*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!

Jasmyne Le-Heritage Hall-Class of 2021

Email: JLe21@heritagehall.com

Unique for this year: debating this year is a bit hectic so I will be more lenient on tech issues in terms of emails, prep etc. That being said, I still will not stand stealing prep for it.

Summary (if you're too lazy to read all this): Everything in terms of arguments is pretty good, as long as you can explain and extend them. I like more soft left AFFs than big stick AFFs but will listen to both. I'm more policy leaning than K leaning, but Ks are fine, I can understand most identity Ks but high theory Ks (Deleuze, Baudrillard etc) I honestly won't probably understand. Speak clearly and don't steal prep or clip cards. Be nice, if you're intentionally racist homophobic, sexist, or overall being rude then you're going to probably lose and get an automatic 25. Otherwise, just relax and debate.

General (Applies to Both Teams)

Email/Flashing

Honestly, I prefer email chains because they're a lot more efficient and better in every way possible. If you decide to do an email chain, please include me (email is above). I will be more lenient with online debating, but please be mindful. If you are taking more than 5 minutes to email something, I will start taking prep. Just be mindful of everyone's time.

Also, please if you're aff disclose your aff before the round unless you're breaking a new AFF it makes it a lot smoother & easier.

Cross-Examination

Open Cross-examination is completely fine, but if it goes out of hand (Ie: people are screaming and fighting and no actual arguments are happening at all) then I'm going to shut it down. Just keep it, nice, people.

Speaking/Speeches

There's not much to say here, just general stuff that you shouldn't do not just around me but for every debate round in general. First, give a road map, regardless if you're aff or neg. The only speech this isn't necessary is the 1AC. For 1NC you should give me a general idea how many off case you're reading, though don't need to tell the specific ones. Every other speech you should tell the order. Also, it makes it a lot easier and will win you more speaker points if you organise your aff arguments to specific flows. What I mean by this is to not jump around while aff because it makes it harder to flow and easier for me to miss an argument or put it in the wrong place because I don't know specifically where to answer it.

As for also answering arguments, make sure you tell what argument you're answering (they say) and then say what you're saying. If you're extending an argument, do a quick summary and analysis.

Spreading is fine BUT YOU MUST BE CLEAR. I can spread pretty quickly so I can understand a lot, but especially be clear in online debating. I will say clear 3 times in a speech and after that I will stop flowing and lose speaker points. Also, please tell me when you're moving onto a different paper and slow down on the tag lines. As for clipping, just don't do it. If you clip your cards you're taking an L.

Finally, I will be timing your prep so you don't need to and be writing it down, though I recommend you should just for habit. If you have any personal questions for me in round you can also ask them.

AFF

K/Planless AFFs

I'm not a huge fan but I think they actually have good usage on this topic and I think they're useful. If you do run, here's what I'm looking for:

1) why we shouldn't use the USFG (needs to be clear)

2) why your impacts outweigh (education, advocacy etc)

3) if they have a TVA answer it

Plan Text AFFs

I love soft left AFFs (AFFs about racism, structural violence etc) and think they should be used more, particularly with this topic. Honestly soft left AFFs are the best for this topic. What I'm looking for mostly is an explanation of your impact, and why it outweighs (particularly if you're going against util DA arguments and why I should prefer your ethics over extinction) and how your AFF solves this.

That being said, I will vote on big stick AFFs (AFFs about extinction on a large scale). I don't think they're great on the topic honestly, but they're fine. I am more open to solvency deficits or being sceptical of the internal link chain, and if the team points it out, you will have to address how your internal link chain will trigger this. Also be sure to explain why your impact outweighs or matters (timeframe, magnitude probability etc) and how your AFF solves this.

In terms of T I'm not too picky because y'all are novices and you're on the packet. For this year I think most things are T unless A--they literally have nothing to do with CJR like even educationally or B they increase criminality, just don't read that in front of me because if they read a T bidirectional and go for it I will probably agree with it.

NEG

DAs

I don't think DAs are super strong so I will be more lenient on them. DAs are good, just make sure to explain your impacts and why they outweigh if you end up going for it in your 2NR and how they link to that specific AFF. The more specific the better. Politics DAs are good as long as you know your evidence and how it interacts with the AFF.

Also, for this topic, be very careful with your wording and how you explain AFFs to not to sound racist. This applies especially to this topic since it can be sensitive for people. There are some bad DAs that can be really misconstrued to sound really bad, and I'm not blaming you if you read it, but if you do say like African Americans are more likely to be arrested by police, or that racism is solved, just don't.

CPs

CPs are again good, I think in particular State CPs and other agency CPs are really good on this topic and solve super well. I'm mainly looking for this:

1) how it solves specific to the AFF, not necessarily better, but enough to solve the AFF's impacts and avoid the DA/cause the Net Benefit.

2) why it outweighs and is better than the AFF

Also if they read theory, do answer it as an FYI.

T

I already talked about it in my AFF thing above that I'm pretty lenient on it, but I am still open to it, especially if done well.

In general, here are my opinions about some generic Ts

-Court AFFs are questionably topical but more likely topical than not.

-Substantial is pretty much moot, unless the AFF is literally tiny (like affects under 100 ppl) and they can't explain why that matters for that tiny subset, then I'll give it to the team to be sufficient

-I think AFFs need to be under one of the 3 subsets (policing, sentencing & forensics) I'm not super into overarching CJR policies that aren't specific to one

-bidirectional (AFF that increase crime) ARE NOT T

In terms of what I look for in T here's what I look for:

1) how the AFF violates the definition

2) why your definition is better (not only better than the AFF's definition, but also why it's good for debate)

3) why I should vote on this (fairness education, ground etc)

K

I'm pretty open to Ks, but mostly common Ks and identity Ks. I'm not super into author-specific or high-theory Ks as I'm not familiar with the lit but am open to them if explained well. Here are the things I'll be looking for regardless of what the K is.

1) Framework--what the ballot does and the role of me, in this debate

2) how it links to the AFF, the more specific the better

3) what the impact is, and why it matters over the impacts of the AFF

4) how the alternative resolves the impacts of the K and the impacts of the AFF. This means no vague alts arguments or just vote neg, where I don't have any clue how it's supposed to resolve. Also not a huge fan of nihilistic/pessimistic alternatives where we just accept it.

5) KNOW YOUR LITERATURE IF YOU DON'T KNOW IT I CAN TELL-YOU SHOULD KNOW MORE THAN ME

Theory

Honestly, I don't think there will be or should be much theory in novice rounds, so this is just more or less in case you do read it.

Conditionality: my limit is around 3-4. I think 3 is kind of borderline (depending on the argument), 5 is really pushing it and you're going to have me pretty legitimate reasons why you're reading that many.

State CP theory: I'm more neutral. Like yes, I think that it is utopian and there is no way 50 states would ever do it, but I also think AFFs should be expected and it is a legitimate argument against AFFs this year.

Vague Alt Theory: is legitimate but needs to impact out. Don’t be afraid to go for it. I've already said this before in the Ks part but if you're aff you should make that argument. If you don't understand it, chances are they're probably not explaining it well and I also would be willing to be open to this argument as it can lead the NEG to be shifty and abusive.

Speaker Points

Speaker points and pretty arbitrary and honestly kind of terrible but if you care about this I'll explain my general grading system

25: you did something wrong like majorly wrong (offensive, broke a rule etc)

26-27: You didn't do anything technically wrong in terms of rules, but you still did something bad (like not being clear at all, being rude in cross x, not extending any arguments, just not prepared at all), or just seem that you don't want to be here and make this painful for me to watch like watching a train wreck. Don't do this.

27-28.5: Most people in the beginning of the year will fall into this category. You're beginning in debate, but still learning a lot, which is okay. If I judge you again you will probably be higher afterwards by 2nd semester.

28.5-29.5: You're really good, just a couple minor things that need to work on.

29.5-30: I rarely give this, all your speeches have to be perfect. I will probably only give it once a year.

+1=good cross X, both answering and receiving, also this is good ethos in general

+1=rebuttals especially 2AR & 2NR will have a lot of weight on my speaker points since they're the last speeches, this where the majority of your speaks will be based on how this speech is. Same for 1NR & 1ARs.

End Notes

At the end of the day, debate can suck and is exhausting but also can be a lot of fun. Don't take it too seriously, nothing will happen if you lose a debate round in your novice year. Literally no one cares, you don't have TOC or anything so you shouldn't be too serious. In the end, it's mainly about getting better and learning from each round. Have fun, stay calm, and just relax-it'll be fine!

I would like to be on the email chain: dsavill@snu.edu

Director of Debate for Southern Nazarene University since 2021 and former coach of Crossings Christian School from 2011 to 2023.

Things you need to know for prefs:

Kritiks: Very familiar with kritiks and non-topical affs. I like kritiks and K affs and can vote for them.

Policy: I am familiar with policy debates and can judge those. My squad is designed to be flex so I am good with either.

Speed: I can handle any kind of speed as long as you are clear.

Theory/FW/T: I am not a fan of FW-only debates so if you are neg and hit a non-topical aff I will entertain FW but that shouldn't be your only off-case. Contesting theory of power is a good strat for me.

Performance/non-traditional debate: Despite what some would think coming from a Christian school, I actually like these kinds of debates and have voted up many teams.

I try to be a tab judge but I know I tend to vote on more technical prowess. I believe debate should be a fun and respectful activity and I try to have a good time judging the round. I think debaters are among the smartest students in the nation and I always find it a privilege to judge a round and give feedback.

Hi! I’m an assistant coach at Southern Nazarene University and have been since 2021. Previously, I coached at Crossings Christian from 2020-2023. I started debating in the sixth grade and debated at Crossings from 2013-2020. I competed at the high school national level since the eighth grade, broke at a couple TOCQs, and won two 5A state titles in Oklahoma.

I was a flex debater, which means I debated both policy and the K and am comfortable with either. I ran many different Ks during my seven years of debate, such as Agamben, Cap, Setcol, Afropess (with a black partner), Baudrillard, and Psychoanalysis. I don’t have anything against nontopical or performance affs, and I’m generally tech over truth.

There are a few things I’ll vote a team down for, no matter what’s happening in the rest of the round:

- Being rude, laughing at, or mocking the other team.

- Death good, suicide good, or advocating for killing people, especially if these arguments are contextualized to someone in the room.

Things I like:

- A nice joke in your speech, even if it’s corny. Have fun in the round!

- Being respectful to your opponents and your partner.

- Telling me what I should write for my RFD.

Things I dislike:

- Disclosure theory, perf con good theory, and multiple worlds good theory. I especially dislike multiple worlds good theory being used as a reason why your 2AC block doesn’t contradict itself.

- The phrase “This card/argument is trash” or similar phrases. Tell me why the argument’s bad instead of just insulting it.

- Ks without alts.

- Wipeout

- Eugenics good

Last updated 9/28/2023

Pronouns are he/him, they/them is also fine.

Email: lsmithspeechdebate@gmail.com

History:

Debated at Moore High School for 4 years

Currently a third year debater at UCO that has debated at the NDT and made it to Double-Octos of CEDA.

tldr: I have experience in both K and policy debates on both the aff and the neg as well as experience as all speaker positions. Read whatever you want in front of me. General overall note, I am a "draw lines" type of judge. If the 2nr/2ar has a bunch of args that weren't in the block or 1ar I'm going to have a really hard time evaluating the round.

General stuff:

Speed speed is fine, just make sure you're clear. If you're not clear I will say clear, if that happens more then once/frequently it will be reflected in speaker points.

Prep: I don't count flashing as prep, but I suspect someone is stealing prep when flashing I'll ask if I need to start rolling prep again and if it continues I'll start rolling prep again. Don't steal prep.

Arg specific stuff:

DA's: Make sure the DA has a clear link and generally up to date UQ. For answering DA's if going for the link turn a warrant for why the link turns o/w the link makes my decision a lot easier.

T/FW:For me to vote neg on T/fw I need a clear interp extended in the 2nr, alongside definitions if needed for the interp. I will not do that work for you, if you don't extend your definitions in the 2nr then I probably will default to not knowing what the interp means at the end of the debate. Explain the violation and why the CI doesn't solve the reasons to prefer and explain what type of affs the CI allows and why that's bad. I need to have a clear understand of the neg/aff debate models and why I need to care about the particularities of said model at the end of the last rebuttals//why the negs model is uniquely bad and why I have to care about that if just impact turning fw.

CP's: Make sure to explain how the CP solves the aff, why the perm can't solve and the nb to the cp.

theory: I'm definitely much more truth over tech in terms of the way I think about debate. With that being said I need a clear impact to theory and why that outweighs the case to make me vote on it. Nonetheless I'll vote on theory and evaluate it like I would any other arg, but this is def not my area of expertise.

K's: I love K v K debates and K debate in general. With that said, I'm most familiar with the lit areas of settler colonialism, disability studies, the cap K, and I know the bases of some queer theory and anti-blackness lit. This means when explaining the K I will most likely understand the lit to some degree, but if your reading more high theory args like Baudrillard I may need slightly more explanation than your typical blocks. In order to vote neg I need to know how the links turn the case, how the alt solves the links or how the alt solves the case and how the alt solves the links. For affs, reasons why the link turns o/w the link, how the perm functions if going to the perm, why the alt fails//why the alt can't solve the aff.