I am a fairly new debate judge, but I will try my best to evaluate the round fairly.

I prefer both teams and myself to keep time. Please include a countdown or a statement to make sure we are all ready to start our timers at the same time. - Feel free to time your own prep, but I will also keep both teams prep time and confirm we are all on the same page.

Make sure to be clear when you speak, and PLEASE GIVE ME A ROADMAP of what you're hitting in round. I prefer light spreading. I can deal with a bit of speed, but CLARITY is much more important. I'd prefer to have time to digest your arguments. If I can’t understand you, I cannot flow the debate.

I prefer a line-by-line debate, but feel free to tell me what you think is more important/has more weight in the round. When I evaluate evidence, I will only evaluate the words in that evidence that were read in the round. Be bold and make strategic choices earlier in the debate; it is usually rewarding.

CX: I prefer a round where opponents refer to and look at each other. Please do not stare me down.

Do:

Follow all OSSAA rules for a fair and educational debate.

Speak clearly and eloquently present your arguments.

Be kind.

Be respectful.

Keep the debate fun and competitive!

Don't:

Be too mean.

Be transphobic, racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.

Hide evidence from the other team to sabotage their prep.

Steal prep.

Lie about your source qualifications.

Text or talk to coaches to get "in round coaching" after the round has started.

Google information after the the round has started.

Hi there! I'm Andrew Gafford, I did Policy Debate for Norman North from 2015-2019 at the Regional, National and TOC level.

It's been a bit since I've been in the Policy Debate ecosystem, but I'm pretty receptive to a lot of argument types.

I'd love to be on the email chain: ajamesgafford@gmail.com

Give me a roadmap and a good line-by-line. I value off-the-cuff speaking and eye-contact over staring at a laptop.

I find friendliness and good sportsmanship key to connecting to the arguments. Being rude is often not warranted and is a really good way to loose speaker points. Debate is an ultimately an opportunity to engage with each other over ideas.

Policy Affirmatives

I love a good solvency advocate, a cohesive internal link structure and well-chosen Advantages . Less is often more. Likewise I really like a good case debate.

K Affirmatives

I find a well structured non-USFG Affirmative incredibly compelling. Give me a solid praxis and defend something. I find a good discourse argument very impactful. See the FW section.

Theory/Topicality

Theory helps creates the ruleset both teams are operating off of, I find investigating this very compelling. A good topicality argument will have policy specific literature and go beyond a definitions debate. Give me solid standards and counter-standards. I will default to reasonability if I don't see tangible in-round DAs.

Counterplan

Coherent link structure is a must. Make clear the interactions between your DAs and the Counterplan in the 1NC.

A good solvency advocate is great to see. I will vote on/against a counterplan based on the navigation of the perm and solvency debate. Win these, and I'll vote Neg.

Disadvantages

A solid warrant creates a solid link structure. The length of your DA in the 1NC should reflect it's complexity in the policy world. Spend plenty of time on impact calc. Furthermore, use good impact framing and you'll have my vote.

Critiques

I love a good K! Show me an understanding of the literature and a well thought out alternative. I'm familiar with a lot of critical theory, but show me that you understand it and don't rely on jargon and generic links. Connect your K well to the framework debate too. Both teams should engage with the literature and not just read off blocks.

Framework

Winning the framework debate means showing me how your framework's view of debate is not only better for it's health but for how we engage the world around us. There can be value engaging with the world of policy and reform, make it clear why you think that is better.

A clear RoB/RoJ can be very compelling.

Thank you for reading!

***Updated for 2025***
Bryan Gaston
Director of Debate
Heritage Hall School
1800 Northwest 122nd St.
Oklahoma City, OK 73120-9598
bgaston@heritagehall.com

I view judging as a responsibility and one I take very seriously. I will pay attention, flow, and follow along. I will try my best to evaluate the round fairly. I have decided to try to give you as much information about my tendencies as possible to help with MPJ and adaptation.

**NOTE: I may be old, but I'm 100% right on this trend: Under-highlighting of evidence has gotten OUT OF CONTROL. When I evaluate evidence, I will ONLY EVALUATE the words in that evidence that were read in the round. Debaters, highlight better. When you see garbage highlighting, point it out and make an argument about it. The highlighting is really bad; I will likely agree and won't give the card much credit. This does not mean you can't have good, efficient highlighting, but you must have a claim, data, and warrant(s) on each card.**

Quick Version:

1. Debate is a competitive game.

2. I will vote on framework and topicality-Affs should be topical. But you can still beat framework/T-USFG with good offense or a crafty counter-interpretation.

3. DA's and Aff advantages can have zero risk.Debaters don't challenge internal-link scenarios as much as they should. They are typically weak or sometimes non-existent.

4. Neg conditionality is mostly good.

5. Counterplans and PICs are good (it's better to have a solvency advocate than not). Process CPs are okay, but I lead a little more Aff on some of these theory arguments —topic-specific justifications go a long way.

6. K's that link to the Aff plan/advocacy/advantages/reps are good.

7. I will not decide the round over something X team did in another round, at another tournament, or a team's judge prefs.

8. Be bold and make strategic choices earlier in the debate; it is usually rewarding. Sometimes, hedging your bets leaves you winning nothing.

9.Email Chain access, please: bgaston@heritagehall.com

10. The debate should be fun and competitive. Be kind to each other and try your best.

My Golden Rule: When you can choose a more specific strategy or a more generic one, always choose the more specific one IF you are equally capable of executing both strategies. But if you need to go for a more generic strategy to win, I get it. Sometimes it is necessary.

Things not to do: Don't run T is an RVI, don't hide evidence from the other team to sabotage their prep, don't lie about your source qualifications, don't text or talk to coaches to get "in round coaching" after the round has started, please stay and listen to RFD's I am typically brief, and don't deliberately spy on the other teams pre-round coaching. I am a high school teacher and coach who is responsible for high school-age students. Please, don't read things overtly sexual if you have a performance aff--since there are minors in the room, I think that is inappropriate.

Pro-tip: FLOW---don't stop flowing just because you have a speech doc.

"Clipping" in debate: Clipping in the debate is a serious issue, and one of the things I will do to deter clipping in my rounds is requesting a copy of all speech docs before the debaters start speaking. While the debate is flowing, I read along to check from time to time.

CX: This is the only time you have “face time” with the judge. Please look at the judge, not at each other. Your speaker points will be rewarded for a great CX and lowered for a bad one. Be smart in CX, assertive, but not rude.

Speaker Point Scale updated: Speed is fine, and clarity is more important. If you are not clear I will yell out “Clear.” The average national circuit debate starts at 28.4, Good is 28.5-28.9 (many national circuit rounds end up in this range), and Excellent 29-29.9. Can I get a perfect 30? I have given 3 in 22 years of high school judging, and they all went on to win the NDT in college. I will punish your points if you are excessively rude to opponents or your partner during a round.

Long Version...

Affirmatives: I still at my heart of hearts prefer and Aff with a plan that's justifiably topical. But, I think it's not very hard for teams to win that if the Aff is germane to the topic that's good enough. I'm pretty sympathetic to the Neg if the Aff has very little to or nothing to do with the topic. If there is a topical version of the Aff I tend to think that takes away most of the Aff's offense in many of these T/FW debates vs no plan Affs--unless the Aff can explain why there is no topical version and they still need to speak about "X" on the Aff or why their offense on T still applies.

Disadvantages: I like them. I prefer specific link stories (or case-specific DA’s) to generic links, as I believe all judges do. But, if all you have is generic links go ahead and run them, I will evaluate them. The burden is on the Aff team to point out those weak link stories. I think Aff’s should have offense against DA’s it's just a smarter 2AC strategy, but if a DA clearly has zero link or zero chance of uniqueness you can win zero risk. I tend to think politics DA's are core negative ground--so it is hard for me to be convinced I should reject the politics DA because debating about it is bad for debate. My take: I often think the internal link chains of DA's are not challenged enough by the Aff, many Aff teams just spot the Neg the internal links---It's one of the worst effects of the prevalence of offense/defense paradigm judging over the past years...and it's normally one of the weaker parts of the DA.

Counterplans: I like them. I generally think most types of counterplans are legitimate as long as the Neg wins that they are competitive. I am also fine with multiple counterplans. On counterplan theory, I lean pretty hard that conditionality and PICs are ok. You can win theory debates over the issue of how far negatives can take conditionality (battle over the interps is key). Counterplans that are functionally and textually competitive are always your safest bet but, I am frequently persuaded that counterplans which are functionally competitive or textually competitive are legitimate. My Take: I do however think that the negative should have a solvency advocate or some basis in the literature for the counterplan. If you want to run a CP to solve terrorism you need at least some evidence supporting your mechanism. My default is that I reject the CP, not the team on Aff CP theory wins.

Case debates: I like them. Negative teams typically underutilize them. I believe a well-planned impacted case debate is essential to a great negative strategy. Takeouts and turns can go a long way in a round.

Critiques: I like them. In the past, I have voted for various types of critiques. I think they should have an alternative or they are just non-unique impacts. Framework can be leveraged as a reason to vote Neg by some crafty Neg teams, make sure if you are going for the K framework as an offensive reason why you should win the round you clearly state that and why it's justified. I think there should be a discussion of how the alternative interacts with the Aff advantages and solvency. Impact framing is important in these debates. The links to the Aff are very important---the more specific the better.

Big impact turn debates: I like them. Do you want to throw down in a big Hegemony Good/Bad debate, Dedev vs. Growth Good, or method vs. method? It's all good.

Topicality/FW: I think competing interpretations are valid unless told otherwise...see the Aff section above for more related to T.

Theory: Theory sets up the rules for the debate game. I evaluate theory debates in an offensive/defense paradigm, paying particular attention to each team's theory impacts and impact defense. For me, the interpretation debate is critical to evaluating theory. For a team to drop the round on theory, you must impact this debate well and have clear answers to the other side's defense.

Impact framing is important, especially in a round with a soft-left Aff and a big framing page.

Have fun debating!

I am the head debate coach at Crossings Christian Schools. I graduated from the University of North Texas. I debated for four years at Edmond North High School. I have debated and judged both traditional policy and critique debate. I have also judged LD debate.

Debate what you are good at. I am comfortable judging any argument as long as it is clearly explained. However, I am more of a traditional policy debater. If you are a very K Heavy team, I might not be the best judge for you.

Email: alexaglendinning@gmail.com This is if you have any questions about my decision, debate in general, or for email chains.

Some argument specifics:

Topicality/FW: I love a good T or FW debate. I think that these arguments are critical because it determines the rules for the debate round. With this said, I do NOT like RVI's and I probably won't vote on those. With T, I need a clear interpretation of what is fair and why the other team violates that.

Theory: I love Theory debates. It sets up the rules for the debate round. I think theory could either favor the neg or be a complete wash in debate rounds depending on how it is debated. With theory debates, I need a clear interpretation of what is fair and why the other team violates that.

Disadvantages: I like them. The more specific your link story, the better. However, if you only have generic links, I will still evaluate them.

Counterplans: I like them. I believe that all counterplans are legitimate unless debated otherwise by the affirmative i.e. CP Theory. You have to win that they are competitive in order for me to vote on them.

Ks: They're fine.

Case debate: I love a good case debate. I think that this has gone out of style in current policy debate. I really want to see this come back.

Other Notes:

Use CX wisely. CX is a great tool that teams under-utilize. It is an important part of the debate round. It is in your best interest.

FLOW!!! Flowing is one of the most important things in a debate round. This is your map for where the debate has been and where the debate is going to go.

Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. If you aren't being clear, then I will not be able to understand or evaluate the arguments that you are making. I would rather you be clear than fast.

What not to do:

Do Not steal prep. Use it wisely. If you use it wisely then you wouldn't have to try and steal it. DON'T STEAL PREP.

Do Not Run T as an RVI. See the T section of my paradigm.

Do Not text with anyone during a debate round. Just Do Not use your phone at all during a debate round. The only exception is if you are using your phone as a timer. You should be focused on debating. Put your phone in airplane mode. This allows for less temptation.

Have Fun Debating!

Martin (Marty) Glendinning

AFFILIATED SCHOOLS: Southern Nazarene University, Crossings Christian School, Edmond North High School

OVERVIEW

EXPERIENCE: For those of you that do not know me, I have been judging and coaching debaters for 44 years. I was a 3-time NDT qualifier, and an out round participant at the NDT. I have coached a national champion collegiate team, CEDA Nationals out round participants, multiple high school State Champions (13), and an NSDA National Champion. Last year, I coached a team to the NSDA National Tournament and assisted another school in winning a State Championship.

VIEWS OF CURRENT DEBATE: I believe that debates have become to tech centered and not as much debate centered. Please do not ask me to be a part of an email chain or give me your speech docs. The docs frequently seem to be more eloquent and explanative than the actual arguments in the debate especially when it comes to analytics. I still flow very well and if I need to look at a card I will. (Very rare) I coached and debated many climate topics and have a good understanding of the arguments and issues involved. I have also coached and debated many legal and constitutional topics and currently teach US Government. For these reasons, I am very comfortable adjudicating both components of both current topics.

PARADIGM

If I had to describe myself, I am a policymaker or defer to the resolution. I am not a big fan of Kritiks. I feel that too often, K’s are simply generics that are argumentatively behind before they get started due to the lack of specificity and the inability to be able to explain deep philosophical issues within the confines of the time limits of a debate round which also, at times, produces little clash in a debate. If you are going to run a K in front of me, you need to have very specific links and very specific alt solvency mechanisms and evidence of efficacy. I also do not like K affs as I feel they do not meet the definition of should. Thinking about the reasons behind doing something or reciting a narrative, in my mind, does not prove reasons for implementation. I feel that the way topics are worded presumes some sort of policy implementation that can be debated at a practical and logistical level. That is not to say that I will not vote for these critical arguments, they are just not my preferred way to view a debate.

TOPICALITY:

I love good topicality debates, however, if you are not willing to commit in the 2NR, I probably will not vote for the argument. I enjoy creative definitional and grammar based interpretations of the meanings of words in the topic and how the affirmative violates those meanings within the realm of topic distortion in this debate, the topic in general, and/or possible distortions to other debates. Topicality, to me, is always a voting issue unless the affirmative wants to allow the negative to run topical counterplans, which, by the way, is fine by me as long as they meet the other requirements of a counterplan. I also do not believe in reverse voting issues but I will, and have, voted for them with good analytical reasons but you have to be very committed to the argument, just like T itself, in order to win that debate in front of me.

UNDERVIEW

MY PROCEDURALS: I will NOT tolerate rudeness or disparaging remarks from anyone, or directed towards anyone, including myself. I feel that a debate round is, and should be, a safe space intended for civil discourse. Speaker point deductions will occur for any person that chooses to deviate from this norm. The same standard applies to post round discussions. I feel that it is a judge’s obligation, if asked, to educate and be able to expand on the RFD in a civil and analytical way. At the point where these discussions become aggressive and argumentative rather than educational and informational, the discussion, at that point, is definitional over and will cease with possible speaker point repercussions. I believe it is the debater’s responsibility to “do the work”. I will vote on the arguments and evidence that are presented in the debate and I try very hard not to go beyond those parameters UNLESS the debate is so messy that I am left up to my own calculous. Therefore. I feel that Impact Calculous, Round Calculous, and clarity in analyzing those issues are vital towards winning my ballot. I still believe that this a communication activity.

THE BOTTOM LINE: Let’s have fun, civilly discuss the issues, learn new insights, and come to some new conclusions about the topics.

Good Luck To All!!

---

EMAIL FOR SPEECH DOCS: leigha.debate@gmail.com

---

Policy Debater at Moore High School, Moore, OK: 2008-2011

Policy Debater at the University of Oklahoma: 2011-2015

Assistant Policy Debate Coach at Moore High School, Moore, OK: 2012 - 2015; 2018 - 2020

Assistant Coach at University of Central Oklahoma: Dec. 2019 - May 2021

Assistant Coach at Heritage Hall High School, Oklahoma City, OK: Sept. 2023 - Current

I also judge on-and-off for either the University of Oklahoma or the University of Central Oklahoma, so you may see me at NDT-CEDA tournaments occasionally.

---

Stylistic:

For virtual debates:

Give me pen-time between arguments - and a second to move from one flow to the next. As one of the last practitioners of paper-debate and as judge who flows on paper, the cleaner and more organized the debate can be on my end, the more satisfying a decision I can give both teams.

I'm okay with observers in debates I judge, if you have affirmative consent from the teams debating. If you observe while recording, I also need to affirmatively consent to you doing so. Just ask me in the chat, that works.

I'll try to record prep time in the chat, if you end up losing your time.

- When the flash drive exits the computer, prep time is over. If using an email chain, verbally announce when you're sending the speech document out, and prep stops.

- I am fine with spreading, but I do want to hear a tag, citation, and the internals of the card. I will yell "clear" if I need.

- Let me know if you're going to have a long overview and I'll flow it on another sheet. My threshold for what I consider a "long" overview is very low, so keep that in mind. Play it safe and tell me to get another sheet, if you're on the fence about if this applies to you.

Argument Execution:

- Analysis needs a claim, a warrant, and an impact. "Extend our argument" is not an extension to me.

- Extending a piece of evidence by name and giving shallow analysis - ie: "Ext. our [blank] card here - means we turn the aff," and moving on. Without some explanation of the how and why that's true within the context of the evidence and the argument it's answering, I'm more reluctant to put in that work for you.

- I value debates where arguments are made with descriptive consistency in warrant extensions and analysis. Being able to trace the development of an argument from its introduction in evidence to the 2NR or 2AR is important to me - keep the key thesis of your argument alive in the debate. The same applies to application of warrants from a piece of evidence.

- It's awesome to see arguments that challenge the aff on a substantive level using nuanced arguments. Specific links are great and encouraged. But, I also reward specific application and contextualization to the aff when using a more generic piece of evidence. Especially in critical debates.

- In rebuttals, especially in the 1AR and 2NR, cleaning up the debate and making larger explanations of strategic, technical decisions or concessions on the flow framing-level is rewarded by me. Consider this me asking you to "write my ballot for me" in the last stages of the debate. I value analysis that not only explains to me the thesis of your advantages, disad, counterplan, or kritik in terms of substance, but also what arguments you are winning and key questions on individual flows you're going for.

Specific Arguments:

I was a critical debater for most of my career but will vote on framework and policy arguments - do what makes you feel comfortable and I will do my best to evaluate the round. I'm just probably not hyper-knowledgable on the truth-claims of the literature for your hot, new Yuan devaluation scenario, so I'll read evidence for my own personal understanding of the debate when needed for a decision. A lot of my experience in debating and coaching critical arguments are in the literature areas of settler colonialism, critical race arguments, queer theory, IR Ks, and other method debates.

---

- For those of you in a debate running a critical argument in front of me, this means I have a higher threshold for clarity in explanation and smart, explicit application to either affirmative or negative responses to your argument. A lot of the creativity in critical debate comes from applying specific warrants from your authors to the other team's argument - this is especially true in debates where you may not have a super-specific link argument in the 1NC and in high-theory debates that can devolve into word-salad. This is a basic requirement in you doing work for me in explaining the interaction between your argument and the other team's argument. Speeches that attempt to ground your theory with more concrete examples are good.

Being intentionally opaque about your position in cross-examination makes me roll my eyes a little bit (unless it's fundamental to the theory of your argument, as in some opacity-style method debates). I certainly become a little more sympathetic to the other team's frustrations when there's a sense you might be evasive during the explanation of your argument.

- Theory debates are not my favorite, as I feel a lot of debaters can be unclear in their explanation of and the developing a theory argument enough for me to give it much weight inside of the round. I prefer if you give me a heads up during your roadmap to grab an additional sheet for flowing, and give the order with the new sheet with whatever argument the theory concerns. (IE: "The order is T, the dis-ad, and the counterplan with a new sheet of paper.")

Theory shells are easy to bury in a flow by couching it among other arguments and spreading right through - which is a strategy! But, in my style of evaluation and for clarity's sake, I recommend clearly signposting when you're moving onto the theory argument, taking a breath so I can quickly get my clean flow, and then begin the argument. A cleaner flow for me gives you a better chance of winning your argument.

---

CX:

I am fine with open CX, to a certain degree. Being rude, mean, and continually speaking over your opponents can lose you speaker points.

Along the same line, speaking for your partner during most of their cross-examination time (whether asking or answering) reflects negatively on your speaker points. I understand there is the desire to make sure that your argument is being explained correctly, but it is more persuasive to me if a team is able to have a consistent explanation of their argument between partners.

---

If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to ask me before the round.

---

2025 Revision:

I am stressing the importance of link contextualization and impact comparison to the affirmative case by the negative in critical debates. I've seen on both high school and collegiate circuits as of late a concerning lack of application of the aff within the theorization of the neg's critique.

Additionally, if your critique is being tested on a fundamental level by the other team (ie: "ontology is contingent"/"psychoanalysis isn't falsifiable"-style arguments or impact framing arguments like "utilitarianism good"/"consequentialism good"), I highly suggest answering those to win the thesis of your argument. Not only do I think it implicates your argument on a solvency level concerning the alternative, but I think it makes it much easier for me to buy the claim that the other team's impact outweighs your impact.

RE: Card Docs - Please only send me the evidence you've mentioned by name throughout the debate. I, unfortunately, do not have enough time to rebuild the debate by reading through 40 pages of evidence you've shadow-extended and articulate a good reason why you've won or lost the round. I hope this encourages extending evidence by citation when making your arguments into the rebuttals.

About Myself:
I debated for four years at Guymon High School and have been judging since 2018 and I am currently attending the University of Oklahoma. I am a Political Science major with a minor in Psychology looking to attend law school in 2025. My crowning achievements in debate are going undefeated at a tournament while dressed as a clown and placing at the state tournament without being enrolled in debate or speech class (feel free to ask about the context of either story). You can call me Andy or Judge.

I'd like to be included with all email chaining and the flashing over of evidence. You can use this email:

andy.ramirez2002@gmail.com

If you have any questions about strategy or want a more detailed RFD don't hesitate to ask me on this email (You can use the other email for this but I am far more responsive on this email):

andy.ramirez2002@ou.edu

Overview:
I like to think I’m a very laid-back judge. I think debate should be a place for innovation and self-expression so there are very few arguments that I won’t vote for, so feel free to try and experiment with new and creative arguments!

Topicality:
I think topicality debates are really great to watch. I will vote on topicality if the affirmative does seem too far out of the topic and that makes it difficult for the negative to debate. However, it is the negative’s responsibility to explain and show why an aff is untopical. Additionally, they must show why being untopical is unfair for the negative and why I should vote on it.

Disadvantages:
I like disadvantages since they generally have great versatility in rounds, and they also can be incredibly valuable to a team. They may seem like a vanilla argument, but vanilla is a classic for a reason. A good disadvantage should have a coherent impact story somewhat similar to an advantage in an affirmative case. This means that specific links are best but generic links will also work. A good internal link story will work wonders I promise.

Counterplans:
I think counterplans can be some of the most underutilized arguments in a round. There is really great potential for counterplans when they are paired with net benefits. I really like specific counterplans, but generic counterplans are fine. Just a tip, make sure that your counterplan really can't exist in a world with the aff (mutually exclusive). Naturally, feel free to disregard this if you are running a PIC.

Kritiks:
I really like kritiks and have been running them ever since I got into debate. I’m most well versed when it comes to capitalism, anthropocentrism, settler colonialism, and biopower kritiks. However, my favorite kritik has to be Imperialism, and often ran it in high school. Kritiks work best when they are paired with framework. This doesn’t mean you have to accommodate to what I just know best, however. Run any kritik you want to run! I just ask that you be prepared to explain the kritik if it could be considered more obscure (looking at the Time Cube K). Also, for my sake and yours please don't run kritiks if you don't understand it. Read through your evidence and know the arguments you are making.

Kritikal Affirmatives:
I am completely cool with kritikal affirmatives. I even ran a Kritikal Affirmative for half of my debate career. The only thing about kritikal affirmatives that I specifically like to see is, if you are running it untopically or planless, that you can argue why topicality is bad for debate or why the negative can still reasonably debate your team. If you are running it with a plan, then you don’t need to worry about that as much.

Framing and Framework:
Tech vs Truth:
I am very much a Tech over Truth Judge.
My reasons:
I don’t believe that my personal biases and views should interfere with an argument a debater makes.
If a claim is made that has no “truth” to it then it should be easy for the opposing team to call it out and answer it.

Impact framing:

Impact framing is one of my favorite things about debate since there is so much room to be creative and really show how voting for you is better than the other team. If there isn't any impact framing in a round then I usually just resort to biggest impact or utilitarianism. Impact framing is a place where you can experiment with a variety of ways to prove your impact is more pressing such as timeframe, magnitude, probability, and maybe a few more that I am forgetting as I write this.

Minor notes:
I am totally fine with speed but make sure that you are enunciating well.

When transferring files a flash drive or email chain is perfectly fine. If possible, I would like to be included in the file transfer.

Personal Preferences:
These are a few things that probably won’t get you the win, but I do like to see in a round. You can think of these items as ways to get bonus points. They are listed with the most important thing at the bottom and the least important at the top.

Cross Examination stare: I don’t know where or when this started but I just personally find it weird that during cross examination sometimes the debater being asked questions will constantly stare at me while their back is turned to the other team. It looks almost dismissive of the other team and just looks silly so if you do this you may see me laugh. Look at the other team while you are in cross examination and if you just give me the occasional glance then I'm perfectly happy.

Road Maps: Just a quick little rundown before the speech that details which arguments you will be covering so everyone can prepare their flow.

Equal Cross Examination: I am totally cool with open cross examination, but I do like to see both debaters asking and answering questions. This is a team activity so it's nice to see team chemistry at work.

Signposting: I love debate but one frustration that I have seen among debaters is that sometimes flows get unorganized. So just signposting when you are going onto a new argument can really help stop a flow from getting messy.

Effort: This is an activity you should want to be in and if you want to be in something you should put effort into it. I don't think debate needs to be totally serious all the time but there are some moments and some topics that should be fairly serious. Be sure to give them the effort and consideration they deserve.

Sportsmanship: I totally understand that debate can get really intense and heated but that shouldn’t mean the round should turn into an unconstructive shouting match. Everyone in the round is a person just like you so it's important to be mindful of other people and respectful.

Finally, have fun y’all!

Experience

Currently the Director of Debate at Casady School.

Competed at the University of Oklahoma and Owasso High School.

Put me on the e-mail chain: snidert [at] casady [dot] org

On Evidence

Evidence quality and consistency is very important to me. I can easily be convinced to disregard a piece of evidence because it lacks quality, is insufficiently highlighted, or is not qualified.

Author qualifications are under debated and if a piece of evidence lacks a qualification then that should definitely be used in debate.

K Things General

One line should dictate how you approach reading the K in front of me:

“You are a debater, not a philosopher.”

This should be your guiding principle when reading and answering a kritik in front of me. Debaters seem to rely more on jargon than actually doing the work of explaining and applying their argument. Unnecessarily complex kritiks won't get good speaker points (90% of the time you could have just read the cap k).

I will not flow overviews on a separate sheet of paper.

If you plan on reading the K

I've got good news and bad news. I'll start with the bad news: You are very unlikely to convince me not the weigh/evaluate the aff. I'm not persuaded much by self-serving counter interpretations on framework.

That said, the good news is that I think people give the aff too much credit and most of the reasons why I shouldn't evaluate the plan are typically offense against it. For example while I don't find the FW interpretation "Debate should be about epistemological assumptions" very convincing, I will definitely vote on "the affirmative's plan relies on a flawed epistemology that ensures serial policy failure, which turns case."

If you're answering the K

While the above may seem like good news for the aff answering the K, I tend to hold the aff to a higher threshold than most in K debates. I don't think "you need a specific link to the plan" is responsive to a K of the aff's epistemology. Likewise, aff framework interps that exclude Ks entirely are pretty much a non-starter.

Theory Issues

Condo seems to be getting a bit excessive, but no one goes for condo anymore so I'm sort of stuck with it.

Tech vs Truth

I think of this as more of a continuum as opposed to a binary. I lean more towards tech than truth, but I'm not going to pretend that I evaluate all arguments with equal legitimacy. For example, I have a higher threshold for arguments like “climate change not real” than “plan doesn’t solve climate change.” I traditionally evaluate the debate in offense/defense paradigm, but there is a such thing as a 0% risk.

K affs/T-FW

I enter every debate with the assumption that the resolution is going to play a role in the round. What role it plays, however, is up for debate. I don’t have a preference between skills or fairness standards.

Common reasons I vote aff on FW:

The neg goes for too many “standards”/"DAs"/whatever-youre-calling-them in the 2NR.

The neg doesn’t even try to engage the aff’s 2AC to FW.

Common reasons I vote neg on FW:

The aff doesn’t have an offensive reasons why the TVA is bad.

The aff doesn’t even try to engage the neg’s standards on FW.

Misc

I only flow what I hear, I won't use the doc to correct my flow. If I don't catch an argument/tag because you're too unclear then *insert shrug emoji*. That said, with online debate I will flow what I hear and use the doc to correct my flow after the speech. Including your analytics in the speech document will make correcting my flows much easier.

Guaranteed 30 if you’re paper debate team #PaperDebate

My facial reactions will probably tell you how I feel about your arg.

Brock Spencer – brock.spencer.bs@gmail.com

Experience/Background - Current Assistant Coach @ Casady HS (OK) (7 Years), Judge Experience (10 years), Debated 1 year CEDA/NDT @ UCO , 4 years of National Circuit HS @ Tulsa-Union (Ok), Former Assistant Coach @ Tulsa-Union HS (Ok) (1 year)

TLDR – You do what you do best, and tell me what to do with my ballot as your judge. Write the RFD/ballot for me in the last speech. I’m down with voting for most things that have a well-warranted reason and impact behind it. Offense/Defense Paradigm. I flow meticulously and enjoy line by line debates. Debate can be super fun, enjoy yourselves!

Speaker Points - I tend to heavily reward teams who do phenomenal research/ utilize evidence in comparative ways. A newer development is that I tend to reward teams who flow well, and answer arguments on the line by line especially with numbered responses. Giving your last speech off of the flow, and not reading into a laptop is a great way to have good speaks - (Also just be nice to each other. It's a competitive activity, but doesn't have to be cutthroat.)

Speed -

Go for it! Please be somewhat clear, especially on tags.

(Policy Paradigm is 1st)

(LD Paradigm is 2nd)

(PF Paradigm is 3rd)

-- POLICY --

Policy AFFs --

Advantages are good....10 advantages are not.

I prefer few advantages w/ specific internal link chains that don't have 8 loosely tied together scenarios begging to lose to a security K. Update your IL UQ's - it goes a long way in front of me.

Utilize your AFF vs. off case args, too many policy affs lose because they start debating on the DA/K flow ignoring, and not using the AFF to it's potential.

K AFF’S –-

AFF’s I have read haven’t defended much so I’m definitely willing to vote for these.

The aff should still defend doing something, but this is a pretty low threshold.

Vs. K's go for perms and impact turns to Alts

Vs. FW go for DA's as impact turns.

Topicality/Theory –-

Topicality and Theory are drastically underutilized. Ya'll are letting these aff teams, and CP's get away with waaaay too much. I love creative Theory/T debates. Limits are love, limits are life!

I evaluate T similar to any DA flow from offense/defense point of view, and default competing interps, but can be swayed to vote for the aff being reasonable. I reward spec interps/violations vs. an aff.

Impact out your standards/counter standards, and make spec args as to things they did in the round that harmed ground, what they could have done based on their strat, or other potential abuse. RVIs are a non-starter, and I will evaluate "K's of T".

I will vote on Condo, but the 2ac needs to be more than 10 seconds if you're going to be going all in by the 1AR. I do think the Neg is allowed to be condo most of the time unless they have done something rather egregious that you point out.

Framework –-

Neg - I'll vote on both soft FW Interps that are creative and hard line USFG FW. Either way limits/predictable ground are most useful standards to win my ballot. Limits are love, limits are life! Point out when aff is vague/a moving target as another link to these standards. Topical Version of the AFF is the easiest way to win my ballot on FW. Typically don't vote on democratic engagement/deliberation args, but not against them.

K AFFs - make sure to leverage your impacts vs. FW. If a negative drops the AFF Impacts I’m easily swayed by the argument that AFF impacts are Impact turns to the interpretation, and why their model of education is bad to begin with.

CP –-

These should have a clear net benefit such as DA or internal net benefit. Better solvency isn’t sufficient. I often find myself voting on perms so these net benefits should be articulated as reasons why the perm doesn’t solve.

Also if you want me to kick it for you if you’re losing it that needs to be clear in the 2NR.

Cheating Cps *you know who you are* - I tend to side w/ the aff on these so you'll want to allocate sufficient time to theory in the block if necessary.

DA –-

DA's are great in debate as generics to rely on, but I'm not a fan of the trend of reading one to 2 card DA's with barely any warrants highlighted. I love a good da although. Specificity is lovely! I'll still vote for your generic topic DA, but apply it to the aff in the block.

Need clear impact calc from both the aff and the neg. - updated UQ/IL UQ will be rewarded w/ speaker points, and usually W's on the ballot!!

Both teams should use comparative analysis and explain why their ! ows, is more uq, or turns the other etc.

K’s –

Background/Preferences -

I’m most familiar with this type of debate throughout high school, and college. I "hack" for Security K's that are embedded in other K's - I find that most policy aff internal link chains are garbage, and you can make them defend things they don't want with security esque arguments. The K’s I’m most familiar with are the greatest hits of dead European dudes (Nietzsche, Baudrillard, Heidegger, Deleuze etc.), and being from Oklahoma I hear, and have read Settler Colonialism/Cap literature a lot. Personally believe the Fem I.R. K is drastically underutilized, but very good in debate because there's literature on everything and it's often just true.

Links/Alts -

For your link, QUOTE THE 1AC EV evidence as link analysis for a K.- You can read your "sick" Baudrillard 81 card, but in the block there should be an explanation of the link in the context of the 1AC ev and scenarios.Alts should have a clear articulation of why it solves the AFF and the links. I also find myself voting on perms b/c the neg doesn’t do a good job explaining the difference in the aff solvency and the K alt solvency world. To help beat perms the Links should be offensive – I typically won’t vote on a link of omission. An Alt should also exist. If you read a K without an alt I default to being a non-uq DA until proven otherwise. I can be convinced why my ballot generates UQ, but that needs to be explained as a type of alternative.

For AFF's answering K's -

Net Benefits to perms are vital, as are DA's to why the ALT doesn't solve all parts of the case, or separate DA's to the ALT itself.

! Turns would be great. I don't understand why debaters don't just say arguments such as HEG GOOD. Impact turns vs. K's can be devastating. Don't debate on their ground, debate on yours.

Other K Things -

I’ll vote on roll of the ballot claims and framing issues as long as there are impacts and warrants attached to those and reasons why the other side doesn’t’ access them.

Floating Piks, and Counter Perms I'm familiar with, and will vote on, but they need to be at least predictably flagged in the block.

Lastly, I enjoy clash with K debates so if someone reads a Buadrillard AFF and your NEG is to also read Buadrillard, you're probably starting off on the wrong foot in front of me.

-- LD --

Most of what I said above in policy applies to what LD is currently, but I'll add a few specific things unique to LD.

Value/Crit -

Offense to their Value/Crit would be lovely. - Winning the framing is helpful, but more debaters need to impact out why it matters.

Use your contentions as net benefits to your Value/Criterion and DA's to theirs and explain why their FW cant access/solve your impacts. I often find myself just voting on impact calc based on which contention OW's the other because the framing debate isn't articulated enough.

K's/CP's/DA's in LD? -

Sure, why not. I'll evaluate these the same as any other argument (read above in policy for specifics)

For Traditional LDers -- I am willing to vote for FW args on why this isn't allowed in LD as long as you have well warranted impacts/theoretical args, but tend to think these are allowed and you should have answers if they apply to the case. Most of the time your more "Traditional case" still has very well built in answers to these types of arguments too, but often debaters are overthinking it. A traditional case can beat a circuit style case.

Contentions -

I love creative contentions in LD to justify what should or should not be debated, but open to voting for theory arguments as to why said contention is unfair etc.

Theory -

I typically err aff on theory in LD, but can be convinced otherwise.

Read above for more specific Theory in Policy Section.

Speed -

Go for it! Please be somewhat clear.

Random Info - I find myself voting for floating pics a lot in LD rounds.

-- PF --

For PF specifically, I often find myself frustrated in PF rounds by the lack of line by line answers, and proper extension of arguments. When citing evidence you should give a tagline, an author and then read the evidence. Often PF debaters do this in many different nonsensical orders with a lack of evidentiary standards.

Clash is really important and giving impacts that are comparative to the other teams impacts will go a long way in front of me. Make sure and respond to their cases in every speech after the first speeches.

**To see how I evaluate specific arguments such as disads, cps, t, k's etc. the above sections still apply. I believe all debate eventually just morphs into policy over time whether we want them to or not because whenever you give students speech times they will inevitably speak faster and utilize the modern policy style. I'm not necessarily a fan of this either way, but it is what it is. I'll still vote on traditional PF cases against more progressive styles, but need warrants that answer their arguments outside of "that's not allowed"**

For the email chain: ltoro38601@gmail.com

I started debate in high school and did four years of LD. I mainly read K stuff during those four years. I continued debating in college for two years, NFA LD, and two years of college policy.

You can read anything in front of me, but I judge critical arguments better because it is what I have the most experience with. But these last three years, I have been reading and going for a few policy arguments.

Put me on the email chain: kadewilliams27@gmail.com

Please call me Kade not just judge.

History:

3 years at Moore highschool, double state finalist
1 year at UCO, quall to NDT and 33rd at CEDA
Current SNU

Policy:

I've done just about anything you could think of in policy debate and I'll be good for most things you say. In recent years I've ran almost exclusively settler colonialism, and I tend to be a K focus judge. I don't hold many strong opinions about things in debate, but I've been a 2n/1a for most of my time in debate and most of my 2nrs are the K.

Specific thoughts:

Policy v K debates: This is the type of debate I find that most teams kinda just read their blocks and not interact with the flow, please don't do this with me in the back. I lean a bit neg on the fw question on these debates I guess if I had to have a preference.

K v K debates: no specific comment - I greatly enjoy teams that do a lot of comparative works on their theories and I think that a lot of explanation on why your theory is correct goes a long way with me.

Framework: If the counter interp resolves a large chunk of limits I lean towards the aff. However, I think that if the counter interp doesn't I find it to be a bit hard for the affirmative to impact turn a lot of the neg offense.

Public Forum: