I'm primarily a policy judge, so I'm pretty tab and don't really have strong preferences. However, I don't expect nor want other forms of debate (LD, PF, BQ, WSD) to look like a policy round.

A) I tend to view myself as a judge that tries to be as tab as possible. I am willing to accept any framework argument made. If no framework is set up, I will view the round as a policy-maker. I view debate as a fishbowl. What I mean by this is that debate is a place to play with different theories and ideas to form the best possible scenario. I am willing to vote neg if the status/quo outweighs the aff, but I will not make that argument for you. If you just say that in some way the aff is bad, but don’t tell me the status quo is better and warrant it out you will probably lose. In a way, if not given a framework (that is warranted out), I will go with what I am told is good. I work very hard to not let my personal beliefs have a role in the round, but I am only human.

B) Speed is not a problem; however, you must be clear. Mumbling is not the same as spreading.

C) Topicality. and Theory need to be impacted with in round abuse. I refuse to vote on potential abuse, because that can lead to a what if can of worms. I also tend to be less sympathetic to weird definitions or word pics. I am glad to listen to them and way them in round if they are warranted, explained, and not just a ten second part of the round (let’s be honest-sometimes they are just time sucks). I love to see really good theory ran by people who understand it. It is an intriguing way to play the debate game.

D) Counter Plans are fine, but make sure you can actually, legally change out the actor, etc.

E) Disads are fine. I like them as a net benefit to CPs. It makes everything pretty.

F) Kritiks are fine with me, but please realize that I do not read all of the literature in my free time. If something I hear about sparks and interest, sure, I’ll read about it. This rarely happens. I think it is ridiculous how many debaters assume that I have read all that Zizek, Lacan, or whoever the newest guru is has written or spoken. Remember that your judges and coaches have lives outside of debate. I actually really like to hear Kritiks as they can offer great offense.

G) Now onto Perms. I will vote on them, but they must be explained and not just a cheap trick thrown at the aff.

H) Behavior: Remember that this is not a time to actively work to make people feel inferior (Read: Don’t be a jerk). We lose to many students who could have thrived in this activity due to them feeling horrid after a tournament. I want to see more debaters and actors. I want to see massive inclusion of all peoples. This is supposed to be fun and educational; help us work towards that. When you face those who are less experienced that you, help make it an awesome learning experience and don’t act like you should win by default.

I) Remember that you will probably encounter the same competitors and judges throughout the year; so make a good impression.

I'm primarily a policy judge, so I'm pretty tab and don't really have strong preferences. However, I don't expect nor want other forms of debate (LD, PF, BQ, WSD) to look like a policy round.

A) I tend to view myself as a judge that tries to be as tab as possible. I am willing to accept any framework argument made. If no framework is set up, I will view the round as a policy-maker. I view debate as a fishbowl. What I mean by this is that debate is a place to play with different theories and ideas to form the best possible scenario. I am willing to vote neg if the status/quo outweighs the aff, but I will not make that argument for you. If you just say that in some way the aff is bad, but don’t tell me the status quo is better and warrant it out you will probably lose. In a way, if not given a framework (that is warranted out), I will go with what I am told is good. I work very hard to not let my personal beliefs have a role in the round, but I am only human.

B) Speed is not a problem; however, you must be clear. Mumbling is not the same as spreading.

C) Topicality. and Theory need to be impacted with in round abuse. I refuse to vote on potential abuse, because that can lead to a what if can of worms. I also tend to be less sympathetic to weird definitions or word pics. I am glad to listen to them and way them in round if they are warranted, explained, and not just a ten second part of the round (let’s be honest-sometimes they are just time sucks). I love to see really good theory ran by people who understand it. It is an intriguing way to play the debate game.

D) Counter Plans are fine, but make sure you can actually, legally change out the actor, etc.

E) Disads are fine. I like them as a net benefit to CPs. It makes everything pretty.

F) Kritiks are fine with me, but please realize that I do not read all of the literature in my free time. If something I hear about sparks and interest, sure, I’ll read about it. This rarely happens. I think it is ridiculous how many debaters assume that I have read all that Zizek, Lacan, or whoever the newest guru is has written or spoken. Remember that your judges and coaches have lives outside of debate. I actually really like to hear Kritiks as they can offer great offense.

G) Now onto Perms. I will vote on them, but they must be explained and not just a cheap trick thrown at the aff.

H) Behavior: Remember that this is not a time to actively work to make people feel inferior (Read: Don’t be a jerk). We lose to many students who could have thrived in this activity due to them feeling horrid after a tournament. I want to see more debaters and actors. I want to see massive inclusion of all peoples. This is supposed to be fun and educational; help us work towards that. When you face those who are less experienced that you, help make it an awesome learning experience and don’t act like you should win by default.

I) Remember that you will probably encounter the same competitors and judges throughout the year; so make a good impression.

*Updated for 2024*
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 have decided to try and give you as much information about my tendencies to assist with MPJ and adaptation.

**NEW NOTE, I may be old but I'm 100% right on this trend: Under-highlighting of evidence has gotten OUT OF CONTROL, some teams are reading cards with such few things highlighted it is amazing they actually got away with claiming the evidence as tagged. When I evaluate evidence, I will ONLY EVALUATE the words in that evidence that were read in the round. If you didn't read it in a speech I will not read the unhighlighted sections and give you the full weight of the evidence--you get credit for what you actually say in the speech, and what you actually read in the round. Debaters, highlight better. When you see garbage highlighting point it out, and make an argument about it---if 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 with good offense or a crafty counter-interpretation.

3. DA's and Aff advantages can have zero risk.

4. Neg conditionality is mostly good.

5. Counterplans and PICs --good (better to have a solvency advocate than not), process CPs a bit different. It is a very debatable thing for me but topic-specific justifications go a long way with me.

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. Email Chain access please: bgaston@heritagehall.com

9. The debate should be a fun and competitive activity, be kind to each other and try your best.

My Golden Rule: When you have the option to choose a more specific strategy vs a more generic strategy, always choose the more specific strategy if you are equally capable of executing both strategies. But I get it, sometimes you have to run a process CP or a more generic K.

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 be doing to deter clipping in my rounds is requesting a copy of all speech docs before the debaters start speaking and while 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 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 20 years if HS judging 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 it. Negative teams typically underutilize this. I believe 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. 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. Want to throw down in a big Hegemony Good/Bad debate, Dedev vs Growth Good, method vs method, it's all good.

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

Theory: Theory sets up the rules for the debate game. I tend to evaluate theory debates in an offensive/defense paradigm, paying particular attention to each teams theory impacts and impact defense. The interpretation debate is very important to evaluating theory for me. 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-- it's pretty important, especially in a round where you have a soft-left Aff with a big framing page vs a typical neg util based framing strat.

Have fun debating!

Paperless Debating

1. Please provide me legible copy of evidence used in your speech in one document.

2. Allow the other team to view your speeches on their own laptops. 

3. You should have a viewing computer for teams that use paper (or you must let them use one of your computers).

4. Provide me a digital copy of the speech.

5. Don’t give documents to your opponents with all the tags and/or cites missing.

6. I will stop prep when saving documents to a hard drive and transferring them.

Impacts

• I like a nuanced, realistic impact debate. A debate isn’t necessarily a contest to see who can try to prevent as many extinctions as possible. Loss of civil liberties and innocent deaths from drone strikes very well may outweigh some generic extinction scenario.

Affirmatives

• Make sure your internal links are well developed. Make sure your evidence shows why your action/process solves your impacts.

Disadvantages

• I prefer specific link stories (or case specific DAs). Some offense against DAs is just a smart 2AC strategy, but if a DA clearly has zero link or zero chance of uniqueness you can win zero risk. If the Aff clearly is winning non-uniques and no-links that does not mean that there is still a small chance of the DA. But at the same time if there is contested uniqueness (by both teams) and a small risk of a link the Neg can still win a risk of the DA.

Counterplans

• Neg must win that CP is competitive. I am also fine with multiple counterplans, unless the Aff proves some type of specific abuse. I believe conditionality and PICs are a good thing for debate. You can win theory debates over the issue of how far negatives can take conditionality (battle over the interpretations is key). Counterplans that are functionally and textually competitive are always your safest bet, but only one or the other is usually fine. I do, however, think that the negative should have a solvency advocate or some basis in the literature for the counterplan.

Case debates

• Takeouts and turns can go a long way. The more specific the better

Critiques

• They should have an alternative, otherwise they are likely non-unique. I think there should be a discussion of how the alternative interacts with the Aff advantages and solvency. It will take more nuance to solve your impacts than saying fiat is not real.

Topicality

• Competing interpretations are probably good. Proving ground loss can go a long way. Defend why your interpretation is better for debate. You can win T is bad for debate.

Theory

• I tend to evaluate theory debates in an offensive/defense paradigm, paying particular attention to the impacts. The interpretation debate is very important here.

Framework

• Impact framework arguments are pretty straight forward. Method framework arguments are all about who wins their interpretation is a better model for debate. Sometimes these arguments are combined by the debaters but keep in mind I tend to view them as separate issue.

CX

• Use it to get commitments and to clarify, not badger the other side. 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, but not rude.

Speaker Point Scale

• Speed is fine, and clarity is important. I’ll tell you if you’re not clear. Average debate starts at 27. You will lose points if you are rude or do sketchy stuff. 

Extra Thoughts

• Better evidence > more evidence. Sources matter. Evidence isn’t an argument; it’s used to support arguments. Don’t clip cards. Don't be a jerk or do sketchy stuff. Don't text or talk to coaches after the round has started about what's happening in your round. I don’t judge the flow; I judge the debate. Please ask me any further questions you may have.

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.

---

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: Current

---

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 application of 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 for 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.

Brief introduction, I debated at Moore High School for four years as a 2A on the Oklahoma circuit. We typically ran policy affirmatives and shotgun neg strats. After highschool, I was an assistant coach for Moore for another year, and have taken a year hiatus from debate to focus on my schoolwork. This tournament will be the first time I have judged a debate since then. In a nutshell, I would call myself a policy tab judge, but I have and will vote on the kritik. Here is how I evaluate most common arguments.

POLICY OFF CASE:

1. Disadvantages: Good old bread and butter argument. Specific links are good, and be sure to weigh the impact against the case impacts.

2. Case: Offense and defense is great, and case arguments are often underutilized to my taste.

3. Counterplans: I like them, but keep them reasonable. Counterplan theory is also fine, and I default to the flow when evaluating it. 

THEORY/FRAMEWORK:

I like well articulated theory and framework debates. I am unlikely to vote on gut checks, and will default to the flow for theory and framework debates. Make sure the flow is impacted out with clear explanations of abuse. I tend to default to competing interpretations, but have voted on reasonability.

KRITIK/KRITIKAL AFF:

I have been advised by certain people (you know who you are) that I have been unclear on my position on the kritik. I will try to be as transparent as possible, in order to avoid confusion. I will vote on the kritik, but I am no authority on the literature. If you are a team that wants to go for one, be sure to have the argument impacted out so that I know exactly what I am voting on. I also need to know what the role of my ballot is and links to the affirmative need to be clearly articulated. Buzzwords and other jargon may have to be explained, and debate as if I have no knowledge on what you are talking about. This will likely not be the case, but it will help me greatly. Any team that can follow this guide will have no problem with me signing the ballot.

PERFORMANCE:

I will try my best, but I have virtually no idea how to judge these debates. Follow the above guidelines to see how my thought process works.

If anyone has any questions, please ask me before the round. I will be happy to explain anything that is unclear. I will also give an RFD (tournament and time permitting), and i encourage you to ask questions here as well.      

4 years policy in high school at bishop kelley in oklahoma (marine natural resources-national service), and 1 year in college at UCO (constructive engagement). judged high school cx and ld for 12 years, locally and nationally.

i'll generally default to a mixture of policy and flow in the absence of a specific role of the ballot argument. the team with the better analysis and better control over how the arguments interact will probably win. i have zero problem dropping teams that do some real bullshit, though. read religious arguments, morally repugnant stances, etc. at your own risk.

i try not to actually *watch* debaters during the debate. it's a thing, it's not me trying to be rude. i don't like being referred to as "judge"- i have a name. so if you have a habit of saying "look to x flow, judge" or whatever, you can replace judge with cory, dude, buddy, or even disregard addressing a specific person and say "look to x flow". it won't hurt your speaker points, just a matter of personal preference.

i encourage any questions for clarification or if i left it out. i would rather you have a clear idea of what i will/will not vote on than you charging blindly and hoping for the best at the end of the round. for questions outside of the round, you can use my gmail, cory.g.wilson

POLICY PARADIGM

t, procedurals, theory, etc: i'll vote on them, but take it with a grain of salt. to win my ballot on these issues, you need to do all four of the following things: a) articulate a clear abuse story b) prove in-round abuse c) win the flow and d) give standards and voters. in the case of theory especially, BUZZWORDS ARE NOT WARRANTS. you need to explain what you're talking about for me to actually give a damn about what you're saying. i don't think that potential abuse is a voter most of the time, but it has a time and place. if you do go for it, you need a pretty good story about why i should care. i tend to buy reasonability within, well, reason.

disads: i would most definitely prefer a specific one to a generic one, but i do understand that sometimes you don't have something specific. if you're going to go for it, however, i do expect a story on the disad in the 2nr explaining what i am voting on and why you link to the aff and why your impact outweighs.

counterplans: pretty legit. net benefits are really awesome. be competitive. i don't think that presumption automatically shifts aff when a counterplan is read- like with everything else, justify why (or why not).

kritiks: when it's bad, it's bad. when it's good, i thoroughly enjoy it. i'm not going to pretend to be very well versed in the literature and arguments that exist, but i like to think i'm on the better side of most. in order to be on the safe side, you should do the same thing for the kritik as you do the disad in the second rebuttal- tell me why the other team links, why it's bad and outweighs their impacts, and how the alternative gains solvency. an idea of what the world would look like post-alternative would be a great addition to your story. additionally, you should probably know how to pronounce your author and at least act confident in pronouncing (and knowing) things like "ressentiment" or other specialized words/phrases that pop up in the literature that you read.

speed: i'll yell clear if i can't understand you.

LD PARADIGM

this is mostly colored by my policy background (so arguments about keeping the event pure aren't going to be met with much enthusiasm), but i've gotten more comfortable with the event as i've gone along . the biggest thing for me is clash and clear articulation of what your value means vis a vis the resolution and why it is the best for the resolution. the criterion debate seems to fall in line with the value debate, but if it comes down to whose criterion gains better access to the value, then i expect good analysis as to why yours is the best.

i'm apt to consider "voting issues" if presented at the end of the nr and the 2ar over sifting through the flow.

i'm also willing to listen to off-case arguments if presented properly and with a clear warrant as to why the aff or neg links and why it impacts my ballot.