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

Schools/Affiliations: Graduated from Charles Page High School.

I currently compete in NFA LD on the college circuit, I competed in policy debate in high school for 3 years, I was a finalist for NUDL debater of the year 2023

General Paradigm
Left to my own devices, I’d approach the round from a policymaking point of view, but I know that few rounds boil down to such a paradigm. In light of that, debate is a game of sorts and I’m willing to let the debaters decide how it should be played. I can’t see myself voting against an affirmative on a stock issue like inherency.

Speed
Clarity, of course, is key. If I can’t understand you, then I can’t flow you and I likely won’t be inclined to vote for you or the position(s) I don’t understand. Look for cues (not flowing, a blank look on my face).

Line by Line
I prefer line by line debate. I believe you need to flow and I don’t think a team is obligated to share analytical arguments in a flash/speech doc. If the debate becomes disorganized because of your inability to stay on the flow, that’ll likely cost you in some way. Debate, at its essence, is about a clash of ideas...therefore clash is an essential ingredient to a good debate round. A round between two teams who neither extend their own arguments, nor address the specific attacks made on these arguments, is not a debate round, and such a round begs for intervention on my part.

Decision Calculus
I am loathe to intervene in a round, but will do so if neither team presents a clear comparative analysis of the issues in the round. You need to tell my why I should vote for you and make that clear in the final rebuttals.

Framework
I’ll start with my paradigm, you tell me where to move to, and convince me of why I should do so, if you’d like to change the framework. Any framework should make it possible for both sides to win and shouldn’t be rooted in a rejection of debate as an activity (though it’s possible I could be convinced otherwise).

Topicality (or any other procedural/theory argument)

I will vote on topicality. I think the negative has to construct a fully formed argument to convince me I should do so, complete with a reason that the violation committed by the affirmative is worthy of giving them the loss. I’m not as inclined to be convinced by a reverse voter argument in t, but affirmatives can defend themselves by attacking one or all of the components of a typical T argument and win the issue. Other procedurals tend to get decided based on actual, rather than, potential abuse.

Kritiks

. Despite my knowledge about some of the authors and their positions, I’m usually able to discern when the student speaking knows as little or less than I do. I prefer that if you’re going to make the k an issue, that you know it inside and out, and be aware of the inherent dangers in speaking quickly to a judge who may know less than you do, and who you are trying to convince. Real world alts are pretty much a requirement.


Performance
Do what you will, I’ll listen. Prefer they be relevant to topic.

Counterplans
I am good with counterplans, conditional is fine, but don’t get too feisty in this regard. Deep counterplan and pic theory give me headaches, so slow down and talk me through it.

Multiple Worlds

No thanks...multiple conditional positions are fine, but not contradictory advocacy. Can’t be convinced otherwise on the matter so save your time.

If you can find out who my high school partner was and mention them in your speech, Ill give you an extra speaker point.

3NRs and My Decision
I will give an oral critique if time allows and reveal decision if permitted by tourney expectations, but I will not enter into an argument with either team about my decision. I can handle a question or two, but make sure it’s a question. Look, I am always going to do my best, but I’m sure I’ve gotten the decision wrong a time or two, and I hate it when I do. That being said, my usual answer when teams argue why they lost is: I’d feel the same way if I were you, but next time debate better. Then I mark their speaker points down for being rude. Live to fight another day, and be aware that you might see your judge again down the road.

Prep Time

i will be lenient as we learn the online format, but that being said, I’m losing patience with the time taken up by flashing files even during in-person debates. Be efficient.

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.

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.

Hey y’all! My name is Kensington Walker. I was a speech kid in HS (OO, HI, POE, DEX, etc.) and am a NDT qualifying debater at UCO (Roll ‘Cho’s)! I ❤️ speech and debate and am so excited to have the opportunity to give back! I have shadow judged quite a bit so don’t let my lack of record scare y’all lol.

I would like to be included on all email chains: kensingtonwalkerdebate@gmail.com

CX

Argument Preference: I advise you to always read whatever arguments you know best. I do not have any strong feelings for or against argument types, so just read what you can explain best! I will vote on pretty much anything: Ks, T, and theory args included (I like debates about debate), literally just whatever is explained the best. I am most familiar with K v K debates (SetCol) but vibe with CP/DA/T. Also, I am down for funky flows (procedurals, parametrics , etc.) but they should be debated with the same attention that any other argument is given. I tend to have a low threshold for posture counterarguments and think that, as debaters, we sign up for our arguments to be critiqued, regardless of how personal the argument is.

Speed/Flowing: Speed in evidence blocks is fine but slowing down for tags/analytics is important because that’s what’s going to end up on my flow. I will give lots of nonverbal cues if I am unable to understand what you’re saying (not flowing, looking confused, etc.) I generally don’t like to give a verbal “clear” because I find that it throws people off and I hate intervening in debates so just be cognizant of my reactions (I’m pretty expressive so if you pay even a little attention you’ll know if I’m not picking up what you’re putting down) Also — please tell me how many sheets I need before the 1NC and give off time orders throughout the debate (idk why this isn’t the norm for some debaters but please do it). Content > Style always, although both is swag + will prob get you high speaks.

PF/LD: I’m very much so down for whatevs y’all want to read. Evidence is probably good and will definitely make your arguments stronger, but evidence should not be your arguments. More cards ≠ better debating. Progressive and traditional rounds are cool with me. Judges are lazy so tell us what to do (aka do the impact calc/FW debating) so I don’t have to draw those conclusions. Content > Style always, although both is swag + will prob get you high speaks. If both teams are down with spreading then so am I but I understand it’s not the norm so everyone needs to be on the same page.

Generally, don’t be hateful to novices/less experienced debaters (I’ve been there and it sucks — no one has fun in an 7-off round when a team is just trying to stay afloat). Even if I think the third plank of your 5th CP means your impacts outweighs, I’ll probably give low speaks because that is superrrrrr lame and is the spot that I will acknowledge judge bias. Be smart with arguments. Do cool stuff. Win big debates. Good luck!