Hello! I am an undergraduate philosophy student at Oklahoma State University in my senior year and currently compete with the ethics team. I debated throughout high school and qualified for Nationals in Public Forum in 2021.

Debate: The #1 fastest way to lose a round that I am judging is to disrespect your opponent.

I love a clean flow, so please be conscious that your arguments are well organized.

All argumentation styles are welcome but know that I am only familiar with traditional styles and may struggle with a poorly explained progressive argument. In essence, logic > uniqueness.

LD: Ensure that there is a strong link between your value and your contentions! I also like to see a good understanding of whatever your criterion is and how it applies to the viewpoint you are defending. For LD, I primarily vote based on coverage (not dropping arguments that ought not to be dropped, thoroughly analyzing your opponent's case, and adding to your defense where needed).

PF: Speak as fast as you are comfortable with. However, I can't flow what I don't hear, so make sure you are enunciating if you choose to talk quickly. I vote on evidence (statistics, empirical impacts) and coverage (see LD for description). Please do not ask for numerous pieces of evidence if you are not going to utilize them in the round!

I judge based on how well you understand what you're saying, how clearly you communicate it, and how you control the energy of the room. I want students to strive for a balanced skillset. I will make decisions based on technicalities but I reward those who are learning how to master communication that is occurring between speaker and judge and audience.

I want to be informed, persuaded, and entertained. I will entertain every argument but I want it to have a purpose in the round. I also enjoy absurdist arguments if you can make them link. I don't enjoy watching an adult kick a toddler though-if you have clearly outmatched your opponent, you don't have to keep kicking them. I like competitors to be good sports and hate T as a time skew. The best debaters aren't afraid to actually engage their opponents.

I can follow spreading just fine but if you aren't articulate I'm likely going to zone out. I do not have a good poker face so you will be able to see exactly what I'm thinking.

All of that being said I have been either a competitor, coach, or consultant for speech and debate since 1997. I currently coach at Tulsa Community College, Edison Prep HS and Edison Prep MS and coach every event available in AFA, NFA, and PKD. I also have a student who has competed on the NDT circuit. I was hired by NSDA in 2023 to judge at nationals.

In college, I competed in limited prep policy (NPDA), IPDA (limited prep public forum), extemp, impromptu, POI, Poetry, Prose, and Dramatic Interp. I was a 5-time oklahoma state champion in college and 1st ranked seed at nationals in Team IPDA, a top speaker at IPDA nationals. I was also a national champion in DI.

In high school I competed in nearly everything. I won over 150 awards (competed in champs a lot) and was the first quad ruby from Mounds HS (the highest rank at the timeI graduated). I was also the first student in the 27 year history (at that time) of the Bethany Tournament to win top debater, top speaker, and top IE competitor. I was state champ in OO, 3rd in LD, and 3rd in DD in 2001 and 2nd in Monologe at state in 2000.

I love this activity and am willing to give feedback and advice to any student who wants it.

Don’t spread or I won’t flow

Don’t shake my hand after the round

Be respectful and considerate of the others in the round

Don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Go fight win

LD is Value Debate. Propositions of Value

CX is Policy Debate. Propositions of Policy

For Debate:

I'm a traditional judge. Some speed is OK but talk TO me and not AT me. Don't ask for paradigms if you have no intention of following them. Cards are only evidence, but not the analysis, so be sure to make the link between the card and what it means for the argument. Keep all your debates separated; I like policy terminology in its lane, LD to have its value/criteria without plans, and PF to be for the common person. Fewer, better arguments win; smart questions and analysis do best. Clash is fun but should never be rude, mean, or at the expense of another debater. Treat everyone, including me as your judge, with the respect we deserve by coming into the round prepared, poised, and planning to do your best.

For Congress:

Please be prepared with speeches! It is important to me that debate not drag out while contestants "prep" during our time together. If you have nothing new to add, don't give a speech for the sake of giving a speech. Listening and reacting to each speaker is something I love to see. Pay attention; call on and call out those who you agree or disagree with in respectful ways. Clash is fun; mean-spirited debate is unappreciated. Show goodwill and your fierce competitive nature at the same time. Be sincere. Be organized and complete in your speaking. Be involved in the chamber's activities as much as possible, but do not dominate. Be absolutely correct with parliamentary procedure. Have a good time. Sources are a must, but a few good ones explained well are better than too many that muddy the speech.

For IE's:

Duo/Duet: I love a good story told well. I want you to follow the rules but show me your creative side. Take risks, but keep the author's intent in mind, i.e. Edgar Allen Poe is not meant as comedy. I want to feel something and be able when you finish to have nothing to say because what I have seen is entertaining, whether I laugh or cry. I don't need any warnings up front, but if you intend to shock me for shocking's sake, I will call you on it. In OO and Info, be sure to give examples, have great visuals, and tell the story in a clever and engaging manner. Be yourself! In extemp I want to be able to easily follow your organization. Justify by telling me why this 7 minutes matters to me. 5 sources or more; I don't care as much about the exact dates as you being able to synthesize the material. Don't make me do all the linking of ideas; I want to know that YOU are the one who knows and are excited to share. I look for clever and unique introductions and not canned AGD's. Whether you're a beginner or a 4-year veteran, keep it to yourself. Be humble and impress me with your stunning delivery and smart thinking on your feet.

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 don't really have general paradigm for judging so I just created a tentative list of things I like and dislike.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Talented, brilliant, incredible, amazing, show-stopping, spectacular, never the same, totally unique, completely not ever been done before, unafraid to reference or not reference...:

1. Strong value and criteria that are tied into your contentions

2. Weighing impacts between both sides (Maybe your opponent has a lot of good points, but if they mean nothing in comparison to your one good point impact-wise, I could still be convinced to vote for you.)

3. Addressing all of each sides case meaningfully

4. Sign posting what you are attacking/defending as you move down the flow of your/your opponents case.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Harmful, dangerous, gross, disgusting, and should never be promoted...:

1. Having a consequentialist framework but having contentions with 0 impact

2. Underhanded shenanigans (i.e. trying to gaslight me into thinking your opponent said something they didn't, trying to say your opponent can only answer yes or no in CX, etc.)

3. 12,000 subpoints that are only 2 sentences long

4. Saying statistics are the ONLYYYY type of evidence that can prove anything ever and then having non-statistic evidence in your own case.

Hi! I'm Lilly. I'm a trans-femme student with Union who judges novice LD and PF when not competing in either event. I Will not stand for racism, Transphobia, etc. and you will lose speaker points if not the round for statements like those. In any case I expect you to do you best and be kind. I prefer a more conversational tone and speed, good and convincing argumentation. I'm a Tabula Rasa Judge and expect you to convince me. Open to critiques, theory, and all that fun stuff, just dumb it down a bit for me, I don't claim to be smart.

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.

LD: I'm pretty traditional. I like values and criteria and evidence and clash. If you read a K or a bedtime narrative, I will stop flowing the round and take a nap. I have a speed threshold of "don't" and if you could please keep the jargon to a minimum, that would be great. Theory is cool, in theory, but it shouldn't be an entire framework. I like long walks on the beach, and a good tennis match. Also, don't shake my hand at the end of the round.

PF: Um....win more arguments than the other team. Go. Fight. Win.

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.

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.