Hi, I'm Sam Arter. I'm a freshman mechanical engineering student. I did S&D for 3 years in high school, mainly debate but some speech and drama. I hate long paradigms so mine are brief but feel free to ask questions before round and I am happy to explain.

General-

Please be respectful in, before, and after round. I will not tolerate any kind of discrimination or rude behavior. Also, don’t be out of touch.

At the end of the day, this is supposed to be fun and better you as a person so do your best and have fun. Good luck!

Debate-

• Tech over Truth but your tech should be truth. Nothing is common knowledge, but if a statement isn't refuted by your opponents, I'll flow it as fact.

• I vote based on a combination of voter issues, impact calc, and frameworking.

• Voters- I prefer a little ten second summary of what points you think you are winning on both sides of the flow and why at the end of a speech. This will help prevent you from accidental drops.

• Impact Calc- To win, you should have more influential impacts that affect more people.

• Framework/ VC- Though its not always necessary for PF, if you use a framework, I expect it to have a valid warrant and for it to be upheld throughout the round. If you do not have a framework and your opponent does, you adopt theirs. To win the round you should be winning under both frameworks.

• Drops will lose you points. Carry arguments through the entire round. Your opponents drops don't count if you don't bring them up though the entire round.

• SIGNPOST!!!! Use an off-time roadmaps and tell me where you are at on the flow.

• I don't prefer spreading but I will understand if you do it. If I stop writing- I'm not following. If I don’t hear a point you made, thats on you for not pushing it enough.

• I don't flow cross so if you want something from cross to flow through the round bring it up in another speech.

• While I will be keeping the official time, I expect you to keep your own time and I will not flow if you go over.

• I prefer cards stated in the format (Authors last name, Year). While I don't often, I reserve the right to card call if the round is close or I suspect you are misconstruing/misunderstanding it.
  
  

Extemp-

• Please use blocking to make sure your structure is clear.

• State your sources in your speech.

• Make your movement and hand gestures purposeful.

• It's fine if you have a notecard but please do your best to not look at it.

• Use jokes. Make it fun.
  
  

Drama-

• I tend to vote on speaking/presenting abilities not content/writing ablility.

If you have any questions, comments, or concerns please email me- fridayshome.sa@gmail.com

(Please email me within a week of the tournament to get a response.)

hi! My name is rachel and I'm a college freshman, i graduated from Edmond Memorial last year. I debated for three years in high school and i was public forum captain my senior year.

i'll keep up with anything as long as you clearly explain and weigh your arguments.

speaking- i am ok with spreading but if i can't understand what you're saying, i won't flow it. you need to be clear. i prefer signposting during speeches, otherwise the round can become unorganized. I don't like it when debaters are aggressive in round, it doesn't impress me. i will vote you down for being abusive. i ask for respectful, clean rounds. if you're mean to your opponent, you'll get low speaks. you don't have to be abusive to win a round if you are a good debater.

cards- i will rarely ask for a card after a round, unless i think someone is straight up lying. if you and your opponent each have cards that say opposite things, ask for it during prep, check sources, etc. and tell me why i should prefer your card over your opponent's.

impacts- i will vote primarily on impacts. please bring them up, weigh them, and extend them throughout the round.

cross examination- do not argue or be aggressive. ask for follow up questions. let your opponent speak and ask questions. i do not flow cross, if it's important, bring it up in a speech.

if an argument is dropped by your opponent, i will weigh it. However, it's important that you tell me that they dropped your argument and why it's important.

NOTHING is common knowledge, but if a statement isn't refuted by your opponents, i'll flow it as fact.

PF:

framework- i prefer a framework, and will judge based off it, if it's argued correctly. i do ask that you tell me a)Why it matters and b)extend it in every speech. i expect that if one team does not provide a framework they will accept their opponents and carry it through the round. if you have clashing framework, tell me why i should prefer yours. you will probably not win a round on FW alone but it is a very important lense to view the debate through. If neither team has a framework thats fine, but you'll really impact weigh and explain why your impacts are better than your opponents.

LD:

value/criteria- This is extremely important in an LD round, I will vote mostly on value/criteria. If you only mention it in your first speech i dont know how the round relates to it and why you won through it.

One of my biggest things is being respectful and kind. I’m not cool with a team being rude or abusive. And make sure you extend arguments all the way through every speech. Continue to remind me why you have won. Have fun!

andersonbell287@gmail.com hmu with any questions, comments, concerns about the round, also add me to the email chain if you make one

raised on public forum, congress and extemp for 3 years so they're what i know best

in short, convince me your side is correct and you'll win-- that's your job as a debater

for a more detailed description:

i will judge strictly off of the flow of the round

talk as fast as you want just be sure to annunciate

make your points and voter issues as clear as possible

frameworks are important in both pf and ld but make sure you tell me why yours matters

i will not flow crossfire. if you talk about anything important bring it up in the next speech. say whatever you want and it will not hurt you unless it's against nsda rules

evidence is very important

tech>>>>>truth

unique arguments are preferred, but i will by no means vote you down for running stock

i like nuke war and extinction arguments bc i think they're fun and they're what i liked to run, but they should be linked very well

i won't intervene on a ballot unless it's desperately needed

progressive debate is fun and i wish more people in oklahoma ran progressive strategies

if you think a piece of evidence is unethical or fabricated in some way, call it out. i will not call for and look at cards unless either team challenges a card

extemp speeches should be as entertaining as they are educational

relying on a notecard in extemp will limit how high you can place

if both sides agree, i would disclose the results of the round unless i am forbidden to do so by tournament rules

i welcome any debater talking to me after the round regarding my rfd, as i think it helps debaters as the tournament goes on and improves the overall educational aspect of the activity. that said, DO NOT postround me-- it will not change my ballot.

if you're any type of "-ist" or "-phobic" i will be heavily inclined to vote you down

i can't believe it has to be said, but don't make arguments that involve killing yourself or another debater

if your case includes the collapse of the kappa alpha order fraternity as an impact and the link/impact calc is done properly, you will likely win my ballot. i don't like them, rush lambda.

mention the song "lengthwise" and i will vote you down. bad memories.

tell me that joe biden is 24 years old in crossfire and i will give you two extra speaker points

tell me that joe biden is 24 years old in any of your other speeches and you will lose two speaker points

IF YOU MENTION THE HAT MAN I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN HE TOOK EVERYTHING FROM ME

I graduated from Norman North in 2019 and OU in 2022 with dual degrees in political science and professional writing. I am an English teacher/Debate Coach at Longfellow Middle School and a two-time published poet.

From 2012-2019, I competed in PF, LD, Congress, and all IEs. LD and Congress are by far my favorites. I've been to regionals, state, Nats, and TOC.

I have judged in the West OK circuit since January 2023 and was a coach and judge for Norman/Norman North at Nationals 2023.

Being a respectful, charismatic speaker is most important. The most persuasive speakers are expert storytellers. I'll happily choose the more compelling storyteller over the person with the most cards. Crack a joke. Show personality.

PF should be treated on balance, so I will carefully follow where there is clash of arguments. I want to see offense and defense. I will treat LD similarly, but FW will always matter more in LD.

In LD, if you do not have a FW, then I will default to your opponent's. If you do not make it applicable to your own case, then the opponent will win on that voting issue. If you both have a FW, I want you to tell me where your FW interacts with the other. Does it encompass theirs? Does it narrow the scope? Why does that matter?

I also like to see creative arguments. Bring a fresh perspective. Big K fan when done right, but my preference will always be for traditional LD debate.

TLDR:

PF: 1. speaking 2. clash of impacts 3. FW (maybe)

LD: 1. speaking 2. FW clash 3. impacts, I debate trad, but theory is fun sometimes.

Things to avoid and other notes:

Ad hominems.

Straw man arguments.

Inundating your opponent with evidence and telling me "Judge, they dropped my 2nd and 43rd responses you must vote on that." (I will not vote on that.)

Adaptability is critical to success. So while certain strategies/etc are allowed and often welcome in the nat circuit, I will expect competitors to adapt to their judges' paradigms. Learning how to read a room is a valuable skill. Good luck to all competitors and don't forget to have fun!

Good luck. If y'all call for cards I will also want to see them. I know what I am doing 50% of the time 25% of the time. If y'all have questions for me before the round just ask me. I am more of a tech judge and I will be going through the round as best as you can. I am chill with spreading. y'all can time but don't have an alarm with yours. I will also be timing and I give a little buffer but don't abuse it. I don't disclose after round but I will say somethings.

If you give a really big important percentage like my opponent will increase deaths by 200% then I will revert it into the actual number

If you are going to meme the round let me know bc I want to be in on it and not just think you are bad debaters.

don’t mention the hatman

put me in the email chain if you use one ellaefulkerson@gmail.com

I absolutely love the framework debate, please explain to me how I know your impacts achieve your framework. FRAMEWORK IS HOW I AM SUPPOSED TO VOTE IN THE ROUND.

I am comfortable with all forms of arguments: K's, Counterplans and plans, Theory, Reverse voting issues, ETC. Just explain yourself and don't assume I know the literature.

If you exhibit any discrimination towards your opponent or me it will be extremely difficult for you to get a ballot from me.

I appreciate a good speaker and someone who stays confident, NEVER GIVE UP any solid argument could persuade me to vote for you

Good Luck!

Add me to the email chain: seangutteridge@mooreschools.com

I'm Tech > Truth

I value clash in the debate round and is key to any ballot I assign

I will evaluate any type of argument presented Kritik, Counter plans, theory, and/or independent voting issues. This being said don't expect me to know your literature. This means explain it well and make sure you explain your impacts clearly.

Here is a list of priorities visualized 1-5 importance 5 being most important

Case debate - 3

Theory - 3.5

Kritik - 4

Topicality - 5

counter plans - 2.5

Framework/value - 2.5

trix - (-5)

Things to avoid/ if you don't wanna lose

no racism, sexism, or homophobia that's a ballot drop 25 speaks and a coach referral

no Rage kritiks I won't evaluate them

respect is a voter

don't make me cry - kidding but still

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

DEBATE:

First, a little bit about myself. Hi, my name's Joe and I've done LD all four years of high school and I love it a lot, that's why I'm judging right now. Above all else, good sportsmanship is key in any debate round. I've got plenty of experience under my belt so don't worry about going to fast for me to understand, but do make sure that your opponent can understand what you're saying as well (if you plan on policy-style spreading I'd prefer to have a copy of your case to read along because I can't flow that). I count dropped arguments very heavily—if you drop something your opponent has won that point, that's just how it works. I keep my own flow but if you want those dropped points to count you better point them out in the round, I will only judge exclusively based off of what is brought up in the round (don't leave anything open to interpretation. If you have any questions please ask them before the round! I'm happy to clear up any confusion! Have a good round!

SPEECH:

Just as LD, I've also competed in a variety of speech events throughout my time in high school. Judging for this is pretty much by the event, so there's nothing very specific adive I can give you other than keep your cool—you got this!

Last Updated 12/5/2021

Ishmael Kissinger
Experience: 3.5 yrs for The University of Central Oklahoma 02-05 (Nov/JV & Open)
14 yrs as Coach @ Moore High School, OK
Policy Rounds Judged: Local ~10
Policy National/Toc - 2
LD Rounds Judged Local: 0
LD National/TOC - 0

PFD - Local = 0

PFD Nat Circuit - 0

Email Chain: PLEASE ASK IN ROUND - I cannot access my personal email at school.

*Note: I do not follow along with the word doc. I just want to be on the chain so that I can see the evidence at the end of the round if necessary. I will only flow what I hear.

LD -

Just because I am primarily a policy judge does not mean that I think LD should be like 1 person policy. Small rant: I am tired of us making new debate events and then having them turn into policy... If you are constructing your case to be "Life & Util" and then a bunch of Dis-Ads you probably don't want me as your judge. If you are going for an RVI on T in the 1AR you probably don't want me as a judge. I don't think that LD affs should have plan texts. If I were to put this in policy terms: "You need to be (T)-Whole Res."

Affirmatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their Criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that affirm the whole resolution.

Negatives should have: a specific tie for their value to the resolution. An explanation on how their criterion(a) operates in context of the value and the ballot. Contentions that negate the whole resolution.

CX

I tend to consider myself a flow oriented judge that tries to be as tab as any one person can be. Absent a framework argument made, I will default to a policy-maker/game-theorist judge. I view debate in an offense-defense paradigm, this means that even if you get a 100% risk of no solvency against the aff, but they are still able to win an advantage (or a turned DA) then you are probably going to lose. You MUST have offense to weight against case.

Generic Information:

Speed is not a problem *Edit for the digital age: Sometimes really fast debaters are harder for me to understand on these cheap computer speakers.

T & Theory need to be impacted with in round abuse. As the debate season goes on I tend to err more toward reasonability than I do at the beginning of the year. This is usually because as the debate year goes on I expect Negative teams to be more prepared for less topical arguments. This is generally how much judges operate, they just don't say it. I typically don't vote on potential abuse, you should couch your impacts on potential abuse in very real-world examples.

Please make impact calculus earlier in the debate rather than just making it in the 2nr/2ar

Kritiks are not a problem, but I am not really deep into any one literature base. This may put you at a disadvantage if you assume I know/understand the nuances between two similar (from my point of view) authors. **If you are going for a K or an Alt in the 2NR but are unsure if the aff is going to win the Perm debate and you want me to "kick the alt" and just have me vote on some epistemic turn you're only explaining in the overview of the 2NR you are not going to enjoy the RFD. If you think it's good enough to win the debate on with only a :30 explanation in the overview, you should probably just make the decision to go for it in the 2nr and kick the alt yourself.

When addressing a kritikal aff/neg I will hold you to a higher threshold than just Util & Cede the political, I'll expect you to have specific literature that engages the K. If this is your strategy to answering K teams I am probably not your "1."

I don't have a problem with multiple conditional arguments, although I am more sympathetic to condo bad in a really close theory debate.

CPs are legit. Just like judges prefer specific links on a Dis-Ads I also prefer specific Counter-Plans. But I will evaluate generic states/int'l actor CPs as well.

Dispo = Means you can kick out of it unless you straight turn it, defensive arguments include Perms and theory. (My interp, but if you define it differently in a speech and they don't argue it, then your interp stands)

DAs are cool - the more specific the link the better, but I will still evaluate generic links.

Case args are sweet, especially on this year's (2019) topic.



Personal Preferences:

Really I have only one personal pref. If you are in a debate round - never be a jerk to the opposing team &/or your partner. I believe that our community has suffered enough at the hands of debating for the "win," and although I don't mind that in context of the argumentation you make in the round, I do not believe that it is necessary to demean or belittle your opponent. If you are in the position to be facing someone drastically less experienced than yourself; keep in mind that it should be a learning process for them, even if it is not one for you. It will NOT earn you speaker points to crush them into little pieces and destroy their experience in this activity. If you want to demonstrate to me that you are the "better debater(s)," and receive that glorious 29 or maybe even 30 it will most likely necessitate you: slowing down (a little), thoroughly explaining your impact calc, clearly extending a position, then sitting down without repeating yourself in 5 different ways. If you opt to crush them you will prob. win the round, but not many speaker points (or pol cap) with me.

A bit of background:
I debated policy 4 years at the University of Oklahoma and 4 years at Edmond Santa Fe High School. I've judged policy/LD/PF debate since then.

Yes put me on the email chain:
parkerstephennelson@gmail.com

POLICY:

I believe that debate is a game that fosters a multitude of positive things: critical thinking, problem solving, logical decision-making, communication skills, and exposure to an abundance of topics that no other activity provides. Because of this, I try to give back to this community and support it in every way I can. There is no wrong way to debate, and bringing your own flavor/style is encouraged. I have an extensive amount of experience with critical arguments but I can get down to a good policy debate too. The best judges I had were the ones willing to listen to positions from every possible angle, and that's what I strive to emulate.
Thus, I try to outline my general preferences in technical terms:
-- Each argument must have a claim, warrant, and be properly impacted out. The other team dropping the argument doesn't mean putting a 30 second blurb at the end of the 2NR/2AR, expecting my unequivocal vote.
-- Coherence is a must, and your evidence should say what you claim it says. Don't under-highlight to put out incoherent arguments. Evidence quality wins more debates.
-- I'm a big advocate for framing arguments, which make my evaluation of the round easier.
-- My argument preference in my past debates/decisions won't grant you any type of benefit in the next round.
-- Understand and adequately explain how your argument interacts with the specific nuances of the opposing teams. So many debaters get bogged down in jargon instead of properly explaining how these concepts should shape my decision.
-- There is a significant difference in being strategic and being squirrely; the latter is incredibly annoying.

LD:

The Value/Criterion debate is what is integral to mostly in my evaluation of LD debates, if given no meaningful clash by debaters it makes it significantly difficult to weigh contention-level clash. Making arguments surrounding each Framework and how they interact/should be evaluated/prioritized with regards to contention-level claims will make the end of the debate infinitely easier to decide. You don't want me deciding who accesses what on my own.
I am good with all means of jargon -- cross applications, turns, links, etc. these are encouraged and allow for sprinkling offense across the flows, so feel free to use them as long as they're coherent.
I am fine with progressive argumentation, but I'm not the judge to pref for one-off, throw-away theory shells -- if the argument is warranted and impacted out properly, I will evaluate it, but prefer meaningful topical engagement from both teams.

PF:
Framing/Impact calculus is probably the most important aspect of PF debate for me nowadays. The easiest way to my ballot is to do the weighing for me and tell me exactly how I'm supposed to evaluate each impact/how they interact with regards to each other within the debate space. Impact prioritization based on criteria, formalized Framework/theory arguments, etc. are encouraged.
I am fine with progressive argumentation, but I'm not the judge to pref for one-off, throw-away theory shells -- if the argument is warranted and impacted out properly, I will evaluate it, but prefer meaningful topical engagement from both teams.
Voters in Final Focus are extremely helpful, even more so if they're presented during Summary, but not required.
I am good with all means of jargon -- cross applications, turns, links, etc. these are encouraged and allow for sprinkling offense across the flows, so feel free to use them as long as they're coherent.

The Specifics:
Framework/Topicality:
You NEED evidence/definitions for what portion of the resolution is being debated.
Ideally, the affirmative defends a position that is controversial, with plenty of literature granting ground on both sides and predictable elements to it. I probably have a reputation as a fairness/limits voter, but that's because it's the debate I hear the most. I also enjoy "clash" debates, but the biggest issue I run into is one side not engaging with how the other side portrays the debate, and instead hyper-focuses on turning every offensive standard without providing the over-arching context.
Topical versions of the Aff aren't required to solve all the world's problems. The 1AC is 9 minutes.
Impact framing on the Topicality flow is just as important as anywhere else.

Kritiks:
***You need a link to the Plan itself--or at least to the representations of the Aff. One of the biggest reasons I vote Aff in Policy Aff vs K debates is that either:
a) Not enough work was put into establishing a specific link to the Aff or
b) work is put into establishing a link to the status quo, which the negative assumes automatically links to the Affirmative. That isn't the case.***
Using direct quotations from the Affirmative evidence in your link claims will get you leaps further than you think.
Permutation defense is just as important as link offense -- voting on links of omission aren't super compelling.
Expect me to allow the affirmative to weigh the advantages of the Aff unless there is an overwhelmingly explicit reason not to, aka violent representations of the plan, flawed epistemologies, etc.
No separate sheet of paper for overviews.
No underviews; please god.
Note: "Perm do the alt" is not a perm.
While I'm here, overview debates are exhausting. Spilling a prewritten 5 minute word-salad about your K, and expecting it to answer literally everything on the line-by-line is a meme and is bad debating. Debate the line-by-line.
You need an alternative. A coherent alternative. I keep using the coherence word, because discussions need to be had on how the alternative interacts with both the status quo, and advantages of the affirmative plan. It also must solve your links.

I'm most familiar with: Nietzsche, Capitalism, Heidegger, Reps, Fem IR, Anthro, Security, Anti-Blackness, SetCol and various flavors of such. I'm not your Deleuze/Baudrillard aficionado.


K Affs:
You do not have to have a plan, but you need to answer the question of advocacy. Why am I voting for whatever it is you're doing? Why is it good? If I'm left in the dark, typically it's due to teams thinking that obscurity is advantageous. It isn't.
I am persuaded by good presumption arguments made by the negative. Engaging with these is paramount to success with critical affirmatives. Ignoring them is a great recipe to lose.
Your advocacy--at minimum--needs to have a critical element that is tangential to the resolution, and a mechanism for achieving/overcoming/resolving this element.


CPs:
Counterplans? Yes.
Advantage Counterplans? Yes.
Plan Inclusive Counterplans? Ehhh, but acceptable, given proper justification/solvency advocates.
In all cases, the negative needs to win a few things:
1) The counterplan is competitive (textual and functional to be safe)
2) There is a uniquely accessed net benefit
3) Complete solvency of the affirmative harms WITH a solvency advocate (unless you weigh other things against the remaining portions of the Aff).
I will vote for permutations -- use your net benefits as offense.

DAs:
Love them. I absolutely adore specific link stories, or better yet case-specific disadvantages, but I will still take all of your generic links.
I find Affs hole-punching their way through weak link-chains to be the easiest way to dismantle a DA. Point out logical leaps in internal links.
Read the cards, especially the un-underlined portions. Point out cards having no warrant in your speeches.
I believe 0% risk is possible, but it's not always probable, so don't rely on only uniqueness take-outs or link defense.
Specificity of Uniqueness > stacks of cards that all have two sentences highlighted. The under-highlighting is proliferant and teams getting away with it is insane to me.
Please. Do. Impact. Calculus.

Theory:
I am a believer in theory interpretation debate and it's a hill I'll die on. It's also, coincidentally enough, a great way to defend/persuade your judge by having a basis for evaluation.
I probably lean more towards condo/multiple-worlds good, assuming the negative isn't trying to run away from the debate/spread people out of the round.
Going for the theory in the 2NR/2AR is a bold move, and I will vote on it, assuming you impact the debate well and answer back defense overwhelmingly, preferably with some in round-abuses tied to a violation of some sort by the opposing team.
This does not mean running incoherent, superfluous theory arguments and expecting a W.

MISC:
Clipping: I request a copy of all speech docs due to how egregiously offensive I find this to be. You will not pass GO. You will lose the round. You will receive 0 speaks.
I *will* vote against you without the other team claiming you are clipping.
I *will* give you minimum possible speaks if you have the un-underlined/highlighted portions of your evidence at a 1 point font. STOP.
Have a copy of your evidence for your opponent. This can be physical or digital.
Do not be rude to each other in Cross-Ex. Be engaging, but not overly aggressive.
I have no issues with speed -- I do have issues with people who think they're fast, but aren't clear. I only flow what I hear, and if I have to yell clear more than twice, I'd suggest slowing down and checking if my pen has stopped moving.
Please respect preferred pronouns. Mine are he/him.

Hi Welcome to my Ted Talk

Overview:

I am a blank slate judge. I will pretend I have zero knowledge in the round and only learn things from the context you give me. Pretty much any argument goes as long as I cannot deduce it is fake, like purple dinosaurs are taking over the world or something (If you are memeing please tell me so I can enjoy it and evaluate it in context of the round, it'll be harder to win against fairness and topicality, but I will still weigh it). If you want to incorporate a joke here and there go for it, don't be excessive. 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 writing 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. If the debate is confusing I’ll default to clash areas as the path to the ballot. 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 :)

Preferences:

Prep time - Keep your own, but I'll use mine to verify. Tell me when to start and stop the clock.

Signpost - Make clear references about where you are attacking your opponent cite cards/contentions to help me keep the flow organized.

Speed - I will adapt to the speed both debaters are comfortable with, if both debaters want spreading: let the games begin. Please slow down taglines. Respect your opponent’s decision, but I will expect that speed from both of you (or slower) or I’ll lower speaker points to reflect it. Don’t just use speed as a way to make the debate lack clash or outspread your opponent.

Disclosure - Dependent on circuit norms. If tournament calls for disclosing evidence do it with each other 30 minutes before round or as soon as postings blast. I will use Speech drop and make the room code in round.

Frameworks/Roles of Ballot or Judge - If you tell me how to vote in the round, that becomes the ballot pathing. If your opponent does the same you must directly engage with each other. If there is no clash I will default to Frankensteining the ballot directions together from both sides.

Specifics: (Ignore for traditional circuits, keep everything on case)

Kicks - STATE EXPLICITLY. If it is not kicked I’ll assume there is some merit to the argument. You cannot kick a turn. If an argument is kicked that means it has been yeeted out of the round and I will no longer consider it under ANY circumstances. If there are excessive kicks it will lower speaker points. Make intentional strategic choices.

Concede/Concessions/Drops: EXPLICITLY state and explain the merit of why this matters. If you try to game over an opponent I need to know why the drop is good. I will assume it doesn’t weigh unless you tell me.

Theory - Must be brought into the debate the speech after the violation occurred. Theory must be addressed first as usually it is a “think of the out of round implications” type of argument.

Ks - Keep them topical and lay out links to resolution. I weigh alts and roles of the ballot very heavily.

CP - I rarely hear these but love a good counterplan or PIC, solve for the Aff if you are going for this.

DAs - Usually links are pretty clear so the best strategy is to aim for the impacts on both sides.

K Affs - Tough to evaluate in my experience. I’ll do my best but the right theories could deck the case for me. Prove the K has fairness.

Topicality - Yeah, be topical I guess. Needs to be brought up in 1NC.

Other Things:

1. I only evaluate what is read in round, sorry if you have 26 pages you didn’t read I won’t weigh it.
2. Don’t hide evidence from opponents, be able to provide if asked
3. Don’t be a professional hater if you are racist, sexist, transphobic, or make any other personal attack you will speedrun yourself into a loss and low speaks. Debate should not have any hateful agendas.
4. Keep your own time, I’ll have a timer but keep your own as well so I don’t off chance mess up.
5. I'll give feedback if asked after the round but both sides will hear it, I won't say who won unless it is tournament norms. I do not disclose speaker points as they can be viewed as “subjective”, and lead to arguments over who got what.
6. Feel free to casually tie in pop culture references, brain rot terms (better be funny), modern slang, or other quick quips during speeches. I like the see the personalities of speakers, just don’t let it distract from your case, arguments, and the round.
7. Have fun! Good luck! Don’t be nervous, have a good time. My secondary goal to judging the round is passing the vibe check. Debate is a game of strategy and moving pieces to set yourself up for success.

If you have any other questions please ask me before the round when all competitors are in the room.

Email chain- chloesemailchain@gmail.com

I debated on the SNU debate team. I am a previous regional qualifier in 5A Policy debate, and state qualifier/ finalist in POI, Poetry, and HD. I have also competed in DD, DI, and DUO.

I have no real preferences on speed or style. I'm more concerned on your ability to debate and how well you know your case you're arguing.

Break legs!!