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'm a Broken Arrow High School alum with 4 years of experience in Speech & Debate. I competed in PF, Poetry, and POI primarily, but I dabbled in LD and pretty much every other Speech event.

I'm gonna judge most heavily on impact calculus in both LD and PF. I also weigh crossfire questions, responses, and preparedness pretty substantially, please use all of your CX time and don’t waste it. Most importantly, speak clearly and make sure you're respectful during the round !!!

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.

Email : chris.larcade@staff.muldrowps.org

BASIC NEED TO KNOW:

Spreading: Need taglines to be clear. If I can't flow it, I can't use it to vote for you

Argumentation | Rhetoric: I look for debate speaking. I love to see debate falsies being used to disprove arguments.

Topicality: I will vote on it if I feel the NEG proved it to be abusive.

K Arguments- I will vote on "K" if you break it down to an understandable level. The LINK must be clear and offset the impacts of the AFF.

Inherency: If the NEG proves it is already being done, I will vote on it

Things I DON'T like

• Framework: I am not a fan of heavy framework arguments. Your impact should provide the voters for me to make my decision.
• Abuse Arguments: I have heard a lot of these arguments this season. I can determine what is and is not abuse for myself throughout a round. If your entire case is based on abuse, it appears that your case is not solid on its own merit.
• Ignoring your opponent's argument just to extend your own arguments and hope that their argument goes away.

Things I DO like

• Confidence: Don't give me a reason to vote you down. If you show me that you lost an argument with your non-verbals, then you will lose the argument.
• CLASH: I love it! Especially in cross-examination.
• TAGLINES: Once again, if I can't flow it then I will not vote for it.
• Sportsmanship: Don't make personal attacks, be professional and HAVE FUN.

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 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.

please include me on the email chain: hayley.ortwein@outlook.com

Jenks '22, KU '26

I'll vote you down if you're rude or creepy

I debated 4 years of hs and I now debate in college

i have debated both policy and kritical stuff but definitely have way more policy experience, so make sure you explain well. i will listen to any style though

i have mostly been a 2n so i understand reading some weird stuff on neg just don't make a bigoted argument and ill hear it out

judge instruction and impact calc are really important to me

**For Nationals Policy Paradigm, scroll to the bottom**

General Debate Paradigm:

Experienced Coach and Flow Judge and 4 Year High School Debater, World History/Psychology/Sociology Teacher with previous career as a Community Corrections Officer (Probation and Parole).

In my experience, all forms of Debate are a synthesis of examples, evidence, and analysis. Competitors need to dive deep into the resolutions presented and wrestle with the ideas, evidence, philosophy, experiences, and impacts that stem from the resolution while tying back the original intention of the resolution. (Framer's Intent)

In my estimation all possible areas of inquiry are on the table, but be mindful that some styles of debate depend more on some mechanics then others. If you run inherency in a LD case, it feels off. If you try to solve for BQ, that's just wrong. Debate styles need to stay in their own lanes and crossover is risky if I'm judging your round. Debate is about connections and persuasion and connection with your judge.

I believe in the Burdens of Debate. Aff must prove the resolution's premise as true and correct via the Burden of Proof, regardless of the style. If not they lose. Neg must attack and uphold the Burden of Clash (Rejoinder) and if they do not they can not win.

A quick word on preferences for case presentation. Constructives need to be clear cut and purposeful, lay out all your arguments and evidence, simply open doors or you to walk through in the next speech. Extension evidence is always welcome to expand your points in support in 2nd speeches. Cross should allows be respectful and civil, I do take notes on cross but the points made there highlight your style and ability to think on the fly. Use of canned questions in any form are looked down on.

Rebuttals are fair game but you should always attack, rebuild and expand your arguments in this speech. Repeating points in Rebuttals doesn't increase the weight of the argument.

Consolidation Speeches are for crystalizing the main ideas and presenting voting issues in and overall persuasive and final presentation of your case through points. Please respect the format, arguments that extend well past the rebuttals do not carry more weight with me and are presented too late, make sure to do your job in each segment of the round.

A word about style within the round:

Using excessive speed (defined as 145 or more words per minute, above regular conversational speed of speech) or use excessive points or stylistic tricks to try to disadvantage your opponent in a round will win you no style points with me. If you are speaking beyond my ability to flow or use excessive points within a case I will put my pen down and this signifies that I am no longer constructively in the round. This is to be avoided at all costs, keep your judge “in the round” and go slow, standard conversational pace.

A word on technology and style choice: I have noted in my time as a judge and a coach that reliance on your computer makes you sound robotic and read faster than running off paper. Although I won't ever vote someone down who reads off the computer, you need to make sure to get the message home to the judge with emphasis and good speaks to do well in the round. Having a flat monotone computer voice, spreading evidence, card slamming, and hyper-aggression will not win you any points with me and arguably makes your job harder.

Other Points:

• Case Points for case clarity are gladly accepted.

• Tie things back to framework to impress me and get me on your side. If you "set and forget" a framework or weighing device, its on my flow but not helping you win. This is true for Value Criteria, Weighing Mechs, and Frameworks generally.

• Running Logical Fallacies are strongly encouraged. If you spot one, feel free to call an opponent out for it provided it is valid and you can explain the logical flaw clearly and directly (thus avoiding committing a fallacy of your own.)

• Unique arguments hold more weight then generic arguments, so look for a new angle to gain the upper hand. You have got to prove links to the resolution and prove topicality, if you can't then the claim is bound to fail.

• If you are Aff/Pro and doesn't rebuild and/or extend in later speeches, they lose. If you are Neg/Con attack doesn't attack, clash, and disprove, they lose.

• Observation is good, Observation + Analysis is better, Observation + Analysis+Evidence is best.

• In this world of "technological wonders", I am not on team AI, the expectation is that you write your own case, have your own thoughts, and defend your own ideas. If it is clear you didn't write it and don't know how to run it, I'm not likely to vote for it. Play with AI toys on your own time, not mine.

- NATIONALS 2024 POLICY PARADIGM-

Going to be honest here, policy is not my favorite style. I am not a fan of spreading, speed dropping cards, and theory arguments before the resolution. I won’t buy card formatting arguments or other fringe or minor arguments that do not deal directly with the administration of the cases in the round.

Aff Burden: I am an old school Policy Judge. Aff needs to set a Plan that is well thought out, supported with cards, and a detailed and nuanced Plan that takes into account the harms/ads/disads and impacts of the Plan. Plan needs to think through all the standard planks.(• Topicality • Harms / Inherency • Significance • Solvency • Advantages / Disadvantages) If you run something that is not a plan, it is hard to address/solve the burden of the Aff which is to propose a Plan.

Neg Burden: I’m ok with the Neg focus on counterplans and but my main focus as the judge is if the plan is well supported, funded, enforced and FESABILE. Neg should pressure test the Aff plan and be able to show how the plan presented, originating from the three possible policy applications, may have flaws/shortcomings/disads/impacts that the Aff may not be looking at or see. Neg needs to keep it topical though, I will not be buying any argumentation that reducing Social Security would lead to nuclear war, or anything of the like. If Neg does not establish and maintain strong link chains and impacts its going to be hard to show the flaws and get around or past the Aff plan.

Disclosure Note: So when it comes to disclosure, I am not going to factor into a decision disclosure of cases online well before the round. I would love a copy of the case in paper or digital form before you start, I feel it is required if you plan to spread. If you expect me to flow your spreading without some form of your case I will not flow your case, I will just put my pen down. If you go at a moderate speed, I can and will flow with you but would still appreciate a copy of the case to look at in case I have questions. If you are doing a piecemeal Neg case that is Straight Refusal and line by line, then no case is needed but make sure you go slow enough that I can flow it out.

Cards Note: If you have the card, be able to provide it if asked. I prefer paper cards, but know that is way Old School so make sure I have your Linktree/Drive or something established so if I have a question on a card I can see it. If it sounds too good to be true don’t be surprised or offended if I ask to see it. Also, do not try to discredit cards due to templating, without a National template I am not the style police for carding, if they made an effort, can provide it and it makes sense it is admissible to use in the round.

Spreading Note: Honestly, not a fan of spreading, it is a choice in delivery, and not a requirement. You have 8 mins to set the case, if you need to sacrifice speed for speaking I think that your case is overloaded and you are card slamming just to give the opponents more to answer. I think spreading takes away from the communication of debate and would rather hear the arguments and experience the clash then hear someone mumble their case at me. Set the case as you choose but then give the spreading a break and advocate for why your case is a good thing and should win. If you spread every speech at me with no real application or connection it will be a hard win. Just being honest.

Importance of Impacts: I am a impacts debater, meaning I want to see the impacts that a line of argument of questioning have on the status quo or proposed Aff/Neg world. I often follow the line for impacts to a ballot so be sure to apply the impacts of your attacks all the way through. Don’t just stop at the evidence and ask me to apply it for you, show me your warrants to get that impact!

What doesn’t Flow: I flow cross if it applies to advancing argumentation. I don’t flow ad hominum/personal attacks. I will flow case side extensions but not too late in the case and will always flow impacts and stock issues flowovers if set up and backed up with cards.

Plan Planks Priority: For me the order goes, from most to least important:

Topicality, Solvency, Advantages/Disadvantages, Harms/Inherency, Significance

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.

Although I am certified to teach speech and debate in my state I am a theatre technical director and teach technical theatre for a very large high school (5000 students) as my full time job. My background is in broadcast television news working in television for almost 20 years before coming to education. I am married to a speech/debate teacher so have been judging in some form for many years but I am not a debate wonk.

As a theatre teacher and journalist I hear and process at normal spoken word speed. Deciding that you are going to speak at 180 words a minute will probably guarantee that I will miss information you are trying to present.

To be successful with me as your judge (if its a policy round we're both in trouble). Make your arguments and do not expect me to fill in your holes in logic, or reasoning. I am a voracious reader of current events and news from around the world and in order to not use knowledge that most people would not have I make sure to have the student make the argument to completion. I am looking for good logic and presentation and word walling with information and spreading until you are a mile wide and an inch deep is not my favorite.

Be sure when you are using examples that you are making direct connection to the resolution. One thing that drives me crazy is students telling me a bunch of statistics without telling me how they DIRECTLY relate to the topic.

In IE events I come at them from a theatre standpoint and want to see you use your full instrument of body, voice and presentation to bring me into the world that you as an artist build.

I enjoy working with students and may provide you with feedback if asked but as always it is just my opinion and others may see it differently.

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.