For LD, I will neutrally evaluate the round using the below three-prong method, with greater emphasis on elements A and B. I am open to classic and contemporary styles and thoughts so long as it makes sense and is fully supported in the case. Most importantly, have fun and enjoy the round.

A. Case and Analysis

1. Defining the Values: Did the arguments presented focus on the values implicit in the resolution? Is the case itself cohesive?

2. Establishing Criteria for Evaluating the Resolution: On what basis (universal, moral, social, political, historical, legal, etc.) is one value proven by the debater to be more important than another?

3. Weighing Importance: 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?

4. Application of Values and Criteria: Did the debaters apply their cases by filtering appropriate arguments through the value and criteria?

B. Argumentation

1. Proof: Did the evidence presented pragmatically justify the affirmative or negative stance? Did the reasoning presented philosophically justify the affirmative or negative stance?

2. Organization: Are the ideas presented clearly, in a logical sequence, and with appropriate emphasis?

3. Extension, Clash, and Rebuttal: 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?

C. Presentation

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

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

3. Rate: Was the rate of delivery conducive to audience understanding? (Spreading may not be feasible under virtual conditions.)

Language borrowed from UIL, emphasis and additions my own.

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

For PF, the round will be evaluated as it is argued by the speakers. Focus on the advocacy of a position derived from the issues presented in the resolution, not a prescribed set of burdens.

Debaters should advocate or reject the resolution in manner clear to the non-specialist citizen judge. Clash of ideas are essential to debate.

Debaters should display solid logic and reasoning, advocate a position, utilize evidence, and communicate clear ideas using professional decorum.

As for plans and counterplans, please be aware of both NSDA and OSSAA guidance.

NSDA: In Public Forum Debate, the Association defines a plan or counterplan as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Neither the pro or con side is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan; rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions.

OSSAA: Neither the pro nor con is permitted to offer a plan or counterplan, defined as a formalized, comprehensive proposal for implementation. Rather, they should offer reasoning to support a position of advocacy. Debaters may offer generalized, practical solutions.

Crossfire time should be dedicated to questions and answers rather than reading evidence. Evidence may be referred to extemporaneously. It should also be professional and balanced by each side.

No new arguments may be introduced in the Final Focus; however, debaters may include new evidence to support prior arguments. I am always listening for evidence. Per the NSDA's Evidence Rules, "[i]n all debate events, contestants are expected to, at a minimum, orally deliver the following when introducing evidence in a debate round: primary author(s)’name (last) and year of publication."

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 the head debate coach at Crossings Christian Schools. I graduated the University of North Texas. I debated for four years at Edmond North High School. I have debated and judged both traditional policy and critique debate. I have also judged LD debate.

Debate what you are good at. I am comfortable judging any argument as long as it is clearly explained. However, I am more of a traditional policy debater.

Email: alexaglendinning@gmail.com This is if you have any questions about my decision, debate in general, or for email chains.

Some argument specifics:

Topicality/FW: I love a good T or FW debate. I think that these arguments are critical because it determines the rules for the debate round. With this said, I do NOT like RVI's and I probably won't vote on those. With T, I need a clear interpretation of what is fair and why the other team violates that.

Theory: I love Theory debates. It sets up the rules for the debate round. I think theory could either favor the neg or be a complete wash in debate rounds depending on how it is debated. With theory debates, I need a clear interpretation of what is fair and why the other team violates that.

Disadvantages: I like them. The more specific your link story, the better. However, if you only have generic links, I will still evaluate them.

Counterplans: I like them. I believe that all counterplans are legitimate unless debated otherwise by the affirmative i.e. CP Theory. You have to win that they are competitive in order for me to vote on them.

Ks: They're fine.

Case debate: I love a good case debate. I think that this has gone out of style in current policy debate. I really want to see this come back.

Other Notes:

Use CX wisely. CX is a great tool that teams under-utilize. It is an important part of the debate round. It is in your best interest.

FLOW!!! Flowing is one of the most important things in a debate round. This is your map for where the debate has been and where the debate is going to go.

Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. If you aren't being clear, then I will not be able to understand or evaluate the arguments that you are making. I would rather you be clear than fast.

What not to do:

Do Not steal prep. Use it wisely. If you use it wisely then you wouldn't have to try and steal it. DON'T STEAL PREP.

Do Not Run T as an RVI. See the T section of my paradigm.

Do Not text with anyone during a debate round. Just Do Not use your phone at all during a debate round. The only exception is if you are using your phone as a timer. You should be focused on debating. Put your phone in airplane mode. This allows for less temptation.

Have Fun Debating!

I’m cool with whatever. Run your case however you think it’ll be best.

I’ll vote for who I think wins.

Open to squirrelly cases

More likely to judge on clear and evident lines of logic

Prefer clear voters

If you don’t say it, it doesn’t count

Framework is absolutely the most important aspect of any case. Please do not neglect it. On the argument level, tying your framework to the contention level is critical.

I greatly enjoy philosophical debate and will be able to follow clash in this territory. Do not be hesitant to produce philosophical arguments.

I am fine with spreading, but please speak clearly and signpost.

If you are to run a plan, ensure that it is topical; otherwise I may deem it abusive.

I weigh burdens if uncontested. If there is contention, I will defer to whichever side advocated the most reasonable imposition.

Ask for email

Judge Paradigm For Policy:
I enjoy progressive debate. Feel free to run theory or any Ks you want. I accept spreading in policy, but make sure your links, impacts, etc. are clearly labeled and signposted when you present your case. (I'm not the best at flowing, so helping me flow is to your best interest).

.... for Public Forum
I consider PF to be a middle ground between LD and Policy. Try something new, and have fun! I try my best to match my RDF to the flow of the debate, so work well with your partner to rebut opponent's case and extend your own arguments. (Look below for more general information on my paradigm).

...for LD Debate

Philosophical Approach: I approach LD debate as an opportunity to engage with the complex issues of ethics, values, and moral reasoning. I value clarity, logic, and ethical considerations in the arguments presented. I do not have preconceived biases or preferences for any particular moral framework or side of the resolution. My role is to fairly evaluate the debaters' arguments based on the principles of sound reasoning, ethical consistency, and persuasive communication.

Role of the Judge: My primary role is to objectively evaluate the arguments presented in the round. I will assess the clarity, relevance, and strength of the debaters' contentions, and I will prioritize well-structured and logically sound arguments. I will not intervene in the debate but rather base my decision solely on what is presented in the round. Debating the role of the judge, or the role of the ballot, or the purpose of debate is fair game.

Argumentation and Framework: I believe that both debaters have an equal burden to present and defend a consistent framework that applies to the resolution. I encourage debaters to engage in value clash and address the criterion effectively. If a debater chooses to run a value or criterion, they should explain how it directly links to the resolution and the ethical implications of their framework.

Evidence and Warranting: I value the use of relevant and credible evidence to support arguments. Evidence should be clearly cited, and debaters should provide warranted explanations to connect their evidence to their arguments. I will not evaluate unsupported claims or arguments without proper reasoning.

Clarity and Communication: Clear communication is essential. Debaters should enunciate their arguments, speak at a moderate pace, and avoid jargon or overly technical language. I encourage debaters to use signposting and roadmaps to guide me through the flow of the debate. If I cannot not understand you, I can't flow your case, so be careful when spreading.

Rebuttal and Clash: I expect debaters to engage in substantive clash. Effective rebuttals should address the main points made by their opponents, demonstrating where arguments are impacted or fall short. I appreciate when debaters extend key arguments and explain why they should be prioritized in the round.

Time Management: I will closely follow the time limits set in the round and expect debaters to do the same. Effective time management is crucial for a well-structured and organized debate.

Etiquette and Respect: Debaters should treat each other, the resolution, and the judge with respect. I will not tolerate any disrespectful or offensive language or behavior. Constructive engagement is key to a productive debate.

Flexibility: While I appreciate clarity and structure, I am open to evaluating unconventional arguments or styles of debate, as long as they adhere to the fundamental principles of ethical reasoning and argumentation.

Final Thoughts: I am here to facilitate a fair and educational debate. My decision will be based on the quality of arguments presented, not personal preferences or biases. I encourage debaters to approach this round with a commitment to ethical reasoning and persuasive communication.

Remember that different judges may have slightly different paradigms, so it's a good practice to adapt your approach to fit the preferences of the judge in each specific round.

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.

---

EMAIL FOR SPEECH DOCS: leigha.debate@gmail.com

---

Policy Debater at Moore High School, Moore, OK: 2008-2011

Policy Debater at the University of Oklahoma: 2011-2015

Assistant Policy Debate Coach at Moore High School, Moore, OK: 2012 - 2015; 2018 - 2020

Assistant Coach at University of Central Oklahoma: Dec. 2019 - May 2021

Assistant Coach at Heritage Hall High School, Oklahoma City, OK: Current

---

Stylistic:

For virtual debates:

Give me pen-time between arguments - and a second to move from one flow to the next. As one of the last practitioners of paper-debate and as judge who flows on paper, the cleaner and more organized the debate can be on my end, the more satisfying a decision I can give both teams.

I'm okay with observers in debates I judge, if you have affirmative consent from the teams debating. If you observe while recording, I also need to affirmatively consent to you doing so. Just ask me in the chat, that works.

I'll try to record prep time in the chat, if you end up losing your time.

- When the flash drive exits the computer, prep time is over. If using an email chain, verbally announce when you're sending the speech document out, and prep stops.

- I am fine with spreading, but I do want to hear a tag, citation, and the internals of the card. I will yell "clear" if I need.

- Let me know if you're going to have a long overview and I'll flow it on another sheet. My threshold for what I consider a "long" overview is very low, so keep that in mind. Play it safe and tell me to get another sheet, if you're on the fence about if this applies to you.

Argument Execution:

- Analysis needs a claim, a warrant, and an impact. "Extend our argument" is not an extension to me.

- Extending a piece of evidence by name and giving shallow analysis - ie: "Ext. our [blank] card here - means we turn the aff," and moving on. Without some explanation of the how and why that's true within the context of the evidence and the argument it's answering, I'm more reluctant to put in that work for you.

- I value debates where arguments are made with descriptive consistency in warrant extensions and analysis. Being able to trace the development of an argument from its introduction in evidence to the 2NR or 2AR is important to me - keep the key thesis of your argument alive in the debate. The same applies to application of warrants from a piece of evidence.

- It's awesome to see arguments that challenge the aff on a substantive level using nuanced arguments. Specific links are great and encouraged. But, I also reward specific application and contextualization to the aff when using a more generic piece of evidence. Especially in critical debates.

- In rebuttals, especially in the 1AR and 2NR, cleaning up the debate and making larger explanations of strategic, technical decisions or concessions on the flow framing-level is rewarded by me. Consider this me asking you to "write my ballot for me" in the last stages of the debate. I value analysis that not only explains to me the thesis of your advantages, disad, counterplan, or kritik in terms of substance, but also what arguments you are winning and key questions on individual flows you're going for.

Specific Arguments:

I was a critical debater for most of my career but will vote on framework and policy arguments - do what makes you feel comfortable and I will do my best to evaluate the round. I'm just probably not hyper-knowledgable on the truth-claims of the literature for your hot, new Yuan devaluation scenario, so I'll read evidence for my own personal understanding of the debate when needed for a decision. A lot of my experience in debating and coaching critical arguments are in the literature areas of settler colonialism, critical race arguments, queer theory, IR Ks, and other method debates.

---

- For those of you in a debate running a critical argument in front of me, this means I have a higher threshold for clarity in explanation and smart, explicit application to either affirmative or negative responses to your argument. A lot of the creativity in critical debate comes from application of specific warrants from your authors to the other team's argument - this is especially true in debates where you may not have a super-specific link argument in the 1NC and in high-theory debates that can devolve into word-salad. This is a basic requirement in you doing work for me in explaining the interaction between your argument and the other team's argument. Speeches that attempt to ground your theory with more concrete examples are good.

Being intentionally opaque about your position in cross-examination makes me roll my eyes a little bit (unless it's fundamental to the theory of your argument, as in some opacity-style method debates). I certainly become a little more sympathetic to the other team's frustrations when there's a sense you might be evasive during the explanation of your argument

- Theory debates are not my favorite, as I feel a lot of debaters can be unclear in their explanation of and the developing a theory argument enough for me to give it much weight inside of the round. I prefer if you give me a heads up during your roadmap to grab an additional sheet for flowing, and give the order with the new sheet with whatever argument the theory concerns. (IE: "The order is T, the dis-ad, and the counterplan with a new sheet of paper.")

Theory shells are easy to bury in a flow by couching it among other arguments and spreading right through - which is a strategy! But, in my style of evaluation and for clarity's sake, I recommend clearly signposting when you're moving onto the theory argument, taking a breath so I can quickly get my clean flow, and then begin the argument. A cleaner flow for me gives you a better chance of winning your argument.

---

CX:

I am fine with open CX, to a certain degree. Being rude, mean, and continually speaking over your opponents can lose you speaker points.

Along the same line, speaking for your partner during most of their cross-examination time (whether asking or answering) reflects negatively for speaker points. I understand there is the desire to make sure that your argument is being explained correctly, but it is more persuasive to me if a team is able to have a consistent explanation of their argument between partners.

---

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to ask me before the round.

I have 4 years of PF experience, so with that being said, I usually go off impact calc judging rounds. To properly weigh evidence I need proper links. be clear and concise, and if you're unsure, make it painfully obvious. break it down as if I have no idea what's going on. Don't drop major points/ evidence, it could make or break the round.

I enjoy a team who clearly knows their material and knows their cases/blocks like the back of their hand.

I have zero tolerance for bullying in rounds. Be respectful to everyone in the room and have fun!

A bit of background:
I debated policy 4 years at the University of Oklahoma and 4 years at Edmond Santa Fe High School. I've judged policy/LD/PF debate since then.

Yes put me on the email chain:
parkerstephennelson@gmail.com

POLICY:

I believe that debate is a game that fosters a multitude of positive things: critical thinking, problem solving, logical decision-making, communication skills, and exposure to an abundance of topics that no other activity provides. Because of this, I try to give back to this community and support it in every way I can. There is no wrong way to debate, and bringing your own flavor/style is encouraged. I have an extensive amount of experience with critical arguments but I can get down to a good policy debate too. The best judges I had were the ones willing to listen to positions from every possible angle, and that's what I strive to emulate.
Thus, I try to outline my general preferences in technical terms:
-- Each argument must have a claim, warrant, and be properly impacted out. The other team dropping the argument doesn't mean putting a 30 second blurb at the end of the 2NR/2AR, expecting my unequivocal vote.
-- Coherence is a must, and your evidence should say what you claim it says. Don't under-highlight to put out incoherent arguments. Evidence quality wins more debates.
-- I'm a big advocate for framing arguments, which make my evaluation of the round easier.
-- My argument preference in my past debates/decisions won't grant you any type of benefit in the next round.
-- Understand and adequately explain how your argument interacts with the specific nuances of the opposing teams. So many debaters get bogged down in jargon instead of properly explaining how these concepts should shape my decision.
-- There is a significant difference in being strategic and being squirrely; the latter is incredibly annoying.

LD:

The Value/Criterion debate is what is integral to mostly in my evaluation of LD debates, if given no meaningful clash by debaters it makes it significantly difficult to weigh contention-level clash. Making arguments surrounding each Framework and how they interact/should be evaluated/prioritized with regards to contention-level claims will make the end of the debate infinitely easier to decide. You don't want me deciding who accesses what on my own.
I am good with all means of jargon -- cross applications, turns, links, etc. these are encouraged and allow for sprinkling offense across the flows, so feel free to use them as long as they're coherent.
I am fine with progressive argumentation, but I'm not the judge to pref for one-off, throw-away theory shells -- if the argument is warranted and impacted out properly, I will evaluate it, but prefer meaningful topical engagement from both teams.

PF:
Framing/Impact calculus is probably the most important aspect of PF debate for me nowadays. The easiest way to my ballot is to do the weighing for me and tell me exactly how I'm supposed to evaluate each impact/how they interact with regards to each other within the debate space. Impact prioritization based on criteria, formalized Framework/theory arguments, etc. are encouraged.
I am fine with progressive argumentation, but I'm not the judge to pref for one-off, throw-away theory shells -- if the argument is warranted and impacted out properly, I will evaluate it, but prefer meaningful topical engagement from both teams.
Voters in Final Focus are extremely helpful, even more so if they're presented during Summary, but not required.
I am good with all means of jargon -- cross applications, turns, links, etc. these are encouraged and allow for sprinkling offense across the flows, so feel free to use them as long as they're coherent.

The Specifics:
Framework/Topicality:
You NEED evidence/definitions for what portion of the resolution is being debated.
Ideally, the affirmative defends a position that is controversial, with plenty of literature granting ground on both sides and predictable elements to it. I probably have a reputation as a fairness/limits voter, but that's because it's the debate I hear the most. I also enjoy "clash" debates, but the biggest issue I run into is one side not engaging with how the other side portrays the debate, and instead hyper-focuses on turning every offensive standard without providing the over-arching context.
Topical versions of the Aff aren't required to solve all the world's problems. The 1AC is 9 minutes.
Impact framing on the Topicality flow is just as important as anywhere else.

Kritiks:
***You need a link to the Plan itself--or at least to the representations of the Aff. One of the biggest reasons I vote Aff in Policy Aff vs K debates is that either:
a) Not enough work was put into establishing a specific link to the Aff or
b) work is put into establishing a link to the status quo, which the negative assumes automatically links to the Affirmative. That isn't the case.***
Using direct quotations from the Affirmative evidence in your link claims will get you leaps further than you think.
Permutation defense is just as important as link offense -- voting on links of omission aren't super compelling.
Expect me to allow the affirmative to weigh the advantages of the Aff unless there is an overwhelmingly explicit reason not to, aka violent representations of the plan, flawed epistemologies, etc.
No separate sheet of paper for overviews.
No underviews; please god.
Note: "Perm do the alt" is not a perm.
While I'm here, overview debates are exhausting. Spilling a prewritten 5 minute word-salad about your K, and expecting it to answer literally everything on the line-by-line is a meme and is bad debating. Debate the line-by-line.
You need an alternative. A coherent alternative. I keep using the coherence word, because discussions need to be had on how the alternative interacts with both the status quo, and advantages of the affirmative plan. It also must solve your links.

I'm most familiar with: Nietzsche, Capitalism, Heidegger, Reps, Fem IR, Anthro, Security, Anti-Blackness, SetCol and various flavors of such. I'm not your Deleuze/Baudrillard aficionado.


K Affs:
You do not have to have a plan, but you need to answer the question of advocacy. Why am I voting for whatever it is you're doing? Why is it good? If I'm left in the dark, typically it's due to teams thinking that obscurity is advantageous. It isn't.
I am persuaded by good presumption arguments made by the negative. Engaging with these is paramount to success with critical affirmatives. Ignoring them is a great recipe to lose.
Your advocacy--at minimum--needs to have a critical element that is tangential to the resolution, and a mechanism for achieving/overcoming/resolving this element.


CPs:
Counterplans? Yes.
Advantage Counterplans? Yes.
Plan Inclusive Counterplans? Ehhh, but acceptable, given proper justification/solvency advocates.
In all cases, the negative needs to win a few things:
1) The counterplan is competitive (textual and functional to be safe)
2) There is a uniquely accessed net benefit
3) Complete solvency of the affirmative harms WITH a solvency advocate (unless you weigh other things against the remaining portions of the Aff).
I will vote for permutations -- use your net benefits as offense.

DAs:
Love them. I absolutely adore specific link stories, or better yet case-specific disadvantages, but I will still take all of your generic links.
I find Affs hole-punching their way through weak link-chains to be the easiest way to dismantle a DA. Point out logical leaps in internal links.
Read the cards, especially the un-underlined portions. Point out cards having no warrant in your speeches.
I believe 0% risk is possible, but it's not always probable, so don't rely on only uniqueness take-outs or link defense.
Specificity of Uniqueness > stacks of cards that all have two sentences highlighted. The under-highlighting is proliferant and teams getting away with it is insane to me.
Please. Do. Impact. Calculus.

Theory:
I am a believer in theory interpretation debate and it's a hill I'll die on. It's also, coincidentally enough, a great way to defend/persuade your judge by having a basis for evaluation.
I probably lean more towards condo/multiple-worlds good, assuming the negative isn't trying to run away from the debate/spread people out of the round.
Going for the theory in the 2NR/2AR is a bold move, and I will vote on it, assuming you impact the debate well and answer back defense overwhelmingly, preferably with some in round-abuses tied to a violation of some sort by the opposing team.
This does not mean running incoherent, superfluous theory arguments and expecting a W.

MISC:
Clipping: I request a copy of all speech docs due to how egregiously offensive I find this to be. You will not pass GO. You will lose the round. You will receive 0 speaks.
I *will* vote against you without the other team claiming you are clipping.
I *will* give you minimum possible speaks if you have the un-underlined/highlighted portions of your evidence at a 1 point font. STOP.
Have a copy of your evidence for your opponent. This can be physical or digital.
Do not be rude to each other in Cross-Ex. Be engaging, but not overly aggressive.
I have no issues with speed -- I do have issues with people who think they're fast, but aren't clear. I only flow what I hear, and if I have to yell clear more than twice, I'd suggest slowing down and checking if my pen has stopped moving.
Please respect preferred pronouns. Mine are he/him.

Hi!

I am the Speech and Debate coach for Edmond Memorial High School. I have experience in all events except policy.

Please be respectful, nice, and a good sport. Don't be mean, rude, racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or entitled (I will vote you down). Take this seriously, but remember it is supposed to be enjoyable. Please ask questions if you have any.YOU CAN DO IT!! BE CONFIDENT AND HAVE FUN!!

Debate-

• Tech over Truth

• I don't mind spreading, but it has to be understandable. If I am not flowing then it is not coherent.

• Please signpost! Use off-time roadmaps, tell me where you going with your speeches. it helps me flow and better understand where you are going to take the round.

• I vote frameworks and impact calcif they have a valid warrant and is upheld throughout the entire round.

• Carry arguments through the round. Drops don't count if you don't bring them up.

• I don't flow cross so if you want something from cross to flow through the round bring it up in another speech. Please don't be aggressive in cross.

Speech-

• I like triangle or diamond blocking. Please make sure your structure is clear. Don't make it look like you are pacing.

• State your sources in your speech. Otherwise you are going on a long rant without any factual proof.

• Make your movement and hand gestures purposeful. You will most likely see comments about fidgeting and swaying if you are not moving with a purpose.

• It's fine if you have a notecard but please do your best to not look at it.

• I love good attention grabbers, something that relates to most anyone listening, or funny jokes!

If you have any questions, comments, or concerns please email me at sara.nichols@edmondschools.net

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 an assistant coach at Southern Nazarene University and have been since 2021. Previously, I coached at Crossings Christian from 2020-2023. I started debating in the sixth grade and debated at Crossings from 2013-2020. I competed at the high school national level since the eighth grade, broke at a couple TOCQs, and won two 5A state titles in Oklahoma.

I was a flex debater, which means I debated both policy and the K and am comfortable with either. I ran many different Ks during my seven years of debate, such as Agamben, Cap, Setcol, Afropess (with a black partner), Baudrillard, and Psychoanalysis. I don’t have anything against nontopical or performance affs, and I’m generally tech over truth.

There are a few things I’ll vote a team down for, no matter what’s happening in the rest of the round:

- Being rude, laughing at, or mocking the other team.

- Death good, suicide good, or advocating for killing people, especially if these arguments are contextualized to someone in the room.

Things I like:

- A nice joke in your speech, even if it’s corny. Have fun in the round!

- Being respectful to your opponents and your partner.

- Telling me what I should write for my RFD.

Things I dislike:

- Disclosure theory, perf con good theory, and multiple worlds good theory. I especially dislike multiple worlds good theory being used as a reason why your 2AC block doesn’t contradict itself.

- The phrase “This card/argument is trash” or similar phrases. Tell me why the argument’s bad instead of just insulting it.

- Ks without alts.

- Wipeout

- Eugenics good

I want to be on the chain, ask me for my email.

2X NDT qualifier

2X CEDA Elimination rounds

5 years of policy in college

LD and PF in HS

1st year Undergrad Assistant Coach at the University of Central Oklahoma

2nd year as Assistant Coach at Heritage Hall High school

I have ADHD which effects my brain processing sometimes so I will almost certainly miss something if you go your absolute top speed to get as many args out as possible. Spreading is obviously fine but clarity, transitions, organization and pen time are all essential for me to be able to both flow your argument but actually internalize it and understand it to vote on it.

Policy

TL;DR Do whatever you do best,

I have done almost every kind of debate and strategy possible at least once and will always be receptive to whatever your strategy is (barring it isn't inherently exclusive like racism good, patriarchy good etc.) I like some strategies more than others but that shouldn't dissuade anyone from reading their best stuff. However you like to debate is the debate that is going to happen and I'm perfectly fine with that.

The more work I do, the more my decision is up in the air for both teams. I really try and judge debates how the debaters tell me how I should judge the debate. Absent that judge instructions I will default to whatever little framing there is in the round and come up with a decision from there but you don't want this to happen because I might not see the debate in the exact same way as you so you should tell me why I should see things your way. If you want me or any judge to vote a specific way, then my RFD should line up a lot with your 2R. Also I'm more tech over truth but will only give dropped args a the full weight of the arg explained.

Below are random thoughts I try not to default to when not told how to resolve different kinds of debates but when I am not told how to resolve something, it is inevitable to some extent that they will creep in.

I was mostly a 2N that went for the K a lot and I have a soft spot for impact turns/straight turns on case and DA's where the link is specific to the aff and the internal link and impact narrative line up. I have experience as a both 1A/2A on plan and planless affs alike. So please just do what you do best and tell me why it's a reason the aff is bad or good.

K v Policy AFF: Love these debates. I'm down to vote either way but Framing is super important. Aff should say more than the aff OW and should read cards that actually answer the K rather than a bunch of cards you aren't gonna go for anyway. consolidate in the 2AR and use your explanation of your aff to disprove links. You read the aff for a reason. Neg should also consolidate around core pieces of offense/defense in the 2NR and think about how those args solve/ turn / whatever the aff- offense could be alt solves case and avoids a risk of the link- link turns the case with a link to the plan the alt solves- FW + link (maybe alt for uq) --- you should think about what the 1AR set up the 2AR to go for and going for that.

K v K aff: These are either really good or really bad. I love really good method debates but I don't think it's executed well a lot of the time. Framing is pretty important in these debates especially because the methods can look very different (PIKs, do nothing alts, do a lot of things alts whatever just explain it) . Saying "no perms in method debates" and "links are disads to the perm" are only one word different and only the second makes sense to me most of the time, win your links and contextualize it to the perm. Also please for the love of everything make standards for links competition clear

T: Honestly should probably be read in 75% of debates purely because it is almost always a positive time trade off for you

FW/USFG: I'll vote either way on it. The neg should probably have a defense that solves a lot of the aff offense or at least incorporates similar scholarship/SSD/TVA some way to talk about the aff if it's a good thing to talk about/full of truisms. I think that debate is one of the most valuable games we can play because there are so many unique ways we engage debate and debate engages us as people. What you choose to research and educate about on the aff is your choice but if you want to say the res is bad then you should probably have specific links to the res to impact turn the education on FW and your CI needs to be inclusive of both policy and critical sides of debate, whether or not those happen on the aff or not is up to you, and there are clever ways to do it that doesn't seem self serving.

DA's: I like a well researched DA specific to the aff. I'm not a fan of the politics/elections DA but if you are good at running it then go for it. I think turns case args are important and I think you need smart case args to make the DA impact calc more in your favor (impact defense to help yours outweigh or internal link take outs on an advantage for probability) Also think about what framing is the absolute best for your impact that also frames out your opponents.

CP: Needs to have a net benefit. One line CP in the 1NC with no ev or other args don't make any sense to me unless you are re-highlighting their evidence in a way that substantiated the 1NC cp text. These can often be the best counterplans against an aff. Theory is pretty up in the air but I will vote on it if there is a full arg in the 2AC to it. I will vote aff on theory so keep that in mind when you are answering the 2AC with your generic theory blocks (Side note: Conditions cp are def BS) ((I will vote neg on one but might you catch an eye roll during the 1NC))

PIC/PIK: I honestly think these are busted if the aff messes them up/ doesn't make a X key argument. PICS bad is kinda eh for me, also please make it as clear as possible to me you are floating the PIK. You can be tricky about it just be very clear in the alt solvency explanation in the BLOCK

Theory: I'm fine with it just make interps, violations and impacts clear. I hate when people spread theory blocks that don't answer the opponents

Condo: I think conditionality is good unless the neg doesn't defend it properly. There should be a time tradeoff in the block being forced to answer theory if you want to spend the 1NC spamming CP's. I only went for condo once when the neg actually messed it up and it was the correct choice.

Presumption against K affs that don't do things can be really good but it should be paired with offense to supercharge your link argument (do nothing affs against an organizing link on the cap K) and can be a straight turn of the case by itself because they make the aff impact worse because they think they have done something about violence.

LD: I did this for three years and I really want to see the local circuit become more modern. I am a judge that will definitely vote on a K, is cool with speed IF it's clear, I'm definitely cool with the neg having multiple off case positions (condo is more of a voter esp. with shorter speeches but i also think reading 4off is not strategic when you have so little time)

PF: Haven't judged nat circ. ever but am receptive to whatever, EXCEPT bad theory and tricks

Local/trad PF: I know the circuit is super lay friendly but you don't need to treat me like a parent. I think bc speaking is heavily emphasized I don't think fast spreading is good but I think that some speed is fine. I treat definition debates like T debates except, lack of plan focus means you might stick to a wholistic reading of the res to ensure clash, I think PF should be able to get specific advocacies on the but whatever it is it's unconditional (all this means is that if the con want's the status quo they have to go for it from the beginning or they can read an advocacy in that is different then the pros case) I also love K's but with the nature of PF the more specific it is to the topic or whatever the other team said the better

If you have any accessibility concerns for the round then I am happy to accommodate and I'm sure your opponents will be happy to oblige.

Put me on the email chain: kadewilliams27@gmail.com

Please call me Kade not just judge.

History:

3 years at Moore highschool, double state finalist
1 year at UCO, quall to NDT and 33rd at CEDA
Current SNU

Policy:

I've done just about anything you could think of in policy debate and I'll be good for most things you say. In recent years I've ran almost exclusively settler colonialism, and I tend to be a K focus judge. I don't hold many strong opinions about things in debate, but I've been a 2n/1a for most of my time in debate and most of my 2nrs are the K.

Specific thoughts:

Policy v K debates: This is the type of debate I find that most teams kinda just read their blocks and not interact with the flow, please don't do this with me in the back. I lean a bit neg on the fw question on these debates I guess if I had to have a preference.

K v K debates: no specific comment - I greatly enjoy teams that do a lot of comparative works on their theories and I think that a lot of explanation on why your theory is correct goes a long way with me.

Framework: If the counter interp resolves a large chunk of limits I lean towards the aff. However, I think that if the counter interp doesn't I find it to be a bit hard for the affirmative to impact turn a lot of the neg offense.

Public Forum:

I don't like this debate forum. So clash as much as you can even if the format doesn't allow for it. I flow unlike half of yalls judges, so make sense when you speak and try to actually interact with eachother.

The way to my ballot in Public Forum is to actually win a debate round and not just talk pretty. Just because I'm a policy judge and I don't like PF doesn't mean I want you to turn the round into mini-policy.