TECH1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 TRUTH

SLOW1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10SPEED

lincoln douglas

traditional judge. did ld for 4 years during high school.

framework is a big part of ld and its what makes it interesting and fun to debate. clash with ur framework is highly encouraged because you have a higher chance of winning.

show how/why ur arguments matter. do not just say "extend/flow to my side" as I will not do either. if you cant show why ur arg matters I won't flow them through.

please be clear. I'm fine with a bit of speed but If I cant hear u I cant flow and give weigh to ur arguments.

not a fan of progressive and theory debate. if u have another case please use, because I probably won't know what ur talking about.

above all please be kind and respectful towards ur opponent. u could have 100% won but if u say something rude/racist/disrespectful to your opponent I will mark you down immediately.

public forum

not too familiar with pf but if you can show how ur evidence is better and more impactful than ur opponents you will win.

I WOULD LIKE TO BE ON THE EMAIL CHAIN: tcruzan23@crossingsschool.org

He/Him

you can just refer to me as judge or Minister (if you call me Minister I will give you +0.1 speaker points)

things that you should know for prefs:

overview: tech over truth. you can run most things in front of me (with the exception of wipeout, racist arguments, or similar things). I lean more towards policy debates but I'm willing to judge most things (with some exceptions). remember to be respectful to others and have fun.

Kritiks: I am fairly familiar with kritiks but I prefer policy-esque Ks mostly. if you read a kritik in front of me you are going to have to adequately explain to me how the k relates to the aff and as to why it is imperative for me to vote for the alt. In the end if you can sufficiently explain the k to me I'm ok with it.

disadvantages: DAs are the bread and butter of a good neg strat. when it comes to the kind of DAs I don't have any preference, but I believe that you must be able to explain the internal link scenario well enough in the round for me to take the DA seriously.

Theory/FW/T: I understand most theories and T arguments, but I will warn you that the possibility of me voting for T or theory all depends on YOUR ability to correctly extend, answer arguments, and defend your own arguments that were made, that also applies to the aff when they are defending themselves from theory or T. Do not only rely on solely framework as neg (unless if you hit a non topical aff), if you only rely on FW then the likeliness of me voting for you is low but not impossible.

Counterplans: like with what I said with the DA I think that counterplans are great in debate. Similar to DAs you need to explain the internal link scenario and why the CP is better than the aff plan for me to really vote on it. I'm not a very big fan of plan inclusive counterplans but I believe that they are legitimate and definitely a viable strat.

Speed: please try and prioritize clarity over speed since I do have difficulty hearing. I will tell you if I think you need to slow down, but please don't destroy your ability to finish reading case because you were speaking as slow as a rock for my sake. If it has to come to it I will ask if I can record the speech and if you can try and write down all your analytics on the doc (this would be the worst case scenario so don't come into the round expecting this to be required).

Final Judgement: as I stated above I am tech over truth and my vote will mostly be a result of that. Expect this to be how I am going to vote unless if I find it necessary to vote as a result of something that happened in the round (like if someone says something racist).

pet peeves: please don't do something like read 8 off in the round as the neg, I as an 1A debater hate it whenever this happens so I will tell you that if you read more than 8 off I will probably not vote for you as I think it is incredibly abusive to the aff and just destroys clash and fairness in the round. If you try to be a smart-aleck and only read 7 off after reading this paradigm I will most likely remove speaker points from your ballot. Another thing is, and I cannot stress this hard enough, DO NOT READ NON TOPICAL AFFS IN FRONT OF ME! If you read what I just told you and still decide to read a non-topical aff I am warning you that you will not have a fun time. Also do not read an aff that just doesn't have a plan text in the 1 AC I will treat you aff the same as a non-topical aff (if you just accidently forgot the plan text for some reason please send it out after the 1AC but if you don't send it out and instead only tell me what the plan text is in the 2AC then expect for me to give you a really bad time in the RFD). side note: what I said about non-topical affs can apply to k affs but I won't immediately vote you down but you will be very close.

Final thoughts: Overall just debate. try to be nice to one another and remember to have fun. be respectful. have fun.

PF: I’m tech over truth and will flow any argument no matter how crazy it may seem. With that being said, it needs to be convincing enough on your end. If you use framework tell me why I should prefer your framework and why your contentions flow under your it. If neither team convince me on their framework, I will default to cost-benefit analysis. I’m fairly confident with any speed, but if you’re speaking so fast that you lack clarity then you should probably slow down. I will vote based mostly on impacts so please please please impact weigh at the end of every speech. I do not flow crossfire. That is time for you, not for me, so if something important is brought up during cross, make sure to bring it up in your next speech.

LD: Pretty much the same thing but swap framework with value/value-criterion. Explain how your criterion links to your value and why your value is more important than the opposition. Also, explain how your case flows across both values.

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

Parent judge- but have been judging for 2 years.

Judge LD + PF.

Impact based weighing > evidence, but both are important.

Spreading: I've only had one person I couldn't keep up with, so it doesn't bother me.

Last Updated 12/5/2021

Ishmael Kissinger
Experience: 3.5 yrs for The University of Central Oklahoma 02-05 (Nov/JV & Open)
14 yrs as Coach @ Moore High School, OK
Policy Rounds Judged: Local ~10
Policy National/Toc - 2
LD Rounds Judged Local: 0
LD National/TOC - 0

PFD - Local = 0

PFD Nat Circuit - 0

Email Chain: PLEASE ASK IN ROUND - I cannot access my personal email at school.

*Note: I do not follow along with the word doc. I just want to be on the chain so that I can see the evidence at the end of the round if necessary. I will only flow what I hear.

LD -

Just because I am primarily a policy judge does not mean that I think LD should be like 1 person policy. Small rant: I am tired of us making new debate events and then having them turn into policy... If you are constructing your case to be "Life & Util" and then a bunch of Dis-Ads you probably don't want me as your judge. If you are going for an RVI on T in the 1AR you probably don't want me as a judge. I don't think that LD affs should have plan texts. If I were to put this in policy terms: "You need to be (T)-Whole Res."

Affirmatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their Criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that affirm the whole resolution.

Negatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that negate the whole resolution.

CX

I tend to consider myself a flow oriented judge that tries to be as tab as any one person can be. Absent a framework argument made, I will default to a policy-maker/game-theorist judge. I view debate in an offense-defense paradigm, this means that even if you get a 100% risk of no solvency against the aff, but they are still able to win an advantage (or a turned DA) then you are probably going to lose. You MUST have offense to weight against case.

Generic Information:

Speed is not a problem *Edit for the digital age: Sometimes really fast debaters are harder for me to understand on these cheap computer speakers.

T & Theory need to be impacted with in round abuse. As the debate season goes on I tend to err more toward reasonability than I do at the beginning of the year. This is usually because as the debate year goes on I expect Negative teams to be more prepared for less topical arguments. This is generally how much judges operate, they just don't say it. I typically don't vote on potential abuse, you should couch your impacts on potential abuse in very real-world examples.

Please make impact calculus earlier in the debate rather than just making it in the 2nr/2ar

Kritiks are not a problem, but I am not really deep into any one literature base. This may put you at a disadvantage if you assume I know/understand the nuances between two similar (from my point of view) authors. **If you are going for a K or an Alt in the 2NR but are unsure if the aff is going to win the Perm debate and you want me to "kick the alt" and just have me vote on some epistemic turn you're only explaining in the overview of the 2NR you are not going to enjoy the RFD. If you think it's good enough to win the debate on with only a :30 explanation in the overview, you should probably just make the decision to go for it in the 2nr and kick the alt yourself.

When addressing a kritikal aff/neg I will hold you to a higher threshold than just Util & Cede the political, I'll expect you to have specific literature that engages the K. If this is your strategy to answering K teams I am probably not your "1."

I don't have a problem with multiple conditional arguments, although I am more sympathetic to condo bad in a really close theory debate.

CPs are legit. Just like judges prefer specific links on a Dis-Ads I also prefer specific Counter-Plans. But I will evaluate generic states/int'l actor CPs as well.

Dispo = Means you can kick out of it unless you straight turn it, defensive arguments include Perms and theory. (My interp, but if you define it differently in a speech and they don't argue it, then your interp stands)

DAs are cool - the more specific the link the better, but I will still evaluate generic links.

Case args are sweet, especially on this year's (2019) topic.



Personal Preferences:

Really I have only one personal pref. If you are in a debate round - never be a jerk to the opposing team &/or your partner. I believe that our community has suffered enough at the hands of debating for the "win," and although I don't mind that in context of the argumentation you make in the round, I do not believe that it is necessary to demean or belittle your opponent. If you are in the position to be facing someone drastically less experienced than yourself; keep in mind that it should be a learning process for them, even if it is not one for you. It will NOT earn you speaker points to crush them into little pieces and destroy their experience in this activity. If you want to demonstrate to me that you are the "better debater(s)," and receive that glorious 29 or maybe even 30 it will most likely necessitate you: slowing down (a little), thoroughly explaining your impact calc, clearly extending a position, then sitting down without repeating yourself in 5 different ways. If you opt to crush them you will prob. win the round, but not many speaker points (or pol cap) with me.

Hello, my name is Bri :).

If you have questions please email me: briannalemaster1120@gmail.com

About me

I competed at Westmoore High School for 4 years where I was a 4x national qualifier and in multiple state final rounds. I competed in LD, PF but trad and circuit debate. I also currently coach multiple events including all the debate events and some specific IE events. I also beat Taylor Rafferty in a debate round once.

TLDR: General Debate Things

1. Tech>Truth. This obviously excludes racist, homophobic, and other hateful sentiments.

2. You should be crystalizing and summarizing your best arguments in your last rebuttal speech going for everything is not in your best interest.

3. Clash is the most important thing for me in debate if you don't do it or are just avoiding it the round will probably not go well for you.

4. SIGN POST PLEASE. If you don't your speaker points just like your signposting won't exist.

Trad LD

1. Framework is pretty important to me especially when I'm looking at what arguments to prioritize in the round.

2. Mostly for non-OK debate- Since the progressive debate is becoming more common among the it I'm fine with speed and counter plans etc.... All I ask is that if you're going to do it please format it correctly and just call it a counter plan or a "K" or whatever don't try to hide it as a contention I know the difference. Include me on the file share if you want or email chain. I do not really like seeing identity K's but again run what you have prepared.

- Oklahoma debate - guys honestly since this is a trad circuit I would avoid running k's or cp or anything like that since the reality is your competitors will not know how to respond and it will make it an unfair round. I would recommend not running that stuff in general here it will not help you win a round.

3. If you signpost, extend your arguments, try not to drop stuff, and give an offensive reason why I should vote for you as opposed to a defensive one, you'll be in very good shape. (Offense = why I'm winning, Defense = why I'm not losing). I will not vote off drops if they are not brought up, but I think it works in your favor if you bring up drops especially If your opponents do not address your entire case.

4. Your framework and your case should be able to match properly I don't want to see a Kant framework and then a bunch of extinction arguments I might sob internally.

PFD

1. FILL YOUR SPEECH TIMES. You already don't have a lot of time use it wisely!

2. Please don't make Grand Cross a big disaster please be civil and nice.

3. Make sure to carry your arguments all the way through final focus if they are not carried through I won't use it in my decision.

4. Public Forum Debate is called Public Forum for a reason it is supposed to be as accessible to a general audience as possible there shouldn't be a high use of progressive argumentation or debate lingo. Also I really do not vote off fw more impact clac take that as you will but if you make fw your entire voter I'm most likely got going to weigh it that heavy.

5. Don't be one of those teams that paraphrases evidence you will instantly lose all credibility. I will read cards if the other team tells me to call for them.

6. Make sure you have been well versed in the lit and case your reading it helps you to be able to answer questions better.

- disclaimer- I have coached and judged BQ just so ya know I can keep up

POLICY

LOL

• I did not do policy in high school but I can mostly keep up with everything except I do not like tricks so do with that what you will that being said I also am not entirely a fan of speed but if you want to spread plz send doc.

Hello, my name is Bri :).

If you have questions please email me: briannalemaster1120@gmail.com

About me

I competed at Westmoore High School for 4 years where I was a 4x national qualifier and in multiple state final rounds. I competed in LD, PF but trad and circuit debate. I also currently coach multiple events including all the debate events and some specific IE events. I also beat Taylor Rafferty in a debate round once.

TLDR: General Debate Things

1. Tech>Truth. This obviously excludes racist, homophobic, and other hateful sentiments.

2. You should be crystalizing and summarizing your best arguments in your last rebuttal speech going for everything is not in your best interest.

3. Clash is the most important thing for me in debate if you don't do it or are just avoiding it the round will probably not go well for you.

4. SIGN POST PLEASE. If you don't your speaker points just like your signposting won't exist.

Trad LD

1. Framework is pretty important to me especially when I'm looking at what arguments to prioritize in the round.

2. Mostly for non-OK debate- Since the progressive debate is becoming more common among the it I'm fine with speed and counter plans etc.... All I ask is that if you're going to do it please format it correctly and just call it a counter plan or a "K" or whatever don't try to hide it as a contention I know the difference. Include me on the file share if you want or email chain. I do not really like seeing identity K's but again run what you have prepared.

- Oklahoma debate - guys honestly since this is a trad circuit I would avoid running k's or cp or anything like that since the reality is your competitors will not know how to respond and it will make it an unfair round. I would recommend not running that stuff in general here it will not help you win a round.

3. If you signpost, extend your arguments, try not to drop stuff, and give an offensive reason why I should vote for you as opposed to a defensive one, you'll be in very good shape. (Offense = why I'm winning, Defense = why I'm not losing). I will not vote off drops if they are not brought up, but I think it works in your favor if you bring up drops especially If your opponents do not address your entire case.

4. Your framework and your case should be able to match properly I don't want to see a Kant framework and then a bunch of extinction arguments I might sob internally.

PFD

1. FILL YOUR SPEECH TIMES. You already don't have a lot of time use it wisely!

2. Please don't make Grand Cross a big disaster please be civil and nice.

3. Make sure to carry your arguments all the way through final focus if they are not carried through I won't use it in my decision.

4. Public Forum Debate is called Public Forum for a reason it is supposed to be as accessible to a general audience as possible there shouldn't be a high use of progressive argumentation or debate lingo. Also I really do not vote off fw more impact clac take that as you will but if you make fw your entire voter I'm most likely got going to weigh it that heavy.

5. Don't be one of those teams that paraphrases evidence you will instantly lose all credibility. I will read cards if the other team tells me to call for them.

6. Make sure you have been well versed in the lit and case your reading it helps you to be able to answer questions better.

- disclaimer- I have coached and judged BQ just so ya know I can keep up

POLICY

LOL

• I did not do policy in high school but I can mostly keep up with everything except I do not like tricks so do with that what you will that being said I also am not entirely a fan of speed but if you want to spread plz send doc.

lol oklahoma judge

im fine w spreading :) just send docs to your opponents and me. If you don’t, then just don’t spread. Lol

read for a higher chance of me voting you up it’s like a little cheat sheet

i like giving verbal rfds tbh so get your pen out or computer and write/type what im giving advice about lol i hate typing rfds because idk how 2 type laughing so hard r8 lolololololololol

dont call me judge, call me lanique pleaaaseeeeee

pronouns : ask

email : mageelanique@gmail.com

if you ever want more rfd email me

need to know why i voted the why i did, email. i’ll be honest

Debate is a game in my books. With that being said, behind this game remember that the people whom you are debating are real actual people with their own set of world views, experiences, and problems of their own. In every round I judge, I expect you to treat your opponents with the utmost respect and kindness you expect to be given to the people you hold most dear in your life. Debate etiquette is dying, don’t let it. It will exist in my rounds, if it doesn’t, i’ll probably vote you down.

respect pronouns.

with that being said, here is the rundown

pf debate - i did pf my last year of highschool,

Dropped arguments - i will actually flow your rounds (so slay), word for word. so don’t make stupid arguments like “they didn’t answer this” when they did and even if you think they didn’t answer it, still spend time extending your argument. don’t drop it. but for when teams do drop arguments, tear them apart about it.

Confidence - Sound confident, don’t let people walk all over you, confidence is key. You could say something completely wrong and if you say it confident enough, I legit would have to think about.

Framework - if you want me to judge the round under a certain framework, have a framework, if you don’t provide one, i’ll default to impact calc, and make sure you weigh.

impact calc - it’s important please use them well. Impact calc = timeframe probability magnitude impact

General args that i love in pf - i love general discrimination points as long as they are under the framework and not dropped. i hate weighing lives. no life is more important than another type vibe. I love unique args that are creative and crafty with sneaky little tricks in them.

lol if you say util is racist and make an amazing point about that I will be so happy

crosses - i love feisty crosses, be assertive, ask questions, take follow ups, cut them off when it’s been too long, nicely. be kind, don’t be rude, but don’t let them walk all over you.

formalities are important, ask me where you want to sit, ask me if i’m ready, have playful banter with your opponents, be kind. But formalities aren’t everything but just know the boundaries

it is so critical that you address the judge and tell them why you are winning the round today so please please tell me why you’re winning and don’t make me do the work

Policy

I did policy my freshman and sophomore year, therefore, i will not be the best policy judge you will have, but i will try my best, I am so good at flowing cool emoji

counter-plans - cool but lame

dis-ads - cool but lame

topicality/framework - lame

theory - cool

kritiks - love love love not the basic stuffs though like cap ks #crapks but i will listen and like if you’re winning it good for you i’ll vote on it but i’ll prob be bored ????

k-affs - love love love

condo - not fair dude unless it’s in regulation yes

Lincoln Douglas Debate

I did lincoln douglas my junior year, did horrible but understand arguments and the general format of it because of policy and public forum experience. i’ll listen to every argument, just make sure you explain it well. sorry my paradigm is small for you but like honestly just look to the pf and policy sections of the paradigm and if you’re doing progressive LD look at the policy paradigm.

I been judging for twelve years and judging debate for 7 I don't like spreading and impacts and linking. Have the heaviest weight in debate, judging for me

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.

Please do not spread, I would like to clearly hear you and what you have to say.

Make sure to keep your own time to help both of us.

I prefer four step refutation and please go straight down the flow, as it makes it easier for me to keep a track of your points.

I am a blank slate judge. Pretty much any argument goes as long as I cannot deduce it is fake, like purple dinosaurs are taking over the world or something. I have done PFD for four years. I have dabbled in all types of debate. I've done some speech as well. I am laid back, take with that what you will, just respect each other and the round. Will not flow CX (unless something crazy happens), carry the points into your speeches. CX is for the debaters to get information from their opponents and the judge is a spectator at that point.

I am a flow heavy judge so make sure to emphasize the important stuff and tell me what to weigh in the round. I usually try to narrow down the debate to three different main arguments (most clash) or one linear path, if the debate is one sided. I don't want to do the debating for you and that would be a disservice if I just looked at the flow sheet and decided that way, VOTER ISSUES ARE IMPORTANT :)

Lincoln Douglas /Public Forum Debate

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

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

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

Individual Events

A Note On Trigger Warnings

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

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

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