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.

Andrea Campfield

I did not debate in high school, so my experience judging is rooted within my 2 years coaching policy debate. Not sure if this qualifies as a paradigm, but this is what I find I look for in judging a round:

1. I am focused on the policy topic at hand as I judge. I am listening for reasonable arguments for or against adopting the policy in question. While I am open to good kritik strategy, I find way out there theory argument is a distraction to the task of quality civil debate and begins to sound like conspiracies on facebook. If you go off case, stay in bounds.

2. I also have found that habitually calling out abuse or lack of educational integrity and hoping it sticks or confuses is also a distraction. Definitely do so if there is merit, but if you have to try to win on calling foul all the time, what does that say about the strength of your own research and prepped case? Proving or disproving the validity of the topic is the debater’s job, and for me, the best job wins.

3. I also like an organized, respectful debate with clarity in speaking and questioning. Quality is better than quantity, so if a spread is merely to befuddle the opposing team, it will not serve well if I cannot understand your words. I don’t want to be befuddled.

4. I am also looking for your personal investment in the topic. Although we have to get through case cards, I am more interested in the debater’s response to the material.

5. And finally, I find that how both teams use cross X comes into my decision making, as well as the aff’s response to a solidly built neg block. Final rebuttals are key.

Again, not sure that’s a “paradigm”, but it’s honest. I am a work in progress, and I learn new things each time I judge. I hope you teach me a new trick!

LD is Value Debate. Propositions of Value

CX is Policy Debate. Propositions of Policy

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.

Denslow, Keith Edit 0 3… Judging Philosophy
Keith Denslow,
Skiatook High School,
Skiatook, OK

I have taught academic debate for 32 years. I have coached both policy debate and value debate on the high school level plus NDT and CEDA for 2 years on the college level. I have coached regional, district, and state champions.

I give up. I embrace the absurdity which is post-modern debate. If you debate on a critical level, then it is your burden to understand and explain the philosophical position you are advocating and offer a rational alternative to the worldview.

Topicality is an outdated mode of thought with tries to put up fences in our brain about what we can and can not talk about. It harms education and the marketplace of ideas. As a negative, only run Topicality if the argument is 100% accurate not as a test of skill or response.

It is important that anyone arguing counterplans have an understanding of counterplan theory especially how a counterplan relates to presumption. DO NOT automatically permute a counterplan or critique without critically thinking about the impact to the theory of the debate.

Style issues: Civility is important. Open CX is okay. Clarity must accompany speed. Numbering your arguments is better than “next” signposting. Detailed roadmaps are better than “I have 5 off” and prep time doesn’t continue for 2 minutes after you say “stop prep” Flash evidence faster!

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.

Debates: I expect debaters to honest and truthful in every aspect of their debate. If you intend on stating that your opponent has dropped something you better be sure that is actually what happened. This isn't a cable news program if I catch you lying about this, as seems to be a popular tactic, I will award the win your opponent. I will flow along with cases and your framework will play a large factor in my final decision outside of making blanket false statements. I do not care for spreading at all because I don't find it realistic or that it has real world application, more words does not equal a good argument. Signposting will allow me to flow in most cases as long as the content is clear. I also will put heavier weight on sourced references that are considered academic and/or professional. Sources that would be considered 2nd or 3rd hand will be considered anecdotal or opinion more than likely.

Speech Events: I will be looking for clear speech and knowledgeable, meaning you should speak as if you are as comfortable and familiar with the topic as possible. Of course any speech issues will be taken into account when talking about "clear" speech. Remember I likely will not know much or be an authority on your topic, you should come across as being so.

Other Events: I will judge acting and other interp events on entertainment factor as well as how well the material has been learned and if it is engaging to the audience. For HI events I do not laugh outward easily so do not take any visual feedback into account of how you are performing.

All Events: Be respectful of yourselves and all other in the room all discussions with your opponent and your team members will need to be done outside the room after your have completed that round. Do not try to hash out any issues while in the room. You will be help responsible for any visitors or teammates that you bring into a round. If your guests are disruptive that will be held against your results as well as your speaker points.

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.

Debate: I am not particularly picky on anything, but please be respectful to your opponent(s). Feel free to run progressive arguments, but beware that I may not get them if you aren't clear.

LD: Make sure to clarify how your criterion supports your contentions! Also, don’t drop all your contentions for the sake of the value debate. Do not make all of your arguments cross-applications of your own case unless there is a legitimate clash. I vote primarily on the quality of coverage.

PF: Any speaking speed is fine, just make sure you are coherent. A heated cross-examination is fine but please don’t spend the entire time yelling at each other. I vote on the quality of evidence and general coverage.

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

In the short and sweet of it, be the better debater and convince me that your side should be supported. Now into the nitty gritty, I will want to be convinced that your side is superior to your opponent both in your case and how well you provide and defend it. I will want you to at least act like you fully understand the topic and give me an argument about a resolution that I will more likely have little to no knowledge of besides the information you provide me. Please be kind and respectful, though this isn’t saying don’t be competitive (you are trying to win) so no personal attacks on me or your opponent as this will make me vote in opposition even if you make the better argument. Well-written and informational speeches are the cornerstone of any good debater, I would prefer you are prepared case-wise and have information to attack your opponent and defend your own. For a little about myself, I’ve competed for four years in LD, MO, HD, and DEX where I was state-qualified in LD, MO, and DEX. I feel that I’m pretty well versed in NSDA so you may be able to spread to a degree where it is understood what you are saying. I hope if you’re reading this that you have a good round with me judging and don’t be afraid or nervous about the judge, I swear I’m not evil.

If you are in an acting event, make me cry either happy or sad tears. I will want to see a performance that stands out both in acting ability, blocking, and piece quality (don’t do Doctor Seuss pieces). I want to be absorbed into your piece and sit back and enjoy the effort you put into your piece. I will rank you upon your perceived ability during your speeches or performances. If you are DEX/FEX or other speaking events, please use a clear voice and be well-informed (or at least convince me you are ;). I will want engaging yet informative speeches that will give me a perspective on an issue that is being addressed within your speech. So, try adding tasteful and relevant jokes to your speeches about current events! One quirk of mine is I’m very squeamish and if you make me sick to my stomach or near fainting in your DI/DD, I will perceive that you or your partner are good actors and have a higher ability than your peers. So good luck to actors and debaters whose coaches forced them to do DEX/FEX, I hope to see you in round!

Hey, I am a parent so I might be getting this a little bit wrong. So please let me know if I do anything wrong.