PF Debater for 4 years

I am very framework and evidence-oriented. Show me how your case supports your framework and why your evidence is relevant. Strong evidence is important, and I won't give a lot of weight to flimsy arguments. PLEASE EXTEND. Extend your arguments so I can give them the weight they deserve when deciding rounds.

Please keep things organized and go down the flow instead of jumping around. I can handle speed but I need to be able to keep up and flow everything. (Spreading won't get you very far with me) The easier I can read my flow, the easier I can understand you and your arguments. A roadmap before the speech is nice.

Although I did PF in high school, my knowledge and experience of Ks are limited, so you will need to thoroughly explain your arguments, but if properly fleshed out I can definitely understand.

Aggressiveness in a debate is expected and I don't mind it, just please be respectful of your opponents. Of course, discrimination or flat-out disrespect is unacceptable, so please be courteous.

Hi!

My name is Rasheeda!

I'm okay with most things, including spectators, as long as the debaters are ok with it as well. I don't flow cross, unless brought up again. I'm also not a fan of spreading, please refrain from doing that. I would recommend you keep time, but I will be keeping time too.

LD:
I weigh value criterion pretty heavily, along with impacts

PF:

I don't weigh observations too heavily, I focus more on contentions.

Best of luck!

NO Spreading speak slowly and concisely. Be nice.

Hi, I'm Sam Arter. I am a senior at Edmond Memorial High School. I have done mainly PF and INF but I have experience with Oratory, Extemp and LD. I have done speech and debate for 3 years. 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 prefer spreading but I will understand if you do it. If I stop writing- I'm not following.

• SIGNPOST!!!! Use an off-time roadmaps. I will be flowing so signposting helps me understand where you are on the flow.

• I vote frameworks and impact calc if 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.

• Please state your cards in the format (Authors last name, Year).

Speech-

• I like triangle or diamond blocking. Please make sure your structure is clear.

• State your sources in your speech.

• Make your movement and hand gestures purposeful.

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

• Use jokes. Make it fun.

If you have any questions, comments, or concerns please email me- fridayshome.sa@gmail.com

Last Updated January 14, 2024

Sheeva Azma

Experience:

0.5 years as a PF/LD judge since Fall 2023

3 years of LD debate at Norman High School

4 years of Parli debate at MIT

2 years of Parli debate mentoring (including judging) at Georgetown University

Local LD rounds judged: 3 (since Fall 2023)

Local PF rounds judged: 1 (since Fall 2023)

Debate rounds judged overall: 10+

---

My personal philosophy on LD judging:

After doing LD, I did Parliamentary debate, which is a lot less focused on specific points and a lot more on speaking style and your ability to be persuasive. Sometimes that involves facts and evidence, and sometimes it involves emotional appeals, but as a scientist, I value facts and evidence.

The purpose of LD is to be persuasive. It can be a mix of arguments and speaking. Ideally, the best debater has a mix of both. I am not one of those people who flows every single point. Please don't be that person that just says "cross-apply all points" to rebut your opponent's points.

As a high school LD debater, I occasionally got comments on my dress style in the debate decisions. My goal as a judge is to judge on the issues and speaking style rather than asinine stuff like that.

I think it's really fun to learn about the different philosophies in the value and criterion and love hearing well-supported arguments, even if they are not particularly unique.

I encourage all LD debaters to consider Parli debate in college - it's really fun! :)

My personal philosophy on CX/policy debate:

I have never been a CX debater and it honestly breaks my brain a little bit. My brain's information processing capacity is limited, so it would be great if you could speak a bit more slowly.

Personal preferences:

The most important thing in a debate round is to do your best and have fun. I have lost many debate rounds in my day, and I am all the better for it. It's amazing to learn how to argue effectively!

Don't be mean to your opponents in the round. Do use evidence that relates to your points and go the extra mile to link the evidence to the opponent's counter-arguments. Don't assume I understand the link myself.

Good luck and have fun! :) There is more to life than winning debate rounds - there are a lot of valuable skills and life lessons to be learned by debating.

hi! i am a senior at edmond memorial and i've been debating for three years. i do public forum and am pf captain at my school, but i love lincoln douglass and definitely know the difference, how to judge it, etc.

PF:

framework- i prefer a framework, and will judge based off it, if it's argued correctly. ido ask that you tell me a)Why it matters and b)extend it in every speech. iexpect that if one team does not provide a framework they will accept their opponents and carry it through the round. if you have clashing framework, tell me why to prefer yours. you will probably not win a round on FW alone but it is very important in the debate.

speaking- i am ok with spreading but if ican't understand what you're saying, iwon't flow it. you need to be clear. i prefer signposting during speeches, otherwise the round can become unorganized. I don't like it when debaters are aggressive in round, it doesn't impress me. i will vote you down for being abusive. i ask for respectful, clean rounds. if you're mean to your opponent, you'll get low speaks. you don't have to be abusive to win a round, if you are a good debater.

cards- i will never really ask for a card, that's the debaters job. unless i think someone is straight up lying. if a debater makes a claim and their opponent doesn't ask them for a card, then call them on not having one/ bad evidence then its true in that round. if you and your opponent each have cards that say opposite things, check sources, etc. and tell me why ishould prefer your card over your opponent's.

impacts- i will vote primarily on impacts. please bring them up, weigh them, and extend them throughout the round.

cross examination- do not argue or be super aggressive. ask for follow up questions. let your opponent ask questions. ido not flow cross, if it's important, bring it up in a speech.

if an argument is dropped by your opponents, iwill weigh it. However, it's important that you bring up that they dropped your argument and why it's important.

NOTHING is common knowledge, but if a statement isn't refuted by your opponents, i'll flow it as fact.

LD:

same paradigms as PF but, ihave very minimal experience in LD. i'll keep up with anything as long as you clearly explain and weigh your arguments.

value/criteria- This is extremely important in an LD round, I will vote mostly on value/criteria

same preferences with signposting, carrying impacts through the round, cards, dropping arguments, speaking, cross x, and not being aggressive.

One of my biggest things is being respectful and kind. I’m not cool with a team being rude or abusive. And make sure you extend arguments all the way through every speech. Continue to remind me why you have won.Have fun!

I graduated from Norman North in 2019 and OU in 2022 with dual degrees in political science and professional writing. I am an English teacher ant Longfellow Middle School and a two-time published poet.

From 2012-2019, I competed in PF, LD, Congress, and all IEs. LD and Congress are by far my favorites. I've been to regionals, state, Nats, and TOC.

I have judged in the West OK circuit since January 2023 and was a coach and judge for Norman/Norman North at Nationals 2023.

Being a respectful, charismatic speaker is most important. The most persuasive speakers are expert storytellers. I'll happily choose the more compelling storyteller over the person with the most cards. Crack a joke. Show personality.

PF should be treated on balance, so I will carefully follow where there is clash of arguments. I want to see offense and defense. I will treat LD similarly, but FW will always matter more in LD.

In LD, if you do not have a FW, then I will default to your opponent's. If you do not make it applicable to your own case, then the opponent will win on that voting issue. If you both have a FW, I want you to tell me where your FW interacts with the other. Does it encompass theirs? Does it narrow the scope? Why does that matter?

I also like to see creative arguments. Bring a fresh perspective. Big K fan when done right, but my preference will always be for traditional LD debate.

TLDR:

PF: 1. speaking 2. clash of impacts 3. FW (maybe)

LD: 1. speaking 2. FW clash 3. impacts, I debate trad, but theory is fun sometimes.

Things to avoid and other notes:

Ad hominems.

Straw man arguments.

Inundating your opponent with evidence and telling me "Judge, they dropped my 2nd and 43rd responses you must vote on that." (I will not vote on that.)

Adaptability is critical to success. So while certain strategies/etc are allowed and often welcome in the nat circuit, I will expect competitors to adapt to their judges' paradigms. Learning how to read a room is a valuable skill. Good luck to all competitors and don't forget to have fun!

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.

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!

History- I debated in Public Forum for two years, including the district, regional, and state tournaments. I also have some experience in extemp and congressional debate.

Paradigms- I am fine with, and encourage spreading, and enjoy a little bit of clash in CX, now don't be rude and abusive, but a little debate is what this is all about. I will weigh based on the framework/value debate so don't drop that. I also love numbers! I vote off of impact weighing, and numbers help me with that significantly. Any argument not attacked does get dropped, but please bring up the fact it did or I will disregard it.

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.

cameronmdecker10@gmail.com

TLDR: run whatever you want, i can handle progressive args and speed, im voting on the flow. dont be problematic.

PF: i did pf for four years so i would say i’m pretty experienced and can handle most arguments.

be respectful in round, i don’t really care if you get aggressive because i know it happens, just make sure your aggression doesn’t come off as disrespect to your opponents. if you do/say anything problematic (ie being racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.) in round you’ll get dropped.

Framework: i'll vote on your framework as long as you extend it through every speech and actually use it to tie your impacts. if you just say our framework is x at the beginning of every speech im more likely to just judge the debate as if framework didnt exist. essentially, tell me why youre winning under your framework with each impact you extend throughout the ff and summary. also, if your framework just says "if we prove x and y then we win this debate" and x and y are literally just your first and second contention, then im just gonna drop the framework and default to either your opponents, or if they dont offer one then cost benefit analysis. its abusive to say that the only path to the ballot is through whatever your specific arguments are.

last thing on fw: if you do not clash with your opponents fw and just say "we're winning under my fw" or "our fw is better" im either going to default to the opponents framework or default to cost benefit analysis because at that point youre not debating youre just being repetitive.

Argumentation: i really dont care if you wanna run progressive arguments such as counterplans or kritiks, but im only gonna vote for you if you actually know what youre talking about and not just using it to catch your opponents off guard. that being said, my experience with Ks is somewhat limited, so if you run one, just explain it thoroughly

another note on Ks and CPs: if youre only attack against them is that "they arent allowed in pf" then youre gonna lose the round. just debate the argument.

besides that im open to any argument really.

Weighing: teams that quantify impacts are gonna win my ballot 99.9% of the time vs teams that dont quantify anything. quantifying is by far the easiest way to weigh impacts against each other. if no quantifiable impacts are brought in the round its basically impossible for me as a judge to pick a winner if its a close debate because at that point youre making me choose which argument i think sounds better.

besides quantifying, i really like impact calc. if you tell me that youre impacts have more probability, bigger magnitude, and a better timeframe then it makes it really easy for me to vote for you.

Speaks: generally ill give good speaks as long as no one is rude, like i said i dont mind aggression as long as its not rude or disrespectful. i also will give you better speaks not only based on actually speaking skill, but how well your argumentation is within your speech. if you get up and give an absolute banger rebuttal or summary, youll probably get a 30 assuming youre not being hateful in the round.

Speed: i dont mind speed, just dont full on spread, other than that if you wanna go fast thats fine with me. im giving you the benefit of the doubt that if i can keep up, then your opponent should be able to as well, however, that works both ways so if i lose track and cant understand you im gonna assume the opponents cant either.

other than that, i think this is a great activity that everyone should have fun with. dont be afraid to make jokes, smile, and enjoy yourself. thats what this activity is for imo.

LD: i never did LD but i did PF for four years and i was a pretty progressive debater so im gonna be able to keep up with any arguments. i dont mind speed, just dont full on spread unless you wanna let me have the evidence youre reading, other than that if you wanna go fast thats fine with me. im giving you the benefit of the doubt that if i can keep up, then your opponent should be able to as well, however, that works both ways so if i lose track and cant understand you im gonna assume the opponents cant either.

About me: Hi! I'm Spencer (they/them), I am a Jenks Alumni and am so happy to be back and judge for them! I love debate so much, it is my passion and I am always willing to talk about it! I'm a freshman at the University of Central Oklahoma, I currently debate in the college policy circuit and I love it! I am open to unique arguments, just be nice to everyone in the room, and let me know a preferred name and pronouns if you have them so I can write them in on the ballot.

PF: I was a Public Forum debater at Jenks, so I am familiar with how everything works. I am okay with speed, but if I cannot understand you, I cannot flow, your opponents can't either. I go off of the flow pretty well, please make your contention tags clear! I vote on who I think made the best argument and clash within the round, as I said above, I go off the flow. Remember to take a breath, and be respectful to your opponents!

*If you are not clear, I will let you know by saying "Clear!"

LD: I have a basic idea of LD debate, but not too much more than that. I am a flow judge, if you flow and don't drop arguments you should be good. Again, I am okay with speed, but if you are too fast for me as the judge, or if you are unclear I am unable to flow, and your opponents cannot understand you either. Be respectful, decorum is important to me and have fun! If you run a K, I am not opposed to Kritiks. But I will need an in-depth explanation of the argument, pretend I have no idea about what you are saying.

hi y'all! i debate 4 edmond north in LD/CX ('25). here are the things u should do if i'm ur judge:

- Make sure to be clear when you speak, and give me a roadmap of what you're hitting in round. I can deal with speed, but if I or your opponent tell you to be clear twice but you don't clear, I stop flowing :(

- follow ev ethics >:(

- I obviously like strong contention level debate, but none of that matters if you don't weigh through the value criterion. Criterion is the only thing that tells me why ur arguments matter. Impact everything out in the lens of ur criterion (if ur in ld)

- Tech >>>>>>>> Truth except for when the former is clearly abusive/egregious/immoral (if you run death/racism/sexism, etc. good, you're getting a L20)

- I'm not a fan of value debate, but if you execute it well or your opponent just doesn't address it, it's in your favor. Please don't give me justice vs morality debates.

- I like prog debate and imo it's underutilized on the circuit - feel free to run it if you want! However, please make your arguments accessible for trad debaters

- Signpost - please let me know where u are on the flow (this is also a good practice in general :)

if you show me a funny/cute animal photo, +1 speaks.

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

DEBATE:

First, a little bit about myself. Hi, my name's Joe and I've done LD all four years of high school and I love it a lot, that's why I'm judging right now. Above all else, good sportsmanship is key in any debate round. I've got plenty of experience under my belt so don't worry about going to fast for me to understand, but do make sure that your opponent can understand what you're saying as well (if you plan on policy-style spreading I'd prefer to have a copy of your case to read along because I can't flow that). I count dropped arguments very heavily—if you drop something your opponent has won that point, that's just how it works. I keep my own flow but if you want those dropped points to count you better point them out in the round, I will only judge exclusively based off of what is brought up in the round (don't leave anything open to interpretation. If you have any questions please ask them before the round! I'm happy to clear up any confusion! Have a good round!

SPEECH:

Just as LD, I've also competed in a variety of speech events throughout my time in high school. Judging for this is pretty much by the event, so there's nothing very specific adive I can give you other than keep your cool—you got this!

Proud mommy of debate

If you have any questions, please ask me!

PF debater for three years

• Explain things to me. Why should I vote for you? Who has the bigger impact? Don't let me decide because you might not like how I vote.
• I don't care if you speak fast, I can keep up. If you speak fast and that causes you to go under time, then I'll care (and not in a good way).
• If you start rambling during cross without answering the question, chances are I will take off a speaker point. No, it's not a strategy, it's just annoying and wastes everyone's time.
• If your opponent says something that is blatantly false, point that out. Don't make me do it, because I just might not.
• No, your opponent does not need a card to prove common knowledge. If anyone starts saying anything remotely like "they don't have a card" for something that is just logical, I won't flow it and you've dropped the argument if that's your only response. Address the argument. Now if you're asserting something that needs evidence and isn't just logical, then you need that evidence and your opponent has every right to call you out if you don't have it.

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.

I am a senior at Edmond Memorial HS, and I have done Lincoln Douglas for 4 years. I have also judged PF and Extemp.

General: Please be respectful, nice, and a good sport. Refrain from being any negative kind of -ist or -phobic. Try not to sound entitled or out-of-touch.

Debate:

Paradigm:

• I'm fine with spreading but assume that if I don't catch something, you didn't push it enough. I would recommend spelling out voter issues a little more than you're used to but don't tell me that I am doing something. Ex: "Judge you are voting pro..." Don't do this. Convince me.

I vote primarily on frameworks/Impact Calc.

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

***I vote tech over truth, no matter how absurd the argument is.***

Signpost.

• You should be signposting in your constructive and rebuttal. During rebuttal, I prefer going down the flow rather than jumping around.

Crossfire.

• I do not flow crossfire, but I do think it is super valuable when considering speaker points. If it's important bring it up in a speech.

Argumentation.

• I understand the basic functions of theory and K's, but it's a little hard for me to follow and conceptualize. I don't want to stop you from reading progressive arguments if that is what interests you. Just make sure to spell it out. If you like reading silly, goofy, substance arguments, go for it.

Card Calling.

• DO NOT bring up new evidence in your final speeches. This is incredibly abusive and I will immediately doc your speaker points.
• I think calling for cards as a judge is interventionist, however, evidence ethics is also extremely important. I will only call for a card if I am explicitly told to in a speech.

Time.

• I will be keeping official time just in case, but I'd rather you time yourself. That being said, do not argue if I have your speech or prep timed and it's different than yours. Official time is the final time. I can give you time signals during prep if you'd like, just let me know what you need.

Remember the speech and debate program is here to help you better yourselves and improve your existing skills. Don't take anything too seriously, and remember to have fun.

Thank you and good luck!

Speech:

If you are doing a speech event, make sure you have all parts of a speech: (intro, body, conclusion, sources, etc.), and then I will go off of speaking ability.

• I tend to enjoy watching funny speeches, but make sure you have enough evidence!
• Anecdotes aren't enough, I want genuine sources.
• I like triangle/diamond blocking
• Be intentional with your hand movements and gestures

Remember the speech and debate program is here to help you better yourselves and improve your existing skills. Don't take anything too seriously, and remember to have fun.

Thank you and good luck!

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.

I am a 4-year LD debater and an 8-year debate coach. In Lincoln Douglas debate I believe in traditional debating (less policy), but I will vote for a K if done correctly. However, this is a value-based debate and excessive stats/evidence will not be weighed more than value; value and value criterion are essential to the debate. Also, off-the-clock roadmaps are not necessary, unless doing something from tradition.

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

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

I have three absolute rules for round:

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

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

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

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

Some specific information:

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

Kritiks: Generally acceptable.

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

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

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

Theory:

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

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

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

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

Plans: Plans are fine if the rules allow them.

Tricks: I think these de-value debate.

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

I have been teaching Speech & Debate for 18 years. I particularly enjoy speaking events and LD debate. I do not care for spreading. I don't mind if you speak fast as long as I can understand you. If I can't understand the argument then I can't vote for your position. I look at the structure of the case as well as the delivery. Your job is to convince me that your Value is the highest in the round. I look for you to uphold your value throughout your case. You need to make the links and impacts, I won't do it for you. Please use a 4-step refutation.

I am big on structure in case. You must be able to uphold your Value and Criterion throughout your case. Each contention should fully support and link to the V, Cr, and resolution. Each contention should have a claim, warrant, and impact. You DO need evidence to support your ideas. Evidence comes in the form of facts, statistics, studies, logical reasoning, and expert opinions. The evidence you use should directly support the claim. You also need to impact the argument. Just because you prove something doesn't tell me why it matters to uphold your side. "If you don't tell me why it matters, it doesn't matter."

During rebuttals start with a roadmap so I know what you are going to do and in what order. Go down the flow to prevent drops. Most importantly when you argue drops in the round please do not use the phrase "he/she/they dropped my contention so it flows to me". You must impact this for me. Why does it matter that he/she/they dropped that particular contention? How does it help you or hurt them?

Please do not plagiarize cases from briefs. Utilize them to facilitate your ideas but do the work yourself. I want your ideas, not someone else's.

All in all, I am looking for a good debate.

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.

The biggest Wolverine lover south of Neptune.

( ▀ ͜͞ʖ▀) me core

Competed and died at state (somehow placed 4th in FEX), engaged in some shenanigans at nationals.

I don't like spreading (I can flow it), but I would prefer if you didn't. If you really want to spread, please provide me (and your opponent upon their request) with a copy of your case and give me a minute to read it over.

For all you goobers who use debate terms, tech >> truth. For everyone else with a life, the round will be weighed based on the quality of your arguments. Even if your arguments are goofy asf, if they’re good and you impact them well, I will buy the argument (for example, if you say that North Korea taking over the world is good and explain why, and your opponent just says North Korea taking over the world is bad because North Korea is bad, I will buy your argument).

I will typically not weigh the round on speaker points; however, if the debate is incredibly close, speaker points will become a factor.

LDers, please do not debate framework if you and your opponents frameworks essentially mean the same thing. If not, then PLEASE debate the framework. Give me a lens with which to weigh the round. If you don’t give me that I will have to default to picking my own, and you never know which one is.

PFers, please debate the impacts of your cases more than anything else. As stated previously, I need a lens to weigh the round: to me, impacts are that lens in PF.

Extempers, please tell me your question before your round. You may keep the question if you want. I will not deduct points if you use a notecard; however, if I look up and see that you are staring at the notecard and not making eye-contact with me (you can look at the card but then look back up at me), I will deduct points.

I'm pretty much fine with whatever. If somebody is throwing/memeing the round, notify me in advance because I, despite being a debate judge, also like to have fun.

If you have questions or wish to see your flows, please have your COACH email me at loganmullins181@gmail.com. I don't guarantee that I will respond, but I will do my best. I keep my flows until one week after the tournament is over, and then that stuff is going in the trash.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine is a cinematic masterpiece on par with 2001: A Space Odyssey. The former film tackles complicated themes of humanity, government corruption, and the past. In this film, Hugh Jackman plays James “Jimmy” “Logan” Howlett, famously known as the Wolverine. Logan tackles his humanity and his animalistic side, which is perfectly foiled in his brother Victor. Logan becomes increasingly concerned with the lives of his fellow man, the catharsis of which is when he rescues the imprisoned mutants from the Three Mile Island (also Wolverine is responsible for the Three Mile Island Incident and JFK is a mutant). Logan’s character arc is contrasted in Victor Creed, more commonly known as Sabertooth, a dark reflection of his animalistic tendencies: Sabertooth is a remorseless killer, motivated by selfish ends. Creed represents what Logan could be if he lost control. Wolverine’s loss of memory at the end of the film signifies his tragic character arc: in his rage and revenge quest, the ultimate loser is himself; the main antagonist, William Stryker, ends avoiding retribution for his crimes (as seen in X2), demonstrating the themes of government corruption. Ultimately, the critiques of this film are because of an inherent prejudice against men with sideburns. Stigmas against gorgeous facial hair often lead to outgroups in society, which fails all of your value-criterions. Please argue in favor of X-Men Origins: Wolverine being peak cinema in order to secure a W (which stands for Wolverine).

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.

Congratulations for participating in these sick activities whatever they may be!

I spent a good bit of time debating LD for santa fe before I graduated in '22 so thats my main area of expertise. as far as my paradigms there, I pay close attention to the framework level debate and its relevance to your constructive. Pfers, I aim to be as objective as I can so I'll likely vote up the most societally beneficial case. I also appreciate detailed empirics across the board. otherwise, speak clearly, be (reasonably) polite, and enjoy yourselves!

really looking forward to seeing the rounds/scenes yall have been working so hard towards :)

I prefer speechdrop but here is my email for document sharing/evidence chains if you need it:betty.stanton@jenksps.org

I'm the head coach of a successful team, and have been coaching for 18 years. I did CX in high school so long ago that Ks were new, and I competed in college.

LD: I'm a very traditional judge. I like values and criteria and analysis and clash. I want framework debate to actually mean something.

PF: I’m a very traditional judge. If the round becomes a very short CX round instead of a PF round, we have a problem. I want evidence and actual analysis of that evidence, and I want actual clash.

CX: I can handle your spread and I will vote where I'm persuasively told to with the following exceptions: 1) I have never voted on T. I think it's a non-starter unless a case is so blatantly non-topical that you can't even see the resolution from it. That's not to say it isn't a perfectly legitimate argument, it's just to say that I will probably buy the aff's 'we meet's and you might have better uses for your time than camping here. 2) If you run a K, you should firmly and continuously advocate for that K. 3) I, again, will always prefer actual clash in the round over unlinked theory arguments.

General Things ~

Don't claim something is abusive unless it is.

Don't claim an argument was dropped unless it was.

Don't advocate for atrocities.

Don't be a jerk to your opponents (This will get you the lowest speaker points possible. Yes, even if you win.)

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