I WOULD LIKE TO BE ON THE EMAIL CHAIN: tcruzan23@crossingsschool.org

He/Him

you can just refer to me as judge or Minister (if you call me Minister I will give you +0.1 speaker points)

things that you should know for prefs:

overview: tech over truth. you can run most things in front of me (with the exception of wipeout, racist arguments, or similar things). I lean more towards policy debates but I'm willing to judge most things (with some exceptions). remember to be respectful to others and have fun.

Kritiks: I am fairly familiar with kritiks but I prefer policy-esque Ks mostly. if you read a kritik in front of me you are going to have to adequately explain to me how the k relates to the aff and as to why it is imperative for me to vote for the alt. In the end if you can sufficiently explain the k to me I'm ok with it.

disadvantages: DAs are the bread and butter of a good neg strat. when it comes to the kind of DAs I don't have any preference, but I believe that you must be able to explain the internal link scenario well enough in the round for me to take the DA seriously.

Theory/FW/T: I understand most theories and T arguments, but I will warn you that the possibility of me voting for T or theory all depends on YOUR ability to correctly extend, answer arguments, and defend your own arguments that were made, that also applies to the aff when they are defending themselves from theory or T. Do not only rely on solely framework as neg (unless if you hit a non topical aff), if you only rely on FW then the likeliness of me voting for you is low but not impossible.

Counterplans: like with what I said with the DA I think that counterplans are great in debate. Similar to DAs you need to explain the internal link scenario and why the CP is better than the aff plan for me to really vote on it. I'm not a very big fan of plan inclusive counterplans but I believe that they are legitimate and definitely a viable strat.

Speed: please try and prioritize clarity over speed since I do have difficulty hearing. I will tell you if I think you need to slow down, but please don't destroy your ability to finish reading case because you were speaking as slow as a rock for my sake. If it has to come to it I will ask if I can record the speech and if you can try and write down all your analytics on the doc (this would be the worst case scenario so don't come into the round expecting this to be required).

Final Judgement: as I stated above I am tech over truth and my vote will mostly be a result of that. Expect this to be how I am going to vote unless if I find it necessary to vote as a result of something that happened in the round (like if someone says something racist).

pet peeves: please don't do something like read 8 off in the round as the neg, I as an 1A debater hate it whenever this happens so I will tell you that if you read more than 8 off I will probably not vote for you as I think it is incredibly abusive to the aff and just destroys clash and fairness in the round. If you try to be a smart-aleck and only read 7 off after reading this paradigm I will most likely remove speaker points from your ballot. Another thing is, and I cannot stress this hard enough, DO NOT READ NON TOPICAL AFFS IN FRONT OF ME! If you read what I just told you and still decide to read a non-topical aff I am warning you that you will not have a fun time. Also do not read an aff that just doesn't have a plan text in the 1 AC I will treat you aff the same as a non-topical aff (if you just accidently forgot the plan text for some reason please send it out after the 1AC but if you don't send it out and instead only tell me what the plan text is in the 2AC then expect for me to give you a really bad time in the RFD). side note: what I said about non-topical affs can apply to k affs but I won't immediately vote you down but you will be very close.

Final thoughts: Overall just debate. try to be nice to one another and remember to have fun. be respectful. have fun.

I’m cool with whatever. Run your case however you think it’ll be best.

I’ll vote for who I think wins.

Open to squirrelly cases

More likely to judge on clear and evident lines of logic

Prefer clear voters

If you don’t say it, it doesn’t count

Hello! My name is Ian Horton!I did Policy Debate at Crossings Christian School during my senior year of high school, and now I debate at Southern Nazarene University in Bethany, Oklahoma. I haven't debated for very long, but I assure you I can follow along very well as long as you are clear. I am mainly a 2N and love running kritiks; so feel free to run high-theory arguments.
Be clear and concise when you are reading card tags and author, but other than that you can spread at any speed in the body of the card. (Just don't be SUPER mumbly)
Please be respectful during cross-examination and try to keep your tone and attitude in check.
AFF- I'm willing to listen to almost anything.
Neg- Condo is good :D. Don't run an absurd amount of off-case because I legit refuse to flow that. (7+ off)
I am mainly tech > truth, but if you can convince me to prefer truth then I will.

Parent judge- but have been judging for 2 years.

Judge LD + PF.

Impact based weighing > evidence, but both are important.

Spreading: I've only had one person I couldn't keep up with, so it doesn't bother me.

Hello, my name is Bri :).

If you have questions please email me: briannalemaster1120@gmail.com

About me

I competed at Westmoore High School for 4 years where I was a 4x national qualifier and in multiple state final rounds. I competed in LD, PF but trad and circuit debate. I also currently coach multiple events including all the debate events and some specific IE events. I also beat Taylor Rafferty in a debate round once.

TLDR: General Debate Things

1. Tech>Truth. This obviously excludes racist, homophobic, and other hateful sentiments.

2. You should be crystalizing and summarizing your best arguments in your last rebuttal speech going for everything is not in your best interest.

3. Clash is the most important thing for me in debate if you don't do it or are just avoiding it the round will probably not go well for you.

4. SIGN POST PLEASE. If you don't your speaker points just like your signposting won't exist.

Trad LD

1. Framework is pretty important to me especially when I'm looking at what arguments to prioritize in the round.

2. Mostly for non-OK debate- Since the progressive debate is becoming more common among the it I'm fine with speed and counter plans etc.... All I ask is that if you're going to do it please format it correctly and just call it a counter plan or a "K" or whatever don't try to hide it as a contention I know the difference. Include me on the file share if you want or email chain. I do not really like seeing identity K's but again run what you have prepared.

- Oklahoma debate - guys honestly since this is a trad circuit I would avoid running k's or cp or anything like that since the reality is your competitors will not know how to respond and it will make it an unfair round. I would recommend not running that stuff in general here it will not help you win a round.

3. If you signpost, extend your arguments, try not to drop stuff, and give an offensive reason why I should vote for you as opposed to a defensive one, you'll be in very good shape. (Offense = why I'm winning, Defense = why I'm not losing). I will not vote off drops if they are not brought up, but I think it works in your favor if you bring up drops especially If your opponents do not address your entire case.

4. Your framework and your case should be able to match properly I don't want to see a Kant framework and then a bunch of extinction arguments I might sob internally.

PFD

1. FILL YOUR SPEECH TIMES. You already don't have a lot of time use it wisely!

2. Please don't make Grand Cross a big disaster please be civil and nice.

3. Make sure to carry your arguments all the way through final focus if they are not carried through I won't use it in my decision.

4. Public Forum Debate is called Public Forum for a reason it is supposed to be as accessible to a general audience as possible there shouldn't be a high use of progressive argumentation or debate lingo. Also I really do not vote off fw more impact clac take that as you will but if you make fw your entire voter I'm most likely got going to weigh it that heavy.

5. Don't be one of those teams that paraphrases evidence you will instantly lose all credibility. I will read cards if the other team tells me to call for them.

6. Make sure you have been well versed in the lit and case your reading it helps you to be able to answer questions better.

- disclaimer- I have coached and judged BQ just so ya know I can keep up

POLICY

LOL

• I did not do policy in high school but I can mostly keep up with everything except I do not like tricks so do with that what you will that being said I also am not entirely a fan of speed but if you want to spread plz send doc.

Spreading isn’t my favorite thing—I am trying to listen and note your arguments at the same time. Speaking so fast that few can understand hurts more than it helps.

Let’s have a great debate by focusing on the content and pressing for logical, factual evidence. Providing details and specifics really helps your argument.

I appreciate respect and good sportsmanship. Thank you for your effort!

I have been teaching Speech & Debate for 18 years. I particularly enjoy speaking events and LD debate. I do not care for spreading. I don't mind if you speak fast as long as I can understand you. If I can't understand the argument then I can't vote for your position. I look at the structure of the case as well as the delivery. Your job is to convince me that your Value is the highest in the round. I look for you to uphold your value throughout your case. You need to make the links and impacts, I won't do it for you. Please use a 4-step refutation.

I am big on structure in case. You must be able to uphold your Value and Criterion throughout your case. Each contention should fully support and link to the V, Cr, and resolution. Each contention should have a claim, warrant, and impact. You DO need evidence to support your ideas. Evidence comes in the form of facts, statistics, studies, logical reasoning, and expert opinions. The evidence you use should directly support the claim. You also need to impact the argument. Just because you prove something doesn't tell me why it matters to uphold your side. "If you don't tell me why it matters, it doesn't matter."

During rebuttals start with a roadmap so I know what you are going to do and in what order. Go down the flow to prevent drops. Most importantly when you argue drops in the round please do not use the phrase "he/she/they dropped my contention so it flows to me". You must impact this for me. Why does it matter that he/she/they dropped that particular contention? How does it help you or hurt them?

Please do not plagiarize cases from briefs. Utilize them to facilitate your ideas but do the work yourself. I want your ideas, not someone else's.

All in all, I am looking for a good debate.

Former Parlimentary Debate competitor at Cameron University (2005-2007). Coach PF- 5+ years LD - 3 years. Basically I understand policy, but I don’t like judging it, necessarily.

I will entertain any arguments in-round as long as they are developed with appropriate impacts/voters. If you want to argue topicality for an entire round, fine (I love words. Words are important). Just tell me why it's crucial to do so. Kritiks, sure! Just tell me why I need to vote here first. Is there abuse in-round? Tell me where, and specifically how it harms you/the activity, etc. and why that matters. This is your round to strategize in however you see fit; I don't have any real predisposed dislike for any argument. However, poor arguments are still poor arguments and will not win. Irrelevant arguments won't win either, no matter how fancy they sound.

Clear, significant impacts make it easy for me to vote for you. Don't make me do the work for you or your team, because I won't.Sure, it would be nice to end the contention at "and this leads to more discrimination." Spell it out for me, otherwise I will shrug and say, "So what? Who cares?" Be sure to pull them through to your final speeches.

One thing that will work against you: Speed. I know you have a lot of material to cover, and often both teams will be fine with speedy arguments. I'm not going to vote against you for spite, but I WILL drop arguments on the flow. If you are okay with that, just be prepared for the vote to possibly not go your way... even if you put 87 responses on your opponent's disadvantage. I'm not a speed debater, so I won't be able to follow you. If you feel your opponents are using speed against you as a tactic, I will listen to a speed K and possibly vote on it... IF IT'S WELL DEVELOPED. As I said, I won't vote for a speed K simply because I don't prefer this style; Poorly developed arguments will not win me even if I tend to share your viewpoint. Bottom line: If you want to improve your chances of winning, don't speed one another out of the round-- you'll likely flow me out of the round too.

— I’ve gotten MUCH better over the years. I don’t encourage speed, still, but I’m pretty good at

getting it all down.

I do enjoy debators who at least attempt to add some persuasive flare in their speeches, but I do NOT wan you to focus on delivery at the expense of content and analysis.

If I do get stuck in an LD round, you must spend some time convincing me that your value and criteria are better than your opponents. I've had two sides argue with fantastic evidence to support their values, counter-values, with NO clash about which one is superior. I'm a libra, so it's already a task for me to try and choose between two equal, yet differing options. INCLUDE A FANTASTIC JUSTIFICATION FOR YOUR VALUE IF YOU WANT TO WIN ME IN LD.

I am a blank slate judge. Pretty much any argument goes as long as I cannot deduce it is fake, like purple dinosaurs are taking over the world or something. I have done PFD for four years. I have dabbled in all types of debate. I've done some speech as well. I am laid back, take with that what you will, just respect each other and the round. Will not flow CX (unless something crazy happens), carry the points into your speeches. CX is for the debaters to get information from their opponents and the judge is a spectator at that point.

I am a flow heavy judge so make sure to emphasize the important stuff and tell me what to weigh in the round. I usually try to narrow down the debate to three different main arguments (most clash) or one linear path, if the debate is one sided. I don't want to do the debating for you and that would be a disservice if I just looked at the flow sheet and decided that way, VOTER ISSUES ARE IMPORTANT :)

Lincoln Douglas /Public Forum Debate

I prefer a more conversational approach to debate, as opposed to spreading. A few well developed and explained arguments are often more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments that are less well developed. Debating debate for debate's sake misses the point of these events.

In Lincoln Douglas the Value & Criterion framework is key to weighing the round. This framework should be extended through the round. Philosophy and moral arguments are fundamental to Lincoln Douglas Debate. Linking impacts and drawing logical, reasonable conclusions earns points with this judge.

I'm less impressed by the "card shuffle" than by reasoning, impacts, and solid argumentation.

Individual Events

A Note On Trigger Warnings

By knowingly and intentionally bringing a piece that can and will trigger people, you have made the room a potentially unsafe for participants. By asking people who will be triggered to leave the room, you are singling out people with trauma and making their private matters public.Tournaments are public and educational - asking people to leave a round denies them access to the educational environment.

Issuing a trigger warning does not solve the problem of choosing traumatic content that could harm the mental health of competitors in the round. These are not "magic words" that absolve you of the responsibility of your choices. If you want to show that you care about triggering people, don't select triggering content.

I would strongly advise choosing appropriate, non-vulgar and non-triggering content appropriate to the educational setting that can evoke emotion and showcase your talent without knowingly & intentionally traumatizing other students and judges who may choose to suffer rather than singling themselves out in public, or being denied fair access to the educational setting by being asked to leave.

Debate participants are welcomed to sit down, stand up and walk when delivering their speeches.

Please be mindful of spreading - not too extremely quick.

As a judge, I will keep track of time. If you would also like to keep track of time, that will be superb!

I’m looking forward to listening to your topic! Thank you for being here!

Ms. Vivi Thong

Ps. Depending on the participants’s approval & the room size, audiences may or may not observe the debate.