As a debate judge, my primary focus is on promoting a respectful and clear debating environment. Here are the key elements of my debate paradigm:

1. Respect and Decorum:

   • I place a high value on respect in debates. Competitors should treat each other with civility and refrain from personal attacks, derogatory language, or disrespectful behavior.
   • Maintain proper decorum throughout the debate, addressing your opponents and judges respectfully.

2. Clarity and Accessibility:

   • Clarity is essential. I must be able to understand your arguments to give you credit for them, so please enunciate clearly and avoid talking too fast.
   • If I cannot understand your argument, I cannot flow it.

3. Spreading:

   • If competitors choose to engage in spreading (rapid delivery of arguments), they must maintain clarity. Speed should not come at the expense of intelligibility.
   • Remember that spreading is not the only path to victory. Well-articulated, well-structured arguments can be more persuasive than sheer speed.

4. Use of Crossfires:

   • I do not consider crossfires as a time for rebuttals. Crossfires are meant for competitors to ask questions and clarify their opponent's arguments. I do not flow arguments made in crossfire.
   • Please use crossfires to seek clarification, challenge your opponent's arguments, and help me understand the debate better.

In summary, my judging philosophy is rooted in fostering a respectful and comprehensible debate environment. I believe that a respectful discourse is not only more constructive but also more persuasive. Clarity is essential, and I urge competitors to prioritize it, especially when spreading. Remember that crossfires are for questions, not rebuttals. Good luck, and let's have a productive and respectful debate!

A note about rule violations: I know the rules of debate. I am aware of both the OSSAA and NSDA rules and their various differences. I keep copies of the handbooks at the ready, so I can look up rules if I feel a rule was violated. That being said, I will weigh lies made in round in my judging decisions. Lies about cheating, evidence, drops, etc. are all weighed into my judging decision. Lying will not benefit you in my rounds. Debates should be about which team can make the best argument, not which team can trick the judge. If you need to lie to win, you did not win the round.

Notes for IEs:

I value genuine performance over screaming and fake crying every single time. Anyone can scream- few can act.

BIG NOTE: You NEED to implement trigger warnings if you have a selection with triggering content. You do not know what the experience of those in the rooms is- you could seriously hurt someone's performance by not giving a warning. You also do not know the lived experiences of your judges- they are a captive audience and you ought to give them a chance to prepare themselves. This is why dramatic pieces often get called Trauma Interpretations. That's not a compliment- it's a statement on how upsetting it is to see children acting out the most heinous trauma they possibly can in order to get reactions through shock value. If you are genuinely good- trigger warnings will not dull your performance- they will enhance it. If you rely on the shock of triggering people- consider if you are really a good actor. Trigger warnings DO NOT count against your speech time- there is literally no reason to give one.

I am open to most any type of argumentation. I love kritiks, theory shells, topicalities, and all things squirrelly. That said, I believe spreading is an unethical practice and if I can't understand you enough to flow, you didn't say it. I have voted on probably 80% of speed Ks I have heard.

I do not mind off-time road maps.  A clear outline of each point and subpoint during construction is imperative.  Linking each point to your value and criterion helps flow the case for judges and opponents. Definitions can make or break a case.  Be confident in your definitions.  Speak rapidly ONLY if you can also speak clearly. I like to see passion.

Pretty much tab, I'll vote for practically anything if you explain it well and it's not racist/sexist/bigoted etc. Because of this, framework occupies an essential role in the round as it defines the debate space. Also, the cleaner you allow my flow to be, generally the easier time I'll have voting for you. Feel free to ask any specific paradigm questions.

I have been working with the debate team at our school for 4 year and judging for at least 3. I am a High School/College teacher in both US and World History. This means I am very well versed in history. I am well versed in research and bias of sources. In Debate rounds I want well researched cases with strong evidence. I also like connections, your evidence needs to connect to your points and support your claims, free floating evidence does not apply anywhere in the round. I expect a synopsis for voters as well, if you don't give me voters I will use my own observations to way the round, which may not be how you want me to vote. That being said, being too pushy may push me away from your position. Give voters that I can consider and persuade me why you should win on the logic and evidence of the case. I am not a fan of spreading. I would rather have you present a case with a few strong points than a lot of little ones. I do not like it when competitors are rude to one another. No matter how heated the battle or frustrated you get, politeness goes a long way with me.

A brief background: I was a competitor for four years at Keys High School. I participated in Policy debate between 2009-2012 and along with my partner was the State Champion in the 4A Division in 2012. I have also medaled at State in Standard Oratory and Foreign Extemp. He/Him

Extemp: The most important thing to me is that your speech is constructed well; I will vote for a well-organized speech with sub-par delivery over a well-delivered speech that seems to be written haphazardly. Having a solid preview-> view -> review structure tends to help with this. I like it when speakers clearly tie the introductions to their speeches to the main topic they will be talking about, and give a satisfying conclusion after their review. Signposting with phrases like "Now, onto my second point..." helps make it clear which of your points you are talking about. I also like it when speakers make a clear distinction between information that is cited evidence and information is their own analysis. Please tell me if you want your time signals going up (I show you how many minutes you have used) or going down (I show you how many minutes you have left).

CX: I lean towards being a Policymaker judge, meaning I look at the world both teams present to me and vote for the world I would more like to live in. That being said, I vote for what I see in the round and I like it when teams tell me the issues I should be voting on in the rebuttals. I don't handle spreading as well as some other judges and prefer it if speakers slow down at least for the slugs and citations on their cards. Brief roadmaps and good signposting (e.g. "Now, onto the topicality...") helps me flow and will make it much easier to vote for you. I appreciate it when arguments are well-organized and clear to understand. I am open to kritikal and theory-based arguments but will find it easier to vote for these things if you do a good job of convincing me why I should vote for them in your rebuttal speeches.

LD and other debate formats I am less familiar with but still appreciate when competitors clearly line out voting issues and give me solid reasons to vote for them in their rebuttal speeches.

Feel free to ask if you have any specific questions before the round. Competing is tough under normal circumstances and is made even more frustrating when having to deal with technology-based issues. Good luck!

I am a policy coach at heart with a stock issues/policy maker blend paradigm. I love on case (stock issues) clash in the 2NC. I don't like Ks, but if they link and the alt can't be permed, let's go. T arguments acceptable. Please do not cry abuse and then run 3 DAs. Either it is abusive and you couldn't prepare or the T needs a new voter. For other styles of debate, down the flow attacks and answers are always fun. Be calm, cool, and competitive.

Simply put: The best argument will win.

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

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

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

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

Last updated: September 28, 2023

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

As for CX, I lean in the traditional direction of favoring well-researched and crafted AFFs that link to the topic, solve genuine harms and produce plausible advantages. NEGs need to produce offense and defense arguments, looking for clear on-case attax and Off-case flows with specific links and significant impacts and CPs that are competitive. T args are usually a waste of time with me unless NEG can prove serious abuse of the topic. I'll vote on the K if I can buy the Alt. I ask to see cards on regularly. As for speed, if it is clear, I can flow it, and if I can flow it I can weigh/judge it. I'll yell "Clear" once, and after that, if the speaker is unintelligible, I put down my G2.

In LD, I flow everything--even CX. I look for good Framework clash/comparison and weighing which V/C will carry the round. Contentions must clearly link to the FW, backed up by solid evidence. I'm looking for debaters who can cover both flows thoroughly and offer a clear, concise pathway to getting my ballot. Try to stay steady and organized. Present good voters and weigh them against your opponent. I will listen to progressive strategies if they make sense to me.

With PF, I flow it all, but I in all honesty, I am looking for the team that can articulate the best scenario, back it up with stellar evidence, speak with authority and avoid making CX a barking fest.