuit tournament I will be much more sympathetic to progressive argumentation then if I'm at a small traditional tournament and vice versa.

Like most judges, I still have some opinions:

The Aff generally has the burden to uphold the desirability of the resolution whereas the Neg generally must disprove the resolution through presenting reasons as to why that desirability does not withstand scrutiny or some other procedural objection. Hence I am disinclined to listen to non-topical cases though I will not vote you down for it at face value. Non-topical (or loosely topical) offs urging me to "change the debate space" which have been being read for years if not decades with little to no affect on the debate space or society writ-large are rarely convincing to me and I only tend to vote off them if they are very weakly or not contested; the resolution asks a morality question within itself, there is more or less always plenty of ground to attack systemic issues through the lens of the resolution itself instead of trying to force the debate space beyond the general obligations of your opponent (e.g. links of omission).

I really really want to evaluate the round through someone's FW/Framing, otherwise will default to comparative worlds. Impacting is one of the most important parts of debate, and I believe that impacting is done best when it is done with a framing mechanism that truly highlights your impacts and position as correct and desirable. Framing usually defines the roll of the ballot for me, and I will evaluate the round through the winning FW unless it is essentially ignored as an issue by both debaters in which case I will default comparative worlds.

I'm inclined to go for arguments rooted in logic. This is not the same thing as an argument being carded and I have heard some of the best arguments in round made purely analytically and plenty of terrible carded ones. This is also not the same as an argument being realistic, as realistically pretty much nothing is going to end in extinction impacts, but I would prefer to not have to stretch my imagination when it comes to your Links.

I guess this makes me mostly Tech > Truth, but don't make claims that straight-up defy logic (a real example: Our mothers are actually hippopotamuses and the government is lying to us about it).

If you have any specific arguments you aren’t sure about running in front of me, ask. I tried writing about each individual type of arguments and couldn’t figure out a way to do it that didn’t involve creating a full manifesto.

Go nuts. Have fun.

------------

On Speaker Points and Speed:

Speaker points have always seemed to me to be incredibly subjective so I will probably be relatively subjective with them as well. I give points more often to debaters who show that they actually understand the arguments they are making through: on-the-fly analysis, cutting cross-examination, and adaptation of their own case to generate offense against their opponent. I also, shockingly, give points for being a good orator: clear tags, changes in speaking pace and intonation, emphasizing the big picture without succumbing to the tendency to think that louder = more important.

Spreading is, in my opinion, kind of dumb, and antithetical to the things I tend to award speaker-points for. It removes the need for the debaters to stand up and speak in the first place when I could (and indeed will probably have to) just read your doc instead.

Spreading is not a reason to vote anyone down on face certainly, but I didn’t particularly see a need for going past the speed an average person could comprehend while I was debating even if my opponent was going at top speed. I will be more impressed with you if you go efficiently down the flow rather than quickly (though of course a quick 1AR is implicit to the event at this point). Basically 99% of the time you can spread in front of me with no impact on my decision, but don't be surprised if it's a low point win if your opponent is keeping up with you in spite of not spreading, or if your opponent compellingly argues theory as to why spreading is a voting issue make sure you respond or you could end up in that 1% of times.

Be nice, roadmap clearly, have good presence, breathe. You’ll be on the way to high speaks for sure :)