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.

Debated

4 years of CX at Moore High (OK)

4 years CX at UCO

Qualified to the NDT 3 Times

CEDA Finalist my last year

Basically, all that time has been spent as a 2N/1A going for the K and reading an AFF without a plan. With that said I think that debate is for the debaters, do what you do best and do it well. By all means don't let my (perceived) preferences sway you from doing what you want to do.

If you have any questions before or after the tournament feel free to email me at grantcolquitt87@gmail.com

Also add me to the email chain if there is one.

I flow on paper so I may need slightly more pen time than some, so clarity > speed for me. I can still handle speed, but clear transitions are really important to me, and all the more true in an online setting.

I evaluate debates almost entirely on the flow, so my preferences matter less than doing what you're best at and impacting that on flow. Given that impact framing arguments (impact calculus), are almost always the most important factor of my decisions.

A few thoughts on particular issues:

Framework- most of my ballots on this question come down to the impact of competing models of debate. I think AFFs are often ahead in this debate when they advance a counter interp that solves the limits DA. NEGs tend to be ahead with a TVA that solves the AFFs offense (note not the AFF but their offense). I’m here for the impact turn and procedural fairness respectively (though more as an internal link to education than an independent impact). But that is my light default, I can and have been convinced otherwise.

K v K debates- Most of this works like any other debate, explain why you’re right and what the impact to that is. Only specific comment, I have never understood the notion that “method debates” mean the AFF shouldn’t get a perm, this isn’t intuitive and while I am open to being convinced I have yet to hear a compelling argument. Also, you just need a link to your K anyway so maybe use that to beat the perm?

Policy v policy debates- this is by far the debate I’m the least familiar with but that doesn’t mean I’m not open to it if that’s your jam. Just explain how your impacts turn or outweigh your opponent’s arguments and you should be just fine.

*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!

I debated for four years at Moore High School in OK and debated at the University of Central OK until 2017.

She/they

I think debate should be an accessible and educational activity. With that in mind I am open to basically any argument as long as it isn't racist, sexist, homophobic, offensive, etc.
In high school I read a lot of arguments about indigenous epistemology (like Byrd and Deloria) and in college a range of arguments anywhere from indigenous arguments to feminist arguments to security ks to traditional policy strats like T, DA, CP, K, Case. Do not change your strategy to what you think I like, debate should be about you, not me, so do what you do best and I'll evaluate it.

Here's how I evaluate most arguments:

T - I haven't judged a lot of rounds on this topic yet so I'm not as familiar with the literature. To win a T debate in front of me you have to impact out your reasons for why being T is good, however I am very susceptible to impact turns. That being said, if you win instrumental implementation is a good thing then I'll vote on it. I like arguments about why things like clash and education are good. I also think it helps to give examples of affs that couldn't be read under the aff interp. I don't lean one way or another on competing interps vs reasonability.

FW vs a K Aff - Not my favorite argument. I would rather you read a specific T and have some FW type standards. However if it isn't answered properly I will vote on it. I evaluate it similarly to T, it needs impacted out analysis. However, I am very susceptible to FW if the aff DOES NOT defend a change from the status quo.

FW vs a K - I think the aff should be able to weigh their impacts and that Ks should be allowed in debate. You won't win that a K should be excluded in front of me unless the other team severly mishandles your FW.

DA - Go for it. I prefer that they have specific links to the plan. I also think they're a good way to prove abuse on T.

CP - Again, go for it. I can tell a cheaty CP when I see one so reading theory is always a good idea.

K - This is probably my favorite type of debate to judge. I'm down for anything from identity debates to high theory, however I am not as versed in high theory as I am in other forms of kritikal literature. Make sure you explain a clear link and impact and give warranted analysis instead of using just buzz words. I also am not likely to vote on links of omission unless they are legitimately dropped.

Theory - I think conditionality is a good thing as long as it isn't being abused by the negative. However, I will vote on warranted analysis of why contradicting condo or conditional ethics are bad.

Kritikal/Performance Affs - I enjoy judging these debates as well. However, I think affs should defend some change from the status quo. You can't just defend some "capital T" Truth in the 1ac and say vote aff, provide a strategy or method of changing it.

Other - Don't be rude during the round. Debate is supposed to be educational and people can't get that if you're constantly being rude. That includes to your partner and the other team. I will dock your speaker points if you are unneccesarily rude or aggressive.
Prep time stops when the flash drive leaves the computer.
Also, I have been told I make faces during the round. These are just my "thinking faces" so you shouldn't worry about them.

If you have any questions about my philosophy or decisions feel free to email me at gabiglide2@gmail.com

---

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.

"Underneath all reason lies delirium, and drift."

I think the structural ins-and-outs of debate arguments are very important foundations that the activity and the debate round specifically require to function properly. But, I err on the side of reasonability. I tend to treat theory args as checks rather than round-deciders, and as such it is very difficult to get me to vote on hypothetical abuse. If you want to win the ballot *on* theory/topicality, you need to show me how you were abused *in this round*. Otherwise, if a team passes the theory/topicality check, then we move on to other arguments.

I think Framework is a complicated issue. On one hand, it’s a check for policy-leaning teams to prevent abusive K args from the neg and a right to define how you want the round and ballot act to be seen, but more often I see it used as an attempt to abuse neg ground by somehow removing their ability to kritik altogether. In practice, the stronger argument and legitimate, warranted crystallization will win my ballot.

I’m okay with speed, but PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE signpost. This means *don't* speed through tags!!! Please just pause/vary your tone when switching between tags and evidence. I’m able to come back to judge at most 3 times a year, so it takes some energy to “knock the rust off” my ears and my flowing abilities.

I find really good policy rounds a thing of beauty, when there’s CLASH and real discussion between competing arguments and evidence. It shouldn't make a difference what the subject of those discussions is.

Ultimately, if what you really want to think and speak on in your time in this activity is the granular interactions between congress and the president or how likely nuclear war is, then I think you should be able to; but I also think that if the other team wants to spend their time in this activity speaking on issues that affect them in the real world, they should be able to find a way inside the boundaries of the debate “game” to do so without being punished.

Here’s a paradox: you can be behind on every single flow and still win the ballot, or ahead on every single flow and still lose the ballot. What’s important to me is that you tell me a compelling story at the end of the round, and not just repeat taglines and “extend x”; that you crystallize and have warranted reasons for why I should vote for you; and, above all, that you are clearest in telling me what the ballot means or what my act of voting accomplishes.

I will do my best at the end of the round to objectively decide "who did the better debating", but it's up to you as debaters to tell me what those words mean in the round you're in.

Below, you will find my paradigm (as copied from the judge philosophies wiki). A couple addendums for the Heritage Hall tournament:

1. I have judged approximately 20 rounds on this topic.

2. I find myself voting for kritiks with much more regularity than my below paradigm would seem to indicate; further, I would like to think that my competence in evaluating such kritiks has improved exponentially since first writing this paradigm.

The below information was copied from <http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Thompson%2C+Will>

High School: Debated 4 Years for Charles Page High School in Oklahoma

College: Current Sophomore at the University of Oklahoma, 1 Year of College Debate Thus Far


Overview
I view debate through an offense-defense paradigm. I am fine with spreading. I am very familiar with "circuit" style debate. I try to intervene as little as possible, and thus refer to myself as "Tabula Rasa." Nevertheless, it's impossible for me to abandon all my biases, and so the below information is an attempt to let you know what those biases are.

Topicality/Theory/Framework
I am very comfortable voting on topicality. I don't have a default preference for either competing interpretations or reasonability - I have no preference as to whether or not there has to be "actual abuse" in order to vote on topicality. It's up to you to determine my views on that subject in each round (this is the one exception to the default "offense-defense" paradigm outlined above; a team that wins reasonability can, in my mind, thereafter win the topicality debate merely with decisive defense against the other team's standards). You can be extremely untopical and win topicality, or extremely topical and lose on topicality. Theory is rarely a reason to reject the team, unless strong arguments to the contrary are made in the constructive speeches. Don't be annoying and say that perms are severence when they aren't. Competing interpretations and reasonability can also apply during theory arguments. I will be happy to listen to affs that completely ignore the topic, and I will also be happy to listen to framework arguments that force every aff to defend USFG implementation. If the negative wants to win framework against non-topical affs, they need to quantify the magnitude of the link to their standards, and also frame their offense in terms of the other team's offense (i.e., I have no idea how to compare education and striated space without your instruction). I will vote on framework against negative kritiks, but teams rarely make such framework arguments compellingly.

Disadvantages
I love them, and went for them all the time throughout high school. If anything, this probably means I'll hold you to a higher standard when you run them - this is especially true of the politics DA. You should have carded answers to common 2ac args if you want to be able to take a given DA into the block. Do impact calculus and make "turns case" args - it's really important.

Counterplans
Generally fine. Theory is underutilized by affirmative teams, since a large number of CP's are cheating. Affs need to put a substantial 2ar/1ar time investment into theory on CP's if they want to win it, though. Simply saying "perm" does not constitute an extension of a permutation - there must be a warrant as to why the perm solves. I prefer fewer, well-warranted perms to larger numbers of blippy perms.

Kritiks
I didn't go for them much, but I feel comfortable evaluating debates that involve them. Compare your offense to the other team's offense (i.e., how does the hyperreal interact with the lack) and you should be good. Explain how your alternative functions and PLEASE don't be jargon-y; even if I AM familiar with some of the jargon, it's better to make your arguments clear in the first place. If the other team doesn't understand what's going on, it's a safe bet that I don't, either. I don't find links of omission to be compelling.

Perms
The phrase "perm do both" does not constitute a reason for me to vote aff, even if the perm is dropped by the negative team. A perm MUST be accompanied by an explanation of its net-beneficiality in order for me to evaluate it in the first place. Absent such explanation, the "perm" does not rise to the standard of an "argument."

Other Stuff
I keep a close flow of the round, and I expect you to as well. I will dock you an average of one speaker point if you don't seem to flow.

I rarely, if ever, call for cards after the round. It is not my job to read your evidence, but rather your job to explain it to me. I don't care how good your evidence is if you haven't analyzed and applied it well.

I rarely give speaker points lower than a 27 or higher than a 29. Points higher than 29 are reserved for especially phenomenal, final-round quality debaters. Points lower than 27 and higher than 26 are reserved for debaters who don't seem to either try or care about their performance. Points lower than 26 are reserved for the following cases: if you are excessively rude or mean, especially to young debaters; if you cheat (steal prep, clip cards); if you use blatantly racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, ableist, or adultist slurs (note that "slurs" are distinct from phrases like "you guys," and the metaphorical use of the word "see" - using this language is probably still bad, and the opposing team should argue as much, but I won't default to lowering your speaks in such scenarios); and if you argue with me about the decision. You can certainly ask questions about my decision, but if you choose to argue with me, I feel the need to set a precedent. Too many good judges have stopped judging the activity and/or been intimidated into voting for particularly outspoken teams because of such situations.

My name is Petra [Pay-truh] (she/her). I graduated from the University of Oklahoma with a degree in Sociology with a focus in Criminology and have worked in financial crime detection and investigations. Should you feel the need to know my qualifications, I have 9 years of experience with Policy/CX and 7 of PF & LD. I competed in CX in high school, qualified to NSDA 2x, had a TOC bid, placed 3rd at state in CX, was a state quarterfinalist in LD, and have coached CX, LD, PF, and Congress. Affiliations: Cheyenne East (my alma mater) '12-'16, Edmond Santa Fe (individuals) '16-'17, Norman North '18 - present. I have been lucky enough to coach students who have advanced to semi-finals in Congressional Debate at nationals, late out-rounds in LD and PF at nationals, and late out-rounds in LD, PF, and CX at the state level.

I tend to default to policymaking, but my primary evaluation and if no debater has clearly won or told me where and why to vote, I will default to stock issues. If the aff hasn't upheld their obligation of affirming the resolution (or providing a solid case why they shouldn't), I will presume negative. I’m not a fan of vulgarity in-round. Please time yourself. Open Cross is okay, but if you don't engage or talk over your partner your points will reflect that. If you bring spectators, they must be respectful of all competitors and judges.

Speed is fine, I prefer slow on plan/advocacy statements and tags/authors. Use an indicator when switching between tags and arguments. Clarity is key to getting on the flow. I will say clear once, and if I can't decipher you after that I stop flowing you.

In the era of online debate, I suggest recording your speeches just in case of tech difficulties. I will adhere to all tournament guidelines regarding competition and tech issues. Slow down for the sake of mic processing. You probably don't need all 10 DAs. Please try your best to keep your cameras on, I understand this is not always possible.

Policy - My background is in traditional policy debate. I am well-versed in topicality and straight policy, but I will listen to just about anything you can and want to run. I appreciate creativity in debate. Cool with Ks and theory, but I have a high threshold for in-round abuse. Not a fan of plan+ / plan inclusive anything. Tell me where to vote and why.

Cross:It's probably binding, and often underutilized. Make it strategic - analyze the links, perms, make your opponents prove their solvency. If you’re being shifty and don't know what you're talking about, your opponent doesn't know what you're talking about, and I definitely don't know what you're talking about. For the love of all things sacred, don't be a jerk.

CPs: You must have a plan text and a net benefit. Tell me why it's competitive. You should probably have a really good solvency advocate. Full disclosure, I think I have only ever voted for one PIC, I think that a perm makes this a pretty easy win for Aff. I don't believe States CP gets to fiat all 50 states + relevant US territories (unless you have a decent theory shell, in which case go for it).

DAs: I love me some case-specific DA's. Do the impact analysis!! Aff too. For the love of all things holy, please make it a complete argument. I don't love seeing a 10-off 1NC with severely underdeveloped DAs that lack links and UQ.

Kritiks: I have a solid technical understanding of K's but don’t know all theory/philosophy. I'm not a philosophy hack; I won't do the work for you. It's critical that you understand what your advocacy is. If you don't know/understand, I don't want to vote for it. PLEASE don't read a K because you think I want to hear one. I would much rather hear a good, in-depth debate about what you're good at. If your K is about debate being irredeemable and a black hole...consider who your audience is. I've dedicated almost half my life to the activity and understand that it can be made better, so let's put in the work to make it better.

Topicality: Good. Great. I typically default to competing interpretations. It's not (usually) a RVI. Just like anything, read it only if you understand which violation you're reading and if there is clear abuse. You need standards. I have a higher threshold for FXT and XT because of how policymaking typically operates in the real world, but if you feel there is clear in-round abuse, knock yourself out.

Theory: Most of the theory debates I see are bad. That makes me sad - I like theory. I will listen to some well-thought-out theory any day of the week. I will consider any discourse args on reasons to reject a team, so long as their impacted out. Don't be racist/sexist, etc. Not a huge fan of framework debates because I see very few that are good. I tend to vote for world v world and real-world impacts anyway. Neg worlds should probably be cohesive, unless you have a theory shell to backup why not.

Misc: Don't be mean. Don't cheat. I'll call you on stealing prep. If you do it after I call you on it I have no issue auto-dropping you. I don't want to have to read the evidence - you should be explaining it. Post-rounding (asking questions is fine - I will be more than happy to explain my thought process - I'm talking about arguing or bringing up things you should have used to answer but didn't) won't change my ballot but will guarantee you'll get the lowest speaks possible. If you run wipeout, you better have a dang good warrant and dang good framework shell to run with it.

LD:- I did traditional LD in high school. I look for lots of work on the framework debate and framework/case interaction. If you're about progressive debate, that's cool too - but I would like to see your version of framework or a role of the ballot. I don't really want to see a CP, DA or K read with zero interaction with the resolution or aff, but if you have one with a good argument, I'm open to it. Please dont just run a K/theory shell because you think that's what I want to hear - do what you do :)

PF: See: LD, Policy. Theory is cool, and welcomed, here too. Disclosure/paraphrasing theory - I have a high threshold of abuse here as well. Progressive/fast is cool. Traditional is cool too. Again, Please dont just run a K/theory shell because you think that's what I want to hear - do what you do :)

TLDR; If there is no clear reason given for me to vote on either side, I will default to stock issues because it is what I know the best. Does aff meet their minimum requirements of affirmation? Does the negative do their job of negating the resolution/the aff? Do the off-case arguments link? Are alternatives mutually exclusive? Do the alternatives solve the aff? Impact it out. In-round, fiated implementation, and on the flow. For everything. Don't steal prep. If you have any specific questions, please ask! my email for chains and questions: petracvc@gmail.com

Most importantly, have fun, and be kind to one another! Happy debating! - P :)

Affiliation and Big Picture:

I debated three years for Bentonville HS, then debated policy, parli, and collegiate LD for Oklahoma. Currently a master's student at NYU and a Mock Trial/Model UN assistant coach in Albany, NY.

I debated primarily K, but I will always vote on what you present to me. If you are straight policy, great. If you are very performance, also great. You know your arguments. I will vote on framework and T, but I won’t necessarily just give the round to you because the other team is running a kritikal aff. Prove your impacts and weigh it out. I like clash. I assume you do too.

Be careful about saying something is a priori if you are not sure of winning it, because I will evaluate it as such.

Be good in CX. Effective CX trapping is impressive and can be good for speaks. Being a jerk isn’t. Also in the same vein, avoid being problematic as a general rule- y’all are in high school and know how to not be harmful to your competitors.

I would like to be added to email chains and I will flow on paper, I stop at the timer with what I last heard.

Specific Arguments:

Topicality- Articulate it well and extend it properly and it has a chance with me. I actually like T a fair amount as long as it can be proven. If you’re using it as a time suck, don’t.

K- Don’t assume everyone knows your lit base or that the buzzwords are automatically understood. It’s important to explain the idea in a way that your competitors can understand the premise as well. Well-run K is important, and the link chain needs to be articulated.

DA/CP- If this is your negative argument of choice, the rules are pretty standard. Make them stick to the aff. Net benefits must be articulated properly.

Affs- I like to hear creative affs as well as standard affs, as long as you can articulate your particular position and defend it.

Theory- I will hear it, but remember. Condo on some ungodly number of CPs might be buyable, condo on one CP and one K won’t be. Be reasonable.

Good luck everybody and I can’t wait for some great debates! Email is gswall97@gmail.com if you have any further questions(before or after this tournament!) or ask before round.