elibrennan@gmail.com YES, I'd like to be on the email chain (or i guess we may just use Zoom to transfer speech docs).

Evidence: I am happy, very happy, to prefer the team with the better evidence on key questions, you just need to explain why your evidence is superior: be clear about which evidence you want me to read, why I will find it superior, and why that matters for the overall strategic situation of the debate.I haven't been reading much evidence at all after debates because the approach to extending the evidence lacks substantive warranting. In those situations, I prefer to just compare warrants provided by the debaters- to see who did the better _debating_. All that said, I really do like that policy debate can create stable strategic advantages for better research and better interpretation of that research.

Framework: I'm sympathetic to Framework arguments mostly in situations where the Aff. is apparently trying to avoid substantive clash. Many debaters who specialize in, or rely on, framework arguments fail to convince me that they could not have anticipated, or developed answers to, the Affirmative's arguments. Developing substantive responses to widely different kinds of arguments seems like something we should each be good at. I often sense that debaters are just not interested in literature they claim to have been unable to anticipate. All that said, if you have a solid set of answers to the questions our community brings to the topic, and your opponent makes it unreasonably difficult/impossible to engage in those debates, please by all means go for framework. Winning the quality of education component is usually the key to that ballot for me.

K Debate: I like policy debate and critical debate. Do what you do best, and I'll follow. Adapting your blocks to the specifics of the Aff is the easiest way to improve your chances. For the Aff to weigh their advantages against a K, defending the knowledge claims is more reliable than theory arguments (for my ballot). A lot of teams are letting alternatives off the hook, which creates a tough debate for the Aff. Putting both offensive and defensive pressure on the Alternative is a more robust strategy, in my view, than a framework argument giving theoretical reasons I should ignore evidence against the Aff perspective.

Theory: A lot of theory debates are messy because debaters overly rely on their blocks. It gets blippy and lacks the kind of comparisons that make ballots reliable. I do understand, and am sympathetic to, theory positions that are necessary to keep the rest of the debate under control for your side. You often end up needing to go "all in" if the substantive debate gets out of control. Just be sure to debate "access" to the terminal impact of education in a clear and comparative way. I'm probably more sympathetic to process counterplans and solvency advocate arguments than most of my colleagues, in that I like these debates to be resolved with the best research, rather than the best spin.

Global advice: Think actively during the whole debate, find a way to create and enjoy moments of excellence, and respect your opponents (or at least the people they could be). Make whatever arguments you feel/think best. Take the time to explain your argument most comprehensively at the places you are most vulnerable- always contextualizing one step further than your opponent (they say 'purple', you say 'sun-drenched lavender').

Most of my decisions result from setting the 2nr against the 2ar, controlling for new args (esp. new 2ar args), checking evidence, defaulting to meta-arguments (comparisons) from debaters, and then imposing (i hate it as much as you do) meta-arguments where necessary.

I'm happy to answer any questions you may have before, during, or after the debate.

*Sidequests: +.2 Speaker points on offer for the sickest burn on opposing authors.

I currently am the debate coach at Central High in Tulsa, OK, a member of the Tulsa Debate League (UDL). I competed for 5 years in Oklahoma 6A and 4 years at the University of Oklahoma. I previously worked as an assistant coach for Jenks High School and have worked at numerous debate camps.

My paradigm has somewhat altered in recent years. To put it simply, I am more interested in evaluating the entire debate not just what survived the flow to make it to the 2NR/2AR. Each speech (including cross-ex) is an opportunity for competitors to showcase skills which include logic, strategy, knowledgeably of issues, speaking proficiency, team work, research and more. As I do not want to dictate the content or style of the round to the competitors, I will add that I believe primarily the style and content of the debate are justified through the quality of the debate presented (although they can also become issues in the round themselves). Do what you want to do well and I will do my best job to evaluate the round as fairly as possible. Make sure and tell me how and why I should vote for you, that would be much more to your favor than leaving it up to me.

Lastly: speak clearly, treat everyone in the round with respect, and don't assume I know what your argument/evidence says or what the acronyms you use mean. I am more at the periphery of this activity than I once was, and as a result I may be out of the loop on contemporary trends.

Debated CX and LD in high school, 2006-2010. Debated Parli 2011-2015. Had some success in both spheres. Am a bit rusty with higher levels of debate but can probably keep up in most rounds.

I'm a lazy judge and want to vote on the easiest way to pull the trigger at the end of the round. The best way to get there is with obvious offense and impact calc/cost benefit/some sort of weighing at the end of the round.

I'm open to any kinds of arguments including K and procedurals.

I do my best to judge based on what happened on the flow, but that is with the expectation that arguments have substance.

Please differentiate between cards and tags! Use AND or NEXT or something like that.