I mostly judge Lincoln Douglas, but I have coached all events offered by the NSDA and the OSSAA. I was the coach at Cascia Hall from 2007-2021 and have worked at the Tulsa Debate League since 2023.

I am more comfortable with a more traditional style of debate, but will make my best effort to judge the round in front of me, even if it isn't stylistically what I am most comfortable with. That being said, no matter what style you prefer, debate is pretty much the same. Tell me how to make an evaluation and then tell me why you win under that evaluation.

If you have more specific questions, I'm happy to answer them before the round begins if all competitors are present.

My name is Valery and I'm a senior at Jenks High School going into my third year of policy as a 2a! Im not going to pretend that im a complete blank slate when judging and have no internal biases bcs thats not true, to me thats kinda impossible but i will try my best to adapt to the round and evaluate things to my best-- im not perfect and no where near the fairly knowledgeable in debate so i may mess up and if you genuinely think i made a bad decision feel free to email me after the round when the anger has subsided and we can both try to understand the round more and make this a better space. Heres my email for disclosure vgdebate25@gmail.com -- and what i like seeing in rounds:

PF: pls way your impacts-- the biggest thing i see and hear abt novice pf are debaters not weighing their impacts. Listen to your coach bcs they are definitely more knowledgeable when it come to teaching debate but i personally believe that when starting out you wont understand the other more techy parts of debate and it makes a judges life easier when making a decision after round.

LD: I'm a little more familiar with ld, but i still need a lot of explanation and analysis with value and criterion-- and i will evaluate on the flow so just do whatever you're comfortable with. Again be nice to your opponent, especially since you're probably in novice as your reading this and it's everyone's first few times!

Policy: I do mostly policy stuff when debating but I am familiar with kritical stuff if that's what you're into:

Ks: I like Ks, i am comfortable with cap to a degree and i ran fem ir during the nato topic a lot (basically a type of security k so im cool with that too). Run whatever you want but keep in mind im not going to be an expert or even know every single lit base, especially if its really niche. I get confused by FW a lot so try to make it clear on my flow so that i dont evaluate it incorrectly-- and dont have a k overview thats going to fill up 2 pages of my flow-- i rather you do the line by line rather than answer everything messily in the overviews.

CPs: I personally don't believe in a lot of cp abuse stories and think that the aff needs to win something more substantive on the counterplan, but i am willing to hear it out and maybe vote if you do enough work on it.

DA: I feel like clear analysis in a DA debate has become under appreciated. Don’t just tagline debate your 1NC shell the entire round— give me the warrants of the cards and cross apply it to specific areas of the Aff. Impact weighing is huge here, if i’m in a round where the 2ar and 2nr simply shadow extend their impacts (i.e. “climate change is bad" and "war is bad") and don’t actually extend the warrants as to why that’s bad then i’m just left with deciding what I personally think is worse and you don’t want that— i dont want to be interventionist so your last rebuttal should in a way write my ballot for me.

Topicality: Ive come to realize that high school debaters tend to underestimate topicality when on the aff and the 2n's usually dont go for it unless its against a planeless aff or if the other team straight up dropped it. I like T, i feel like neg should be going for it more bcs its strategic and its fairly easy to evaluate it coming out of the 1ar and 2nr-- sometimes 2ar pivots a fun to watch but the 1ar still has to do the work to get there. Idk what else to say, my 2n partner hates to say it but hes a t debater at heart so ive been in a lot of rounds where its been the 2nr if that helps when deciding what you're gonna run.

Procedurals: some theory args is find not believable like PIC's bad bcs i feel like the aff should be able to defend laterally what they wrote in their plantext. But if something is droped i believe it to be a true arg and if the aff does work and mentions you drop it that means that i vote aff in that scenario. Condo should be a "condo good/bad" debate, minus one condo good debates are dumb to me to a degree but again do the work on it.

Main notes:

-Be nice-- to your opponents (there is an exception were they've said something insanely socially problematic and they seem to defend it/dont apologize about it), to your partner (the amount of time ive seen debaters be mean to their partners is crazy to me), and to me.

-Cross isn't supposed to be aggressive it's supposed to be informational and is binding if your opponent brings it up in the next speech

-Sometimes you need a break so taking a second of prep before any speech or cross is fine

-Don't say anything any-phobic or any-ist

-High speaks are just anyone who tries and isn't rude in round

-Id say my speed tolerance is a 8/10-- but i still like having the doc in case the debate ends up being around a specific card and both teams have different interpretations of it. I also am a firm believer of disclosing analytics if you have them, especially if you're going to go max speed and in novice.

undebatable things

tech (in terms of tech/truth, i believe the term 'truth judging' is actual nonsense). this means i evaluate everything unless tab forces me not to (violent behavior or arguments that have been explicitly highlighted by tab to stop for are them 'forcing me')---anything else is NOT tech

if something tab says is bad happens, i stop the round. if you think something bad enough has happened or that i missed it, stop the round and point it out to me. tab will still decide lol. if tab refuses to decide, the team that stops loses and ill give speaks based on the number of speeches given.

some people say 'im tech because dropped arguments are true' and then say 'but an argument is ONLY a claim and a warrant.' this is nonsense. in semantics we have propositions, and both the 'claim' and the 'warrant' are propositions. the warrant is a proposition that is purported to justify the claim, but that warrant also seems to require further justification. thus if we mandate warrants we must either 'warrant down' propositions until a self-evident truth appears (something i can look at and establish as unequivocally true), or pick an arbitrary point to stop. this means there are three models of debate here. i call them: constructivism (all propositions are assumed to be true), arbitrary nonsense (requiring X amount of 'warrants down'), or destructivism (propositions must be proven absolutely true). i think destructivism is impossible for two reasons. A. self-evident truth doesn't exist; B. even if it does, there's not enough of it to establish all of the claims we need for modern debate. arbitrary nonsense is very bad for infinitely many reasons, but we should isolate a few. i think it is formally incoherent in that whatever number of "warrants down" required should also apply the bottom of the warrant chain, thus invalidating any chain of logic. i also think that it is arbitrary in that like, saying "you only need to justify the proposition one level down" (which is the most common view) is no different than saying "i need three levels down." this also doesn't solve the problem of warrantless claims, because any proposition can be purported to be a justification for another i.e. "you should vote aff because pigs are green."

^ in this model, spamming arguments like "you should vote neg because [something that does not imply the first proposition]" is answered by "group the vote neg arguments---their warrants don't logically imply that you should vote neg, but our arguments do." alternatively, i think "go to the vote neg stuff. group these---warrantless" also answers it well enough.

dropped propositions are true

^ the only exception to this model is unjustified 'new' propositions made in the 2AR---these get excluded because the negative does not have an opportunity to respond

i think a proposition is 'new' when it appears in a speech and has not appeared in any prior speech. i do not, by default, exclude new propositions in any speech except the 2AR without justification for why i should---HOWEVER, i think justifying this past the 1NR is so easy you should basically never lose.

i think new propositions are justified whenever they contradict or qualify a new proposition made by the opponent in the prior speech. that includes claims they make about your stuff.

when writing the ballot, i only evaluate propositions that are in the final rebuttals.

some people say they have 'defaults' when they judge a debate. this is not full tech judging, because it includes a certain bias (though minor and forgivable). default enjoyers might object to me and argue that in a DA vs case debate, neither side establishes util as a reason to vote either way---thus, defaultless judges should have no way to vote.

to resolve this, i believe that debaters can make 'implied propositions'---for example, the proposition 'you should vote aff because our plan prevents 500 people from dying" implies that i should vote aff if the plan prevents people from dying. the proposition "you should actually vote neg because the plan causes 1000 people to die" forwards that instead, i should vote aff if the planNET prevents people from dying. the affirmative has two responses to this: agree to this weighing and contest the death count, or contest the weighing. most affirmatives agree to the weighing, and thus my 'default' has been establishes. these things tend to work themselves out in real debates.

'dropped' propositions occur when a speech articulates them, and then by the next speech of that same side, the opponent has articulated no proposition that contradicts or qualifies those propositions.

0% risk of a proposition being true is only possible if the claim that it is untrue is dropped. 100% risk of a proposition being true is only possible if the claim that it is true is dropped. so long as there is a proposition that contradicts or qualifies a proposition (even if one of them is MUCH stronger: i.e. "nuclear war causes extinction by creating ash clouds that drop global food supply which causes a cycle of further nuclear escalation until all food is gone and everybody is dead" vs "no it doesn't because uhhh... i forgor"---the nuclear war = extinction enjoyed has about a 99.99999% risk of their proposition here, but not 100%), it will never be 100% true.

evidence hasNO special status to me as a judge unless tab forces me to give it special consideration (ev ethics) or you say i should somehow. i think that in a model where both teams send evidence without debating about it, citations are inserted, analytic arguments that increase the veracity of the paragraphs under them (your author quals, date, etc make your propositions more credible!). however, i don't think there's any reason that debaters can't just paste an author's words as an analytic--you could read a 1AC stripped of all citations and i would just eval it as if its propositions are slightly less credible. sidenote: i do not actually weigh the propositions under ev as being truer unless brought up, or unless im told to look at them as inserted stuff, ie "our ev is from two days ago," or "look at this author's quals---we're right." the other team can contest this.

a ballot is justified by claiming that i should vote aff or neg (sometimes this is implied)

X% risk i should vote AFF implies (100-X)% risk i should vote NEG

if it is 50% for both, this state is equivalent to both sides being silent (neither justifying anything), in that case i vote NEG because i expected the AFF to justify something first

if a ballot has not been justified for either side by the end of the round, i vote NEG. this is not because of a 'resolutional burden of proof,' but because the affirmative speaks first and thus i expected them to say something before i expected the negative to. rounds, where both teams sit down immediately instead of speaking and forgo cross-examination, are good examples of this, as are rounds where the affirmative gets up and gently speculates about the dearest emotions of colors without saying that this is a reason to affirm. i think this is an important distinction. ill construct some model rounds below after clarifications

Round #1

1AC: Red is an angry color.

1NC: Silence

2AC: Red is an angry color.

2NC: Silence

1NR: Silence

1AR: Red is an angry color.

2NR: Silence

2AR: Red is an angry color.

Ballot: Neg.

Round #2

1AC: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

1NC: Silence

2AC: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

2NC: Silence

1NR: Silence

1AR: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

2NR: Silence

2AR: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

Ballot: Aff.

Round #3

(You get the idea.)

AFF: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

NEG: Silly! Voting AFF doesn't follow from that.

Ballot: Aff.(Why?: AFF has articulated the proposition that I should vote AFF because red is an angry color. The NEG points out that this justification doesn't imply that I should vote AFF. However, the NEG never articulates why I should vote NEG, and the AFF continues to argue that red being an angry color means I should vote AFF. This means I believe that there is a very low risk the AFF proposition is true, and a very high risk the NEG proposition is true. Because there is a very TINY reason to vote AFF, and no reason not to, I vote AFF.)

Round #4

AFF: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

NEG: Blue is a sad color so you should vote NEG.

Ballot: Neg.(Why?: This debate is the type that drives me insane. Because the risk that I should vote for either side is equal, I vote NEG because nothing has been justified and I expected something from the AFF first.)

Round #5

AFF: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

NEG: Silly! Voting AFF doesn't follow from that. Blue is a sad color so you should vote NEG.

Ballot: Neg.(Why?: The likelihood that I should vote AFF is mitigated by the NEG proposition that it doesn't follow from red being an angry color. The likelihood that I should vote NEG is unmitigated.}

Round #6

1AC: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

NEG: Silly! Voting AFF doesn't follow from that. Blue is a sad color so you should vote NEG.

Subsequent AFF: Silly! Voting NEG doesn't follow from that. Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

Ballot: Neg.(Why?: This is equivalent to Round #4 risk-wise, which triggers a NEG ballot.)

debatable things

debate seems to make the most sense whenever affirmative teams justify the resolution's truth. the resolution is an ambiguous proposition and topical plans are examples of that proposition alone.

Extra-T: i do not believe that extra-T is a relevant remark personally. consider:

X = The resolution should occur.

Y = Some certain extra-topical action is occurring.

In the case where the extra-topical action is the difference between winning or losing substantively (the only case that matters), the logic can be constructed as:

If Y, then X.

However, Y is not true because the extra-topical action is not occurring. Thus, the only relevant deciding factor of the substantive debate ought to be the topical portion of the plan. if the negative doesn't make this argument, I'll eval it. i have not seen a good response to it though. i guess you could say "ignore logical implications because it's... [X procedural benefit]" but i think the neg arg that this nukes all debate forever is strong.

kaff: i am very bad in these debates because i think that (and i may just be stupid) debaters rarely set up a clear 'win condition' for me to evaluate, so i end up kind of screwed. i think if you are a kritikal affirmative you should be very explicit "we win if we prove that X is good..." etc

avg speaks is 28.5 or 3 in oklahoma

Oklahoma speaks guide:

1 - you were not only a bad debater, but your behavior in this round particularly irked me

2 - bad debating

3 - fine debating

4 - good debating

i think trufanov's ontology of debate arguments is important, but slightly incorrect in places.

the plan is a 'mandate'---something that must always occur in the world the aff weighs. the most likely occurrences surrounding the plan are 'normal means.' CPs must compete by having a net benefit predicated on the exclusion of some mandate in the plan. DAs, on the other hand, can link only to normal means functions of the AFF, but the probability of that normal means function would mitigate those DAs.

positionality is a bad model, planicality is alright, resolutionality is prob true (https://substack.com/home/post/p-139810565).

CPs: textual comp is incoherent, truf is probably right that functions like not doing whatever is implied in an "only if" CP are extractable for perms

CPs IMO do not rejoin the plan. this view has multiple justifications but is much too complex to articulate here. going for this arg in front of me is honestly likely to persuade me if you debate it well technically and i wont reject it. i have not yet seen a good answer to it.

Ks: non-FW Ks lose to affs that know how impacts and weighing works (there is NO WAY the rev happens fast enough to solve the 'root cause' of imminent Iranian escalation). FW Ks i THINK lose to FW when evenly debated. im not 100% sure. good K debaters are better technically than their opponent---Ks are cheating and that's not a bad thing. the block should be chock full of tricks and the 2NR should go for whichever trick the AFF mishandled.

procedurals come before substantive debate

Debate: I am not particularly picky on anything, but please be respectful to your opponent(s). Feel free to run progressive arguments, but beware that I may not get them if you aren't clear.

LD: Make sure to clarify how your criterion supports your contentions! Also, don’t drop all your contentions for the sake of the value debate. Do not make all of your arguments cross-applications of your own case unless there is a legitimate clash. I vote primarily on the quality of coverage.

PF: Any speaking speed is fine, just make sure you are coherent. A heated cross-examination is fine but please don’t spend the entire time yelling at each other. I vote on the quality of evidence and general coverage.

I want to hear you speak clearly and with confidence! Spreading is not my favorite to see but you can do it as long as you sign post. Eye contact is important to me and etiquette matters above all else. Be kind and cordial to your opponent(s). Just do your best and have fun :)

LD: I'm pretty traditional. I like values and criteria and evidence and clash. If you read a K or a bedtime narrative, I will stop flowing the round and take a nap. I have a speed threshold of "don't" and if you could please keep the jargon to a minimum, that would be great. Theory is cool, in theory, but it shouldn't be an entire framework. I like long walks on the beach, and a good tennis match. Also, don't shake my hand at the end of the round.

PF: Um....win more arguments than the other team. Go. Fight. Win.

Hello, my name is Samuel Meier (in round please refer to me as "judge" and my preferred pronouns are he/him if you choose to approach/contact me out of round). I was a student at Jenks High School with 4 years experience in Lincoln-Douglas Debate (LD), 2 years of experience in Domestic Extemporaneous (DEX), 1 year experience in Mock Trial, 1 year experience in Public-Forum (PF), and minor experiences in other events (such as FEX, HD, and some knowledge of other events). I have competed at Nationals, State, Districts, and Regionals prior to this year in debate and went to State finals and Nationals in Mock Trial. I am perusing a double in PolSci and Busi before transferring to Law School (Criminal Prosecutor). If you would like any tips/info then I will help you if you ask. Now straight to the paradigm:

For All Debates -

I will judge based on court rules - I will not do work for either side and exclude my own personal preferences in the debate. As a judge in a debate, I will uphold integrity and independence and avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. I will perform the duty of deciding the round based fairly, impartially, and diligently but include personal critiques outside of the decision in personal virtual commentary or oral feedback with either both opponents present or dismissal of one before commenting to the other and vice versa depending on the comfortability of the competitors and/or coaches/tournament.

In all rounds, I will judge it based on the evidence that is brought up within the round and what is said within the round. If a debater may infer an argument but not extend upon it, then it will be discarded. Also do not ask me to disclose or make public comments on the merits of a matter pending or impending on the round. If it is a novice round, then I may disclose but otherwise, I will not unless recommended by the tournament provider.

In your last speeches, you should always make a big-picture argument about why you should win the debate. If you can't tell me why you should win, you probably shouldn't. I will not vote for a side solely because an argument was dropped or unanswered. The team making an argument has a continuing responsibility to explain 1) why it is true and 2) why it matters. If your opponent drops an argument, you may note that failure to respond and extend the argument through, but you should still make an argument that you're right and that I should care. Remember that I am judging how persuasive your argument is. Cards can provide some support for your argument, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient to make a winning argument. Unless the card is providing hard data, all it proves is that someone said something that you are now saying. It may be more or less helpful, depending on its credibility. Always justify the reasons why your argument is correct. If you can't explain your argument, I won't accept it. Feel free to reference your cards in the debate by their name and date to save time if you prefer so. Note that I may occasionally miss an author or point during the debate but that will not have an impact on the round. A representation of a personal weighing standard is shown below:

For framework (LD) - personal analysis=relevant evidence - Framework > Evidence. For LD I will look into your framework to decide what arguments to consider in the round and then who wins the round.

For debate in general - personal analysis

I’m also not a fan of in-round judge intervention. If you feel like there is a NSDA violation (or whatever the associated debate association may be), then make that argument in round in which depending on the severity, the round will either be stopped, and the violation will be considered within the rulebook or considered at the end of the round.

If there is disclosure before or in round, then please add me to the email chain or whatever form you may be sharing in. My email is samuelbmeier@gmail.com. Upon the event of a debater sharing cards, I will base the “weight” of the card on what is shared. I will still consider the card but if it is low standard then I will not have high expectations for refutations. I may discard the card in the round only if the opposing side points out the flaws that may be in the evidence and not by my own observations.

I can typically keep up in a debate and flow, but I do not base my decision based on how many arguments you can compile on the opposing side. The round will be fully judged on how much you convince the judge.

I do not have any triggers associated with cases, but discriminatory language is not to be used. If you are to use trigger words that many consider, then please use a trigger warning for me and your opponent. I am comfortable at whatever speed you read at and leave the interpretation of the speed up to the debater. If you read too fast, then I may lose details in the debate and if you read too slow then you may not get your point across.

I generally pay attention in the debate so if you fib then you may have reduced speaker points, but it will not lose you the round unless brought up by your opponent.

Additionally:

Tech > Truth

Evidence quality and comparison are very important in the round. You should be constantly telling me why your cards are amazing and maybe better than your opponents or some ignorant person.

If my ballot is not the same as the 2NR/2AR, then something is wrong.

Evidence ethics is important depending on NSDA rules, I may auto-close but allow the debate to continue.

Please don’t ask me to keep time for you. I will keep the official time but do not ask me in a debate to give you time signals or the speech times (exception for novice). I expect you to be familiar with your event enough to keep your own time if you’re in a debate.

This is a pet peeve, DO NOT let your timer continuously go off after a speech. When it goes off then turn it off.

You can use debate lango with me, I've done it for a while, so I think I know almost all the terms whether progress/trad.

If I am smiling, then it doesn't always mean a good thing. Sometimes I could be thinking you're doing something dumb.

Finally, if you try to make friends with me to get the ballot/favor then it won't work. If that is your intention, then forget it. I will make friends, but it will not give you any brownie points.

Traditional Debates -

If you signpost, please extend your arguments, try not to drop anything, and give an offensive reason as to why I should vote for you as opposed to a defensive one as to why you don't lose.

Personally, I consider the finding of the most frivolous extravagant argument that “no one will think of” as misguided. Don’t be afraid to argue those points in front of me but just know I will need more links in the case for further understanding and foundation.

I generally value things sequentially. I use whose value/criterion or framework is winning to determine which arguments and impacts to weigh and subsequently who 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. I will evaluate the round as follows on my ballot:

Whose framework I view from-->what arguments weigh under that framework-->which side wins under this evaluation

I would like to see links and consistency between your framework and your contentions. Read Kant and utilitarianism arguments then I will cry.

Please don’t paraphrase as most debaters may lie in round. I won’t drop you for paraphrasing, but it will hold less weight in the round to me and you will be held to the same standards as if you actually are quoting/cutting the card (NSDA rules [again if brought up by the opponent will I then consider if it is round altering])

Impact calc and evidence comparison is good, and I prefer it. On a personal level, I appeal more to numerical comparison in order to do a good true impact calc.

LD -

For the current LD resolution (SO): so far, I have not developed any preferences over the current topic aside from the following; first, define the limitations of the "right to housing" - is it universal (all throughout the US [no limitations] which is the expected def), US citizens specific, tenant specific, or income specific, etc. Second, please don't run the UDHR as a FW. Third, you can run Maslow (Hierarchy of Needs) but I'm not too familiar with the nuances if you are. Fourth, this topic sounds extremely aff bias and I'll expect "big stick" impacts from the neg in most cases. Polit disads will probably have strong links and I don't imagine negs defending the squo policies of de facto criminalization. Fifth, LD isn't policy orientated so aff don't worry too much unless the neg runs a FW against it (ought implies can [rec Kant]). From a progressive standpoint I'll most likely expect the AHA with hyperspecific polit links or IL/DV. On the neg for progress I expect a CP/Disad structure (such as living wage/UBI [just be careful of perms like the UCC topic]) and most often feasibility arguments (equality fw). Sixth, it appears we are repeating past topics more and this is word for word the 2016 topic. From a surface google search I can already find a ton of cards and I expect some of you to find the same. I won't downvote on your "borrowed" cards/cases, but I recommend doing some of your own work for self-explanatory reasons. Finally, please show what the “right to housing” means - is that equal opportunity, equal access, etc. (nationalizing the housing market or the govt actually ENSURING housing). Honestly a progress plan text wouldn’t be bad in this topic. For progress: cap, HR, humanism, complex systems, coherdian, suffering, morality, ethics, etc. wouldn’t be bad Ks for neg and I’ll probably expect them.

Obviously, since I have competed in LD for a long time then this will be the longest part of the paradigm and will cross apply to the other debates: I appeal more to the traditional style of debaters rather than progressive, and my preference is the appeal although I will not vote against you for being progressive, just remember the importance of some factors. I am comfortable with philosophical debates although I do not have complete extensive knowledge of some philosophers. The ones I am comfortable with are Kant, Aristotle, Rawls, Marx, Mills, Rousseau, Hobbes, Locke, and a couple of others. Although I am in conformity with these authors, I would prefer you to still explain your philosophical standpoint and how it is upheld within your case to follow proper judging. One thing that is a pet peeve for me in LD is when debaters are “attacking” the framework (FW) in the round and compiling inconsequential attacks on the value/criteria (an example would be saying that justice is not achieved because we hurt the economy, hurt society, hurt the environment, and the FW flips, etc.). If you are going to attack specifically on the FW, then make it specific to the FW and not attacks against the case. For criteria attacks I prefer the Pizza Test, Links attacks, Question of the Resolution, Overlimit, Prior Question, Method, Metaethics, Ought Implies Can, Link Comparison, Vagueness, Warrant, and Is/Ought Fallacies. If you don’t know what those are then it’s fine. If you are to use any refutations on the FW, then make sure they are well explained. I believe FW is the most important part of the debate. I prefer a traditional framework, with clear contentions and signposting throughout the round. Remember that LD is value-based, so I will be looking for you to carry your Value/Criterion through the entire round and link all arguments back to this value. Your argument should have a solid framework to support it and it should be topical. I am looking for big-picture arguments, so please don't get lost in the minute details. Explain, support, and defend each of your arguments. Show me how your argument applies to the topic, your position, your opponent's position, and the impacts. Don’t worry about covering the whole flow. Pick some points you want to win over and go for it. If you run counter plans remember that the neg's job is to negate the resolution. If your counterplan gives me no reason to reject the resolution, or if the aff makes a persuasive perm I probably won't vote neg on the counterplan. The counterplan must be thorough and exclusive otherwise I will probably not vote on it. When you are the affirmative, I do reside over you the burden of proof. Although this may seem unfair, it is your obligation to prove the resolution sufficient to affirm and give me no reason to automatically default the ballot to the negative even if you are evenly matched. For the negative, I don't expect you to prove the resolution true nor uphold necessarily the other side. To put this in perspective for anyone who thinks that that is vague or unfair, what I am saying is that the negative is negating the WHOLE resolution. For instance, if the resolution is, "Resolved: The United States ought to prioritize x over y." then I don't feel it is your initial obligation to uphold y in the resolution but only prove why it is immoral to prioritize x. Now if the affirmative prove that x is better than y in some way then I feel you must prove y to be better than x or why the squo is better than x. If the resolution is about the moral obligation of an institution, then note that I may accidentally take a form of a "culturally imperialistic" stance from my innate bias that may influence all of focus of actors. I am not familiar with an absorbent number of countries and their histories, policies, governments, etc. and so I fear that if the resolution debates from a moral obligation, then I may judge from my own United States perspective. On the other hand, if it is a resolution of practicality, then I will try to judge from the actor's point of view. To make debaters more comfortable, I will try to reside the personal foundation of your topic enough to understand it and what the resolution is talking about for a background but that does not diminish your clarification. If you run a Kritik (K) and you feel confident in your K, I will listen to it like any other argument. In my view, a winning K is pertinent to the affirmative case and/or the resolution in general and has a clear, feasible alternative. If you run a K with an argument that contradicts the K, then I will not consider the K. I've rarely voted neg because of a K, mostly because negative teams tend not to run them well. If you don't understand the Kritik well enough to explain it, don't run it. Normally I would prefer for the debaters to clearly and concisely state the resolution and the resolution terms but as I am in debate then it is not as much of an obligation of understanding. When defining the resolution terms, I would not recommend defining every word in the resolution as you lose the judge's attention after a while. Just get the key terms in. When hearing your case, I will be looking for you to define your values. Did the arguments present focus on the values implicit in the resolution? Is the case itself cohesive? If your value is not defined in the round and is not upheld within your case, then it will not be considered. If you just state your value is Morality without substance, then I will not like you. You can run morality (and other abstract values) just know it is completely subjective and broad so I may side with the opposing side with the interpretation of it unless you define Morality in which case you should probably change your value. When establishing a criterion for the resolution I expect the basis of the value to be proven to be important by one debater or the other. The criteria should be the lens in which you observe your value and that is how I will observe it. So, if I evaluate through the lens of mitigating structural violence, then only arguments that link to that will be observed. If you do not have linkage to your FW in the debate, then I may discard the FW of that side. The main question I am looking to be answered in weighing importance is: Are the values advocated in support of the resolution more important than the values diminished by the resolution, or are alternative values supported by the negative enhanced by the resolution? I also expect the debaters to apply their FW throughout the entire debate. If you are running observations, I am personally against using above 3 prongs and 3 observations in the round and especially if they are inconsequential. If you do state an observation in the round, then I expect it to be mentioned later on and be an important topic of the debate. If you mention a prong, then I expect it to be upheld and clearly told how it is so. When arguing I expect there to be proof of your argument. Did the evidence presented pragmatically justify the affirmative or negative stance? Did the reasoning presented philosophically justify the affirmative or negative stance? Refutations should include a claim, data, and warrant format. If any are excluded, then I will have less of a regard for the arguments. If you bring up a specific numerical impact analysis, then I will effectively view that as a higher standard than implicated impacts in the round. That being said, be considerate of what impacts you choose and don't make them inconsequential/the same as your others. When you are refuting, I don’t necessarily need hard analytics or evidence in the arguments unless needed although refer to top of the paradigm for my system of weighing. Simple logistical refutations are great. But for example: If your opponent says that the economy is boosted by said action by 30% and you say that the economy is not boosted then I expect there to be analytical evidence supporting your argument about how it is harmed by said action unless it is common sense in which you should still explain. I expect your arguments to be organized and ideas presented clearly, in logical sequence, and with proper appropriate emphasis. If your case does not include an impact, then it gives me no reason to vote for your case as it gives me no reason to care. For extending, clashing, and rebuttals I expect the sides to fulfill their obligations. Did the debaters fulfill their obligation to extend their own arguments? Did they appropriately refute the contentions of their opponents by exposing weaknesses or inconsistencies? I also consider the presentation of the debater for speaker points. Speaker points do not dictate who wins the debate but rather who was the better speaker. That being said, speaker points are determined as follows:

Expression: Were language, tone, and emphasis appropriate to persuasive communication? Please be respectful at all times.

Delivery: Were gestures, movement, and eye contact audience-oriented and contained natural persuasive communication components?

Rate: Was the rate of delivery conducive to audience understanding? (Spreading may not be feasible under virtual conditions.) If there is a virtual tournament, then I will not hold technical difficulties against your speaker points and prefer you to keep your camera on. Also, definitions should not be abusive and if they are then I may not consider them as much in the round.

Note that I am generally very liberal with how many speaks I give out just because I understand that some judges give more speaks out than others so unless I really am considering it, then I will give you full speaks.

PFD -

I'm looking for strong initial arguments that will be crystallized as the round goes on, and I expect your final speech to contain an explanation why you should win. I am looking for big picture arguments, so please don't get lost in the minute details. Explain, support, and defend each of your arguments. Show me how your argument applies to the topic, your position, your opponent's position and the impacts. I don't mind speed as long as you are clear; I hate speed if you're bad at speed. Please reference the above listings under LD for further preferences and please don't make messy rebuttals. In general, just make god arguments, give me some clash, contextualize your topic well, and you should be fine. I like some framing in PF, especially when you’re talking about foreign policy. Also be careful in CX: you should be asking each other questions not having a conversation.
And a note about generalized solutions, BE CAREFUL. I really have mixed feelings about these, and you may well have to defend the concept of a generalized solution in your speeches. To my understanding, it should go something like “we shouldn’t be doing the resolution when x is a better alternative.” Also feel free to debate on if it’s a plan or a generalized solution but just know I have a looser view so just be careful. Of course, if you use them well then you’ll be fine but don’t be abusive with them.

CX -

Fair warning: I have little experience with policy. But similar to PF, make good arguments, give me some clash, contextualize, and you should be generally okay. Every policy round is different, and I will go where you lead me. Any arguments are fair game. Feel free to run Ks, CPs, Ts, Pics, Sparks, FW, etc (as long as the tournament allows, sorry novices). I don’t think there’s much you shouldn’t do in general. Policy rounds should be very productive.
You should slow down (a little) for taglines, authors, and important quotes in your cards. If you maintain a constant speed throughout your speech, I (and any other judge) will likely miss something. Please refer to the LD listings on speaks preferences.

Although I generally will let the debaters establish their own rules for the debate, here is some information on my voting:

On-Off Negs -

I probably do not vote for negative teams who make no effort to respond to the affirmative. If you ignore the 1AC, you'll probably lose. I emphasize "probably" because I will begrudgingly vote for one-off negs when the affirmative has responded poorly.

Topicality: Topicality debates should focus on standards and voters, which should be specific to your definition. I'll probably vote negative when they've shown that the affirmative plan falls outside any definition that is fair, predictable, and flexible enough to accommodate a variety of topics. In those rounds, the negative should show 1) their interpretation is reasonable, 2) the affirmative falls outside that definition, and 3) the affirmative interpretation is unreasonable/bad for debate. I probably won’t vote neg when they use a definition that is too restrictive (e.g., only x is topical) or when both teams have reasonable definitions. In other words, if the negative's argument came down to "our definition is better" rather than "our definition is good and their definition is bad," I will not vote negatively on topicality.

Kritiks -

If you feel confident in your Kritik, I will listen to it like any other argument. In my view, a winning Kritik is pertinent to the affirmative case and/or the resolution in general and has a clear, feasible alternative. If you run a K with an argument (CP, DA, etc.) that contradicts the K, I won't like you. To be honest, I've rarely voted neg because of a K, mostly because negative teams tend not to run them well. If you don't understand the Kritik well enough to explain it, don't run it. Tip: If you've run a K to throw the other team, you've probably thrown yourself as well.

Counterplans -

I’ll probably vote negative on counterplans that are competitive with the affirmative case and are mutually exclusive from it -- that is, counterplans that prove we should not adopt the resolution. I've never voted negative on a topical counterplan. That said, you are welcome to try.

Theory -

Because debate is a game, I'll entertain theory. I'll probably vote on theory only when one team has demonstrated that their opponent's strategy/argument is so abusive or unfair that it functionally derails the debate. I'll vote aff on theory when the negative functionally ignores the 1AC and begins a new conversation. I'll probably never vote negative on theory but consider it when deciding whether to accept or reject a perm to a counterplan.

Non-Oratory Speech -

Treat me like a parent judge. Most likely have no clue what's going on except in POE and DI.

Oratory Speech (OO, INFO, SO) -

Like non-oratory speeches, I do not have extensive knowledge on these events, but I get the general idea.

For OO and INFO:

I will focus more on the quality of your speech, the message in your speech, and the delivery of it.

For SO:

All the same stuff as the other two but I won't really focus on the quality of the speech (ie. how its written) because you didn't write it (or at least I assume you didn’t)

Extemp -

I’ll most likely be critical of your speech but not towards my own bias. I will judge off timing, number of sources, background information, and the quality of your speech.

For DEX:

Quality of Speech > Timing > Sources > Background Information

For FEX:

Quality of Speech > Background Information > Timing > Sources

If you have less than a 5:30 speech (and this is dependent on the other speakers) then you will most likely not get a 1, 2, or 3. Please please please include background information in FEX. The more fluid and convincing you are, the more I’ll pay attention. If it is online, then I’d prefer you to show your hands at all times to prevent cheating and ask you to stand. Be fair. Be smart. Play by the rules.

In conclusion, most of the debates judging preferences are cross applicable although there are minor differences between each debate due to the expected styles and type of resolution. Additionally, I cannot cover everything in this paradigm or in my ballots (nor do I expect you to read all of it) and I don't expect you to completely appease me or convince me. I probably have my own set opinion but will judge from a clean POV. If you have any questions before or after, then email me at the one listed above or ask me in person. Goodluck.

LD: I LOVE FRAMEWORK!!!

All debate:

tech (in terms of tech/truth, i believe the term 'truth judging' is actual nonsense). this means i evaluate everything unless tab forces me not to (violent behavior or arguments that have been explicitly highlighted by tab to stop for are them 'forcing me')---anything else is NOT tech

if something tab says is bad happens, i stop the round. if you think something bad enough has happened or that i missed it, stop the round and point it out to me. tab will still decide lol. if tab refuses to decide, the team that stops loses and ill give speaks based on the number of speeches given.

some people say 'im tech because dropped arguments are true' and then say 'but an argument is ONLY a claim and a warrant.' this is nonsense. in semantics we have propositions, and both the 'claim' and the 'warrant' are propositions. the warrant is a proposition that is purported to justify the claim, but that warrant also seems to require further justification. thus if we mandate warrants we must either 'warrant down' propositions until a self-evident truth appears (something i can look at and establish as unequivocally true), or pick an arbitrary point to stop. this means there are three models of debate here. i call them: constructivism (all propositions are assumed to be true), arbitrary nonsense (requiring X amount of 'warrants down'), or destructivism (propositions must be proven absolutely true). i think destructivism is impossible for two reasons. A. self-evident truth doesn't exist; B. even if it does, there's not enough of it to establish all of the claims we need for modern debate. arbitrary nonsense is very bad for infinitely many reasons, but we should isolate a few. i think it is formally incoherent in that whatever number of "warrants down" required should also apply the bottom of the warrant chain, thus invalidating any chain of logic. i also think that it is arbitrary in that like, saying "you only need to justify the proposition one level down" (which is the most common view) is no different than saying "i need three levels down." this also doesn't solve the problem of warrantless claims, because any proposition can be purported to be a justification for another i.e. "you should vote aff because pigs are green."

^ in this model, spamming arguments like "you should vote neg because [something that does not imply the first proposition]" is answered by "group the vote neg arguments---their warrants don't logically imply that you should vote neg, but our arguments do." alternatively, i think "go to the vote neg stuff. group these---warrantless" also answers it well enough.

dropped propositions are true

^ the only exception to this model is unjustified 'new' propositions made in the 2AR---these get excluded because the negative does not have an opportunity to respond

i think a proposition is 'new' when it appears in a speech and has not appeared in any prior speech. i do not, by default, exclude new propositions in any speech except the 2AR without justification for why i should---HOWEVER, i think justifying this past the 1NR is so easy you should basically never lose.

i think new propositions are justified whenever they contradict or qualify a new proposition made by the opponent in the prior speech. that includes claims they make about your stuff.

when writing the ballot, i only evaluate propositions that are in the final rebuttals.

some people say they have 'defaults' when they judge a debate. this is not full tech judging, because it includes a certain bias (though minor and forgivable). default enjoyers might object to me and argue that in a DA vs case debate, neither side establishes util as a reason to vote either way---thus, defaultless judges should have no way to vote.

to resolve this, i believe that debaters can make 'implied propositions'---for example, the proposition 'you should vote aff because our plan prevents 500 people from dying" implies that i should vote aff if the plan prevents people from dying. the proposition "you should actually vote neg because the plan causes 1000 people to die" forwards that instead, i should vote aff if the planNET prevents people from dying. the affirmative has two responses to this: agree to this weighing and contest the death count, or contest the weighing. most affirmatives agree to the weighing, and thus my 'default' has been establishes. these things tend to work themselves out in real debates.

'dropped' propositions occur when a speech articulates them, and then by the next speech of that same side, the opponent has articulated no proposition that contradicts or qualifies those propositions.

0% risk of a proposition being true is only possible if the claim that it is untrue is dropped. 100% risk of a proposition being true is only possible if the claim that it is true is dropped. so long as there is a proposition that contradicts or qualifies a proposition (even if one of them is MUCH stronger: i.e. "nuclear war causes extinction by creating ash clouds that drop global food supply which causes a cycle of further nuclear escalation until all food is gone and everybody is dead" vs "no it doesn't because uhhh... i forgor"---the nuclear war = extinction enjoyed has about a 99.99999% risk of their proposition here, but not 100%), it will never be 100% true.

evidence hasNO special status to me as a judge unless tab forces me to give it special consideration (ev ethics) or you say i should somehow. i think that in a model where both teams send evidence without debating about it, citations are inserted, analytic arguments that increase the veracity of the paragraphs under them (your author quals, date, etc make your propositions more credible!). however, i don't think there's any reason that debaters can't just paste an author's words as an analytic--you could read a 1AC stripped of all citations and i would just eval it as if its propositions are slightly less credible. sidenote: i do not actually weigh the propositions under ev as being truer unless brought up, or unless im told to look at them as inserted stuff, ie "our ev is from two days ago," or "look at this author's quals---we're right." the other team can contest this.

a ballot is justified by claiming that i should vote aff or neg (sometimes this is implied)

X% risk i should vote AFF implies (100-X)% risk i should vote NEG

if it is 50% for both, this state is equivalent to both sides being silent (neither justifying anything), in that case i vote NEG because i expected the AFF to justify something first

if a ballot has not been justified for either side by the end of the round, i vote NEG. this is not because of a 'resolutional burden of proof,' but because the affirmative speaks first and thus i expected them to say something before i expected the negative to. rounds, where both teams sit down immediately instead of speaking and forgo cross-examination, are good examples of this, as are rounds where the affirmative gets up and gently speculates about the dearest emotions of colors without saying that this is a reason to affirm. i think this is an important distinction. ill construct some model rounds below after clarifications

Round #1

1AC: Red is an angry color.

1NC: Silence

2AC: Red is an angry color.

2NC: Silence

1NR: Silence

1AR: Red is an angry color.

2NR: Silence

2AR: Red is an angry color.

Ballot: Neg.

Round #2

1AC: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

1NC: Silence

2AC: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

2NC: Silence

1NR: Silence

1AR: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

2NR: Silence

2AR: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

Ballot: Aff.

Round #3

(You get the idea.)

AFF: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

NEG: Silly! Voting AFF doesn't follow from that.

Ballot: Aff.(Why?: AFF has articulated the proposition that I should vote AFF because red is an angry color. The NEG points out that this justification doesn't imply that I should vote AFF. However, the NEG never articulates why I should vote NEG, and the AFF continues to argue that red being an angry color means I should vote AFF. This means I believe that there is a very low risk the AFF proposition is true, and a very high risk the NEG proposition is true. Because there is a very TINY reason to vote AFF, and no reason not to, I vote AFF.)

Round #4

AFF: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

NEG: Blue is a sad color so you should vote NEG.

Ballot: Neg.(Why?: This debate is the type that drives me insane. Because the risk that I should vote for either side is equal, I vote NEG because nothing has been justified and I expected something from the AFF first.)

Round #5

AFF: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

NEG: Silly! Voting AFF doesn't follow from that. Blue is a sad color so you should vote NEG.

Ballot: Neg.(Why?: The likelihood that I should vote AFF is mitigated by the NEG proposition that it doesn't follow from red being an angry color. The likelihood that I should vote NEG is unmitigated.}

Round #6

1AC: Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

NEG: Silly! Voting AFF doesn't follow from that. Blue is a sad color so you should vote NEG.

Subsequent AFF: Silly! Voting NEG doesn't follow from that. Red is an angry color so you should vote AFF.

Ballot: Neg.(Why?: This is equivalent to Round #4 risk-wise, which triggers a NEG ballot.)

debatable things

debate seems to make the most sense whenever affirmative teams justify the resolution's truth. the resolution is an ambiguous proposition and topical plans are examples of that proposition alone.

Extra-T: i do not believe that extra-T is a relevant remark personally. consider:

X = The resolution should occur.

Y = Some certain extra-topical action is occurring.

In the case where the extra-topical action is the difference between winning or losing substantively (the only case that matters), the logic can be constructed as:

If Y, then X.

However, Y is not true because the extra-topical action is not occurring. Thus, the only relevant deciding factor of the substantive debate ought to be the topical portion of the plan. if the negative doesn't make this argument, I'll eval it. i have not seen a good response to it though. i guess you could say "ignore logical implications because it's... [X procedural benefit]" but i think the neg arg that this nukes all debate forever is strong.

kaff: i am very bad in these debates because i think that (and i may just be stupid) debaters rarely set up a clear 'win condition' for me to evaluate, so i end up kind of screwed. i think if you are a kritikal affirmative you should be very explicit "we win if we prove that X is good..." etc

avg speaks is 28.5 or 3 in oklahoma

Oklahoma speaks guide:

1 - you were not only a bad debater, but your behavior in this round particularly irked me

2 - bad debating

3 - fine debating

4 - good debating

i think trufanov's ontology of debate arguments is important, but slightly incorrect in places.

the plan is a 'mandate'---something that must always occur in the world the aff weighs. the most likely occurrences surrounding the plan are 'normal means.' CPs must compete by having a net benefit predicated on the exclusion of some mandate in the plan. DAs, on the other hand, can link only to normal means functions of the AFF, but the probability of that normal means function would mitigate those DAs.

positionality is a bad model, planicality is alright, resolutionality is prob true

CPs: textual comp is incoherent, truf is probably right that functions like not doing whatever is implied in an "only if" CP are extractable for perms

CPs IMO do not rejoin the plan. this view has multiple justifications but is much too complex to articulate here. going for this arg in front of me is honestly likely to persuade me if you debate it well technically and i wont reject it. i have not yet seen a good answer to it.

Ks: non-FW Ks lose to affs that know how impacts and weighing works (there is NO WAY the rev happens fast enough to solve the 'root cause' of imminent Iranian escalation). FW Ks i THINK lose to FW when evenly debated. im not 100% sure. good K debaters are better technically than their opponent---Ks are cheating and that's not a bad thing. the block should be chock full of tricks and the 2NR should go for whichever trick the AFF mishandled.

procedurals come before substantive debate

Policy:

Run whatever argument you want in front of me

Tech over Truth

CASE

I like cases that have strong internal links to their solvency. That means I have a higher threshold for Aff solvency with loosely strung internal links. Affs with multiple impact scenarios with 1-2 advantages are preferable to Affs with 3-4 advantages with one impact scenario.

After the 2AC, you should not rely on reading cards to answer or make case args. Use your brain, analyze the warrants of each card and explain why they are wrong/ right. Doing so will give you more speaks and make you much more likely to win case.

OFFCASE

Ks

I'm familiar with Ableism, Afropess, Cap, Fem, Imperialism, Orientalism, Set Col, Trans

Feel free to run Ks I'm not familiar with, I'll work to understand them and evaluate ur args the best I can

It will look bad if you run Ks with contradicting offcase positions imo

For example, [Cap K + Econ DA], [Imperialism K + Military Readiness DA], etc. but is not a voting issue unless your opponent makes that argument.

CPs

Your counterplan means that you have the chance to solve the impacts of the aff and a net benefit.

There is a very very low chance I will vote on a counterplan that doesn't specify what it actually does or doesn't have a net benefit.

That being said, if your counterplan doesn't have a net benefit but you win on case, I will still vote aff

I hate going against PICs, but I do believe in some cases PICs are a good strategy. I am very willing to vote on perms/ CP theory, but you need to explain why your perm works and why the counterplan is harmful.

DAs

I love DAs!!!!!!!

Make sure your UQ is up to date. I am tech vs truth but your DA is weak if your uniqueness is from months ago.

Go for specific links but it's not the end of the world if your link is generic.

If you're running a DA you need to explain how the DA outweighs/ turns the case

Other Stuff

Idgaf about spreading-- make sure to signpost clearly tho

Idrgaf abt cross ex, but I like open cross more.

If you say something racist, sexist, homophobic, or bigoted I will glare at you OR look at you with a bewildered expression

Hello I am Brandon (He/Him), I have experience in both PF and LD but have no experience in policy so if I’m judging you in policy please be patient with me I'm sure I’ll get the hang of it.

LD:

I did LD my freshman year of high-school so I have a little bit of experience but not a lot. I’m not extremely picky just be respectful of your opponents. Sound confident in yourself and your arguments. I remember how scary debate was in the beginning you’re gonna do great!

PF:

I did PF for the majority of high-school and it was always my favorite form of debate. I went to state with it my junior year so I have a good amount of experience in it. Just like I said for LD be respectful of your opponents. I know cross can get very heated and chaotic especially during grand cross I just ask you to stay respectful. When it comes to sitting or standing during your speeches I’m okay with either whatever you’re most comfortable with. I am also okay with you timing yourself but I will also keep time. Try to sound confident in your speeches. You’re gonna do great!

Policy:

I have no experience in Policy but I have done some research and talked to teammates who do compete in policy to learn some. Please be patient with me I am learning with you. Like with the other forms of debate I ask that you are respectful of your opponents. I also ask that you keep the spreading to a minimum I'm okay with fast speaking just please enunciate so I can understand. I look forward to learning with and from you you’re gonna do great!

Simply put: The best argument will win.

My background is in Lincoln-Douglas and Student Congress in high school, and now a policy coach.

Speaking style: Slow it down a little. Show me that you understand the arguments, and the vocabulary by not tripping over your words.

Argumentation: Understand your cards. If you cannot show me you understand the card during CX or rebuttal, you will not win the round.

Clear, cohesive arguments that show me you understand the very basics of debate (claim, warrant, impact) will win my rounds.

JOKE CASES
Joke cases are my favorite in debate and I enjoy hearing them whenever they are used. If you run one and your opponent does I will not be angry but instead, laughing harder than both teams combined. If you guys do run these asinine cases, I won’t care if you laugh and will not deduct speaker points for humor. Whoever uses joke cases deserve to advance and spread their joy so I take it upon myself to facilitate this process. My paradigm for these cases is preferring whatever team has more absurd arguments. The more ridiculous the case, the more the stupid impacts, and that’s were my vote lies. You don’t need to make logical sense, you just need to be incoherent and stupid.

PROGRESSIVE DEBATE
I will downvote you if you spred in Lincoln Douglas. You’re not smarter or more adroit than you opponent if you can sputter off more words. Persuade me and speak normally. If kids really think than an outsider would view prog as a debate, they would be utterly disillusioned. If you are running a progressive case, I don’t care what theory, disad, or impacts you use. I all view those as the same thing worth equally and will judge the debate like I judge traditional LD.

Traditional LD
My preferred form of debate. I look at framework and dropped arguments the most. I prefer ought=can then ought=moral obligation. If you can show me why we can’t do something then I cant derive a moral obligation for what isn’t possible. You can’t run any progressive arguments like Ks and you are not allowed to spred. Dropped arguments are another thing I look at subordinate to FW. I flow everything and when you say your opponent dropped your srguments, I will always prefer your side. I look at new arguments made by both sides and will always remember what the other side mentioned in their last rebuttal. I’m not a judge that always gets convinced on the last speech. If anything, if both sides are tied on everything I vote neg. That’s bc if the Aff world is equal to the status quo, it would be a waste of time, money, and energy to change what ever we already have for something equally worse or good. I prefer both sides clash then run an observation that one sides doesn’t need to.

Hello! This is my first year judging so I am still new to things. I am not a fan of spreading, please articulate.

I do flow, but only what I hear.

I do time, but that's addressed later in the paradigm.

I am ready before each speech so just debate like I'm not there.

I WILL VOTE ON THE FRAMEWORK MOST OF THE TIME.

My LD paradigm is super simple. I'm okay with all types of arguments as long you can prove a strong value/criterion link. I'm a traditional LD Judge, I won't knock progressive but I do ask that you are clear in your argumentation. I flow and I expect arguments to not be dropped and extended throughout the round. Besides that, I enjoy a fun round so don't be rude but don't be passive. Again I'm open to whatever just make sure that your arguments are clear, logical, and have a strong Value/Criterion Link. Please don't say your card names, say the argument. I do not flow card names if you say "refer to my john 3:16 card" I will have no clue what you're talking about, but if you say "refer to x argument" I'll be on board. As a traditional judge, I like hearing some philosophy. I am not a philosophy expert but I do know the major points of the more used arguments and I wont count it as part of the RFD unless your opponent calls it out. If they don't then run with it I guess.

PF is very similar, hit me with your creative arguments. I generally vote for winners based on which team can either give me the bigger impacts or who can give me a good amount of strong arguments. IF YOU SPREAD IN PUBLIC FORUM I WILL NOT FLOW. I AM A PF PURIST. DO NOT SPREAD I WILL TRULY LOOK AT YOU AND MAYBE WRITE ONE THING. IF YOU ARE A PFER AND SAY USE A PHILOSOPHY FRAMEWORK I WILL NOT APPRECIATE IT. PF IS FOR THE LAY JUDGE. TREAT ME LIKE A LAY JUDGE.

Also if you are reading this, just an FYI please TIME yourselves so I don't have to interrupt you. Again I'm super laid back so just make sure that arguments are very clear and logical.

CX is not my favorite so I have no real paradigm for it. Just tell me why your arguments are good. I like Ks but I hate nukes(extinction).

As you can tell by this paradigm that I'm somewhat lazy. So if you have any specific questions feel free to ask before the round AND do not be afraid to ask me what you can improve AFTER (LIKE IN THE HALLWAYS) the round or for advice.

If you try to post-round or debate me because of the results of the ballot, I will shut it down immediately but feel free to ask for critiques.

I did policy debate at Jenks for four years, now I'm debating for OU. Put me on the email chain: supersalok@gmail.com.

I read mostly policy stuff at Jenks and mostly critical stuff at OU, they are both valuable! I love a good case debate as well. Have fun, be smart, say what you wanna say.

I am a traditional PF judge. I don't really do kritiks or speed. Win me with strong arguments and impacts.