v24

Casady 2021 (debated)

University of Kansas 2025 (debating)

I want the ev. (also questions) pls- alexpbarreto1@gmail.com

Conflict me if you know you're committed to debating at KU.

Follow speech times, don't clip/miscut ev, and don't be problematic.

Things

Understanding decisions is hard my goal is not to try to convince you I am right but to try and help you understand why I rendered my decisions as outlined below. Feel free to ask lots of questions/email---I'm not a very reactive person so feel free to to tell me why you think you are right---That said, time limits etc... I try to write into my decisions several ways in which each team could have improved and how the losing team could have gotten my ballot.

As a debater, I hate when I felt that judges decided based on perception/opinion rather than using the instruments presented to them in the debate. I will seek to couch my decision in your wording, your choices, your evidence, and your ethos. That said while I think do many judges rely too much on instinct, intuition, their own debate experience for decision PERCEPTION ie: how a judge perceives a debate is inevitable, and it often always is not the same as how the debaters perceive it. Two things you can do to help me with this, everything else is how my perceptions will inevitably function.

A: Ethos, or rather, the confidence "your argument" "can win". If you don't believe you can win it becomes very hard for a judge to vote for you, I believe this is largely inevitable, and though there are technical exemptions usually the team that seems like they are winning, does. Many debates exude a simple failure of the debaters to meet the above statement: if you see a pairings and give up, that might contribute to why you lose. That said on a less literal level it represents many things I inevitably perceive throughout the debate. Your knowledge of your argument, how you treat your opponents and their arguments, the quality of your evidence, your decision-making etc.. The more these things seem out of continuum I believe every judge would agree it becomes harder to vote for you---because they all represent that "your arguments" "can't win". Ensuring your arguments have internal consistency, you have met a baseline of foundation for your arguments, and set up the winning rebuttal earlier in the debate are all simple things you can do that ensure I can craft a ballot for you.

B: Framing. Tell me how I should decide, read evidence, evaluate moments in the debate etc... The more you do this the more you give me the language to the explain the debate in your terms rather than having to do so in the other teams(or mine). I find this especially important in debates about different "levels" ie: fiat, education, consequences etc... not because it's uniquely needed in these debates---Framing is important in both, how I read ev/decide portions of every debate BUT debaters seem to forget to respond to the other teams argument when they are each have a different starting point for the "what" in the debate. Don't get lost in the theoretical, by the final rebuttal you should be able to evaluate the likelihood the argument you are extending will be a winning argument and then use that estimation to implicate it out for how I should decide-often manifesting in approaching arguments with best/worse case lines of answers.

1---I will always start with my decision with “I vote (aff/neg) for x” where x is the world gone for by the 2NR/2AR debated. If it’s neg on aff bad, it’s for the squo. But almost always I will start deciding by finding where the rebuttal encapsulated why I should vote for you(ideally the start); and if I don’t understand what I’m voting for…. That will be tough. This framing is especially important in debates that operate at different scales ie: subject formation, consequentialism, fiat. Though also important in simple impact calculus, more and more debaters move to vague scenarios that fail to explain how their impacts are both external to and can implicate the other teams-which is usually the best combination for success.

2---Internal argument consistency matters for me way more than most-If the logical conclusion of your arguments seem to be that the other team is right it is gonna be hard to vote for you. You should capitalize on 1ACs that that contain evidence/mechanics that substantiate alt causes/reasons the aff is bad. Similarly capitalizing on ways 1NCs undercut themselves and the ability for the 2NR to then go on with the "business as usual" strategy. I am thus significantly more willing to grant large "risk" of arguments that has premises unchallenged earlier on in the debate and to significantly lower the risk of arguments that has even a single premise(usually it's weakest) heavily challenged throughout the debate. What this means is I much better for the 2NR/2ARs that go for 1 or 2 key issues on most arguments, and emphasizes covering weakness, than trying to put words next to everything they said. I am more willing to grant larger "risk" to well debated defensive arguments like presumption, thumpers, alt causes, no internal links even when they lack evidence if they are well debated substantiated with criticism of the other teams arg/ev. In critical debates I find this plays out the most with performative contradictions/double turns---I struggle to make internally consistent decisions when teams decide debates should be about subject formation/x issue and then simultaneously find themselves linked to an argument about said issue.

3---What you read matters way less for me than most, how you read it though... I think debate has evolved metas---that condition judges and debaters in a similar way to echo chambers. After a seasons worth of debates we feel like we've figured it all out---People dismiss evidence by author name of their read, assume teams are making arguments because they know the args better than the team making them, and essentially often interpolate debaters arguments into their mind as if they were their own arguments to make a decision rather than use what the debaters have given them. This paradigm is to represent that other things matter significantly more for me--That you have demonstrated you have thought through a win condition for the argument you are making and that you understand it enough to explain it to me in words I can repeat with confidence. I try not to read along in the doc unless I think your clipping/I miss something reasonable enough to fill in---That said I do skim the docs/evidence during the debate and read evidence noted in the 2NR/2AR. The quality of the ev, it's highlighting, and my ability to locate your arguments in it often matter a lot---particularly in debates that don't have a clear deciding issue/mechanism presented in the final rebuttals. What "evidence" is I find highly open to interpretation whether it's a standard card, art, lived experience, empiric, metaphor etc... but what I find matters is how you can use it as a base for the arguments in your latter speeches and that the best teams use that base to seemingly transition to the expansion of their argument. What that means is, it does not seem out of nowhere. If you are not saying what your card says, what you were saying earlier on in the debate, or you are substantiating claims with claims rather than ev/warrants it will become immensely harder to vote for you even if you could still win on the other teams mistakes.

4---I flow speeches and CX until told otherwise... I try to write down the words you are saying. What I don't think debaters often realize is the Sisyphean nature of this task. In lieu of perfect hearing and typing speed I use shorthand/abbreviation. When debates often come down to the specific words said---if you are speaking inordinately fast/unclearly I will not feel bad saying I didn't get it as a reason I did not vote for you. I have good memory but tangibles like Pen time and if you think your that fast, slowing down slightly, might behoove you. Effectively "flagging" your argument with titles/numbers/letters is also helpful in creating a memory of the debate in my head closer to yours. In CX this relates to your decisions of what you choose to say---or really nowadays choose to avoid saying it seems. I find I'm much more convinced cross ex is used effectively when you use it to effectively communicate both a question/answer and a perception/moment of the debate that I should be thinking about.

5---I think part of the problem with judging as a community of former debaters and current coaches is that debate thought is constantly increasingly. I often find this played out in games of diminishing marginal utility where debaters engage in practices they believe will be helpful but become ultimately so divorced from reality, they have little practical value. Focusing on your args, understanding what's wrong with your opponents args, and how to explain that in a way I get will matter exponentially more than things like not sending analytics, obfuscating your arguments to confuse your opponents, trying to gain some artificial pre round advantage. I probably spend very little time thinking about you outside of the context I'm judging you in so I would emphasize "best practices" that convince me your a good person rather than things that will not impress/likely end up hurting your speaks.

Some people I liked decisions from/try to emulate as a judge.
Tommy Snider

Especially for policy debates,

Brett Bricker, Yao Yao Chen, Ned Gidley, Ethan Harris, Hunter McCullough

Especially for k debates,

Nathan Rothenbaum, Scott Harris, David Kilpatrick, Scott Phillips, Jared Spiers

*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!

Hey. My name is Jordan. I competed in policy at Union High School in Tulsa, OK. I also competed in parliamentary style debate in college at Morehouse College in Atlanta. In high school, I read a lot of small impact policy affs, a few kritikal affs, and mostly t/k/case strats. I've judged a good number of rounds throughout undergrad and this current 18-19 debate season. I'd say that my paradigm is probably policymaker. I'm open to hearing well impacted topicality arguments and kritiks on the neg, in addition to DA's, CP's, and theory arguments. I also don't mind kritikal affs, as long as they make a good argument for why they are germane to the topic, but I do have some reservations about affs that incorporate personal narratives in their strategy. I think that debates should be educational, and I think that debaters have the right to discuss what the rules of the debate should be. I'm good with speed, as long as you clearly enunciate your tags.

In addition to all of this, I think that debaters should be respectful to one another, and I'm always open to discuss my decision and the round, if time permits.

I'm Black.

My pronouns are he/him/his.

Cross-x.com has hidden gems.

Email: jordanothniel@gmail.com

I'm the Program Director for the Tulsa Debate League. I coach all events but my focus is policy debate. I'm open to all styles of debate and I try to minimize judge intervention in my decisions. With that in mind, I’m more concerned with argument form than argument content. Arguments can come in many forms (e.g., traditional policy arguments, kritikal arguments, narrative arguments, etc.) but I think all arguments should have warrants and impacts. I also think line-by-line and clash help me minimize judge intervention. If your debate style eschews line-by-line, that's okay, but the clash should still be present, even if it's implicit. Ultimately though, I will do my best to evaluate your round according to the terms you establish in the round. With all that said, the rest of this paradigm covers a few technical aspects of debate that I consider important.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speech Docs

Please include me in the email chain: michael.haskins@tulsadebate.org

Flowing

I will flow where you tell me to flow. If you don’t tell me where to flow, I will flow in the way that makes the most sense to me. I'm hesitant to cross-apply for you so sign-posting and explicit cross-applications are important.

Evidence

I prefer fewer pieces of evidence better explained and better applied than many pieces of evidence poorly explained and poorly applied. I think the debate community as a whole has done a poor job of teaching debaters how to evaluate competing evidence. Credentials and expert status hold less sway in my mind than the empirical and logical analysis contained in the evidence. On that note, I tend to give more weight to analytical arguments that use common knowledge examples and reasoned analysis than most judges. I consider this an important check against teams that run intentionally obscure offense on the hope that the other team will lack the evidence to respond.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Feel free to ask me questions. I love to talk debate.

On T: I will vote on T if it is dropped by the affirmative; it is a prerequisite to the round and I believe if the aff is not topical then the round should not have happened. However, if the aff is reasonably topical and has answered T (with a we meet, a counter-interpretation, and counter-standards) then the neg should not go for T in the 2NR.

On K’s, I do believe a few can be run in novice (like capitalism or neoliberalism) but nothing much harder than that. Understand what the alt is trying to do before running it.

On theory (conditionality, aspec, etc.): if theory is brought up in the 2AC, I will weigh it in the round, but if the opposing team has reasonably answered it I won’t give it much thought.

On CPs: I’m ok with most CPs. There isn’t much you can do that I won’t buy, although I don’t like plan plus/plan minus counterplans, especially if the aff gives me a theory reason as to why I should reject the argument, but I will tolerate them.

On case: do not drop case in the 2AC, especially solvency. The case is the whole reason for the debate, and if the aff drops case, then there’s really nothing that they’re advocating for.

I will accept just about any impact as potentially viable. Impact calculus is accepted, if not encouraged. Try to persuade my why I should buy your impacts over your opponents, especially in the 2NR/2AR.

I do not like the negative running new off case in the neg block. It puts the aff at a structural disadvantage and is mostly dirty playing by the neg. Everything you need in the neg block should have been read in the 1NC and extended upon in the neg block.

Do not run new cards after the 1AR. Minimal cards should be read in the 1AR, but after that speech it should be all analysis.

Updated Last: May 4, 2023

Email: christian.d.jones[at]gmail.com (yes, I would like to be on the chain)

Experience: Head coach for 11 years.

My General Paradigm
Debates must be fair and winnable for both sides, but debaters may argue what is and is not fair. Debaters may try to convince me which particular instance of debate ought to occur in each round. I will try to have an open mind, but I do have likes and dislikes.

Speed
I prefer debaters to ensure clarity before trying to accelerate. I can handle speed, but if I can't understand it, it doesn't get flowed. If I am being honest, I would estimate that I can catch almost every argument at about 85% of top speed for the national circuit. But if you brake for taglines and present them in a unique vocal inflection, top speed is not a problem.

Decision Calculus
I will only intervene if I feel I absolutely have to. I prefer that debaters to help me decide the debate. Comparative arguments will usually accomplish this. Extrapolations in rebuttals are acceptable if they are grounded in arguments already on the flow. Arguments that are extremely offensive or outright false may be rejected on face.

Style
I enjoy and find value in a variety of argumentation styles as long as they do not preclude a debate from taking place. A debate must have clash.

Framework
The 1AC presents their argument to a blank slate. If you want to change this, you will need an interpretation and to be clear on the criteria for winning the round. This criteria should offer both sides the possibility of winning the debate.

Topicality (or any other procedural/theory argument)
If you want me to vote on a proposed rule violation, then you need to win the complete argument. You must win that you have the best interpretation, that the other team has violated your interpretation, that your interpretation is good for debate, and that the offense is a voting issue. If you want to argue that the other team is breaking the rules, then you have the burden of proof. Procedural arguments may also urge a lesser punishment, such as, excluding the consideration of an argument.

Kritik
I do not want to proscribe specifics when it comes to kritiks, but I do want to see clash and comparative argumentation in any debate. I prefer Ks that are germane to the topic or affirmative case in some way. I like kritiks that have a clearly defined alternative. Alternatives that propose something are preferable to 'reject' or 'do nothing' type alts. I am not a fan of ontological arguments, especially nihilistic ones. If you choose to enter the debate space, you have already ceded certain assumptions about reality.

Counterplans
I am open to any type of counterplan, but all arguments are subject to the standard of fairness determined in the debate round. That said, if you are going to read a counterplan, it should probably have a solvency card.

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.

O/V

She/Her pronouns.

I'm a Moore varsity debater, and I've been debating policy for 3 years now. That being said, I've ran just about any kind of argument there is in policy, examples include: Topicality, Counterplans, Kritiks, Disads, Theory, etc.

I'm open to any kind of arguments as long as it's not offensive, examples include: racism good, genocide good, pineapples on pizza good, etc.

Clarity over speed, I'm not tryna decipher jibberish. If I can't understand it, I won't flow it. However, I don't have a problem with spreading, and I believe in being organized. Clearly signposting = me flowing your args well = better chance at getting the ballot

My email for questions/email chain is han.le052@gmail.com

Don't email me for questions unless it's about debate or how great I am

Kritiks

I'm a Moore debater, we're all filthy K hacks, enough said. I'm well versed in K lit, but I won't be making your arguments/filling in the gaps for you. Either you know what you're doing, or you don't run it. Don't try to run kritiks to get my ballot, I won't be voting for you if you don't know what's going on, even if I do like Ks. Impact calc is sexy, and so is solvency. Make sure you flesh out your arguments and clearly tell me why I should be voting for your K.

If you run anthro or baudrillard I'll hate you, but I'll still flow it.

Case arguments

They're good. They're great. They're reliable. They have your back. Use them. Please.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

DAs - make sure you have a link to the AFF, I'll take generic ones but I prefer specific ones. Extend your impacts. Explain to me why the AFF causes extinction or whatever. If you thoroughly convince me that the AFF will cause the DA, it should be an easy win for the NEG.

CPs - on god, please tell me why the CP is better than the AFF. I'd prefer it if you run CPs with DAs, but you do you.

Theory

As long as it's fleshed out well and you can explain to me why this theory debate isn't just a time waster, I'll consider it.

FW/Topicality

Unlike Stephanie Dixon, a disgusting K hack, I'm down for FW and T. Unfortunately, many teams only use T and FW as a time waster instead of an actual argument, so unless the argument is fleshed out and you sell me how unfair the other team is being, I probably won't vote on it unless the other team drops it entirely. I have a high threshold on T and FW, tell me how the other team is violating your interp and tell me why your interp is better for debate.

Speaker Points

Stan Exo and I'll be more considerate to your speaker points.

Respect your opponents. Don't speak over them in CX, don't yell at them, don't be condescending, don't misgender your opponents on purpose. This will reflect on your speaker points, and if it gets extreme, it'll reflect the ballot.

Updated 4/3/22 for OK State

TLDR: Debate is great, have fun. I haven't read your authors, but I understand debate

Debating: My name is Tristan Loveless, I debated for four years at Skiatook High School in East Oklahoma. I debated 200-300 rounds over my four years between tournaments and camps. I attended Georgetown and Northwestern for camps. I did not debate in college.

Coaching: I am currently working for the Tulsa Urban Debate League as their Data Manager.

2 year as a program coordinator for the TDL (OK)

6 years coaching/assistant coaching Urban Debate (OK)

1 year assistant coaching Skiatook High School (OK)

Judging (Water topic):I have judged very few rounds this topic

Topics I've debated/coached: Space, Transportation infrastructure, Cuba/Mexico/Venezuela, Oceans, Surveillance, China, Education, Immigration, Arm Sales, Police Reform, Water Protections

Simply put I’ll evaluate everything. Do what you do best.

Authors I've read: Agamben, Foucault, Marx, Freud, Giroux, Camus, Heidegger, Hegel, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard. feel free to ask me if I've read X author before the round.

Policy Affirmative Case- If it’s a traditional policy aff I can follow it no problem.

Kritikal Aff- Defend something. Try to be related to the topic in some way please. I prolly haven’t read your philosophy so make it clear, I personally ran Kritikal Affirmatives my Junior and Senior year, so I’m pretty cool with this. Try to give me a clear picture of what my ballot is/does and what exactly I am voting for especially in the 2AR

DA- I’m cool with whatever

CP- On the theory debate Impact it out. The negative should have a specific solvency advocate, I'll still listen to it if it doesn't but I'm likely to buy that it doesn't actually solve if the aff makes that argument.

Theory/T- Impact the voters, tell me what the T/Theory Interp provides us in the real world. T “substantial” or T “its” aren’t super compelling arguments, and they are less so if you don’t give me voter analysis. Education isn’t an Impact, Advocacy Skills and Decision making are. Education is only an Internal Link to a real impact

Kritiks

General - K's are fine. Just a few notes on how I view K's: The alternative is an advocacy, so prove that the alternative is better than the affirmative. When going for the perm be sure to explain how the perm is able to solve the Impact/Link level of the flow- if the perm still links and causes the impact of the K then I'm not gonna vote for the perm. I default that the aff gets to weigh the 1AC, but if the negative wins on the flow that they don't get to weigh it then I won't weigh it.

Impact Turns- I've noticed a lot of K debaters have trouble answering Heg/Cap good in response to their K's. These are real arguments that you need to be able to answer.

In round Discourse links: If the link is in round discourse then you HAVE to explain how the perm overcomes the in round link & Impact otherwise you probably lose the perm debate.

Impact framing: I've seen a few teams going for the "future bad" framing, be sure to extend this throughout the round and cover it in your final speech- and if you're debating against these kind of arguments be sure to answer them. In short, be sure you extend and explain impact framing throughout the round and if you're the opposing team be sure to answer these kinds of arguments

Note: In the past few years I've seen negatives read K's that the rest of their strategy links too. I'm not a fan of this and am likely to vote a team down for doing this. If you don't know what I mean here are the examples from rounds I've judged:

Example 1: Negative team reads Set Col and argues that native erasure is the biggest impact, and then kicks the K in the 2NR.

Example 2: Negative team reads Fem K w/ USFG link and a counterplan that uses the USFG.

Misc:

Speed is cool, be clear. I like Impact Analysis. Be creative.

Timing Stuff- prep ends when jump drive is in the opponents hand, Cross Ex starts immediately when the speech ends. For online debate prep ends when email is sent.

Feel free to ask me questions before the round!

I try to approach each round with a Tabula Rasa philosophy. I am willing to listen and evaluate any type/form of argumentation. I will want debaters to evaluate and frame arguments as the round progresses with emphasis on comparative analysis between those competing arguments.

Speed is generally not a problem.

-Emphasize solvency

- DO IMPACT CALC. <------------------------

- Be nice in round for high speaks:)

- Face me in cx

- Have fun and learn about current issues!

Add tyrossow@gmail.com to the email chain.

Background: I debated on the national circuit in CX (three years) and LD (one year) for Union HS (OK). I am now a sophomore at Baylor University pursuing majors in economics, philosophy, and political science. I was previously an LD instructor at VBI and taught debate this summer as well.

***General Thoughts***

--- Debate is a game. That does not mean the game should be exclusionary or lack educational value.

--- Tech determines truth. I’m not comfortable imposing my beliefs about the world onto the debate, unless the debate is offensive to a group of people.

----- I enjoy highly technical debates.

------- Speed is fine but be clear.

------- Evidence quality matters, but not if you don’t explain the warrants in said evidence. I’ll call for cards if there is a dispute about what a piece of evidence says, but I won’t vote on warrants in your evidence that are neglected in the debate.

------ If you clip cards or say something offensive about a group of people, I will give you zero speaks and an automatic loss.

----- Tl;dr for the rest of the paradigm: Like all judges, I have preferences, but I am generally comfortable with voting for anything. Win the arguments on the flow and you will almost certainly win my ballot.

***Policy Paradigm***

Policy AFFs: I like them.

*** Against the K: Don’t shy away from defending what you do. I’m more than comfortable with voting for a heg good + util 2AR if that’s the direction your aff takes you.

K AFFs: I have experience reading them and will vote for them. Performance is also fine if you communicate the importance of it. Framework specific preferences are addressed below.

Disads: Yes. Read lots of cards.

CPs: Yes. My views on “judge kicking” aren’t particularly strong either way; give me a warrant and I will evaluate it.

K: Yes. I have a fairly extensive background in K debates. This is mostly on the identity side, but I am okay with continental philosophy as well. In addition:

*** More specific link argumentation is always better. That doesn’t mean I won’t vote for a generic link, but I’ll be much friendlier to your K if you can tie it to the 1AC.

*** On questions of framework, I lean towards the middle ground; the aff can weigh the 1AC, but the neg can garner links external to the plan.

*** The block and 2NR need to clearly articulate the alt for me to vote on it.

*** I will vote for a floating PIK, but if the aff calls it out, I will strongly lean aff on the theory debate.

T: Yes. Don’t be afraid to go for it if you’re winning the flow.

*** I default towards an offense-defense paradigm over reasonability, but can be persuaded otherwise.

Theory: It’s fine. I’m not a huge fan but I’ll vote for it.

*** I was a 2N so I lean neg on most theory debates, including condo, PICs, process CPs, consult CPs, and international fiat.

*** On condo: one counterplan is almost certainly acceptable, two counterplans is probably acceptable, three counterplans is debatably acceptable, and four counterplans is really pushing it.

*** I’ll vote on a perf con arg if it is impacted out and turns the K.

Framework:

*** I lean neg. That does not mean you should be afraid to read a K aff in front of me; I will fully evaluate it like any other argument. Instead, it just means that you need to be going for the right arguments (under my paradigm) to win the debate.

*** On the neg, I am most persuaded by clash and procedural fairness arguments.

*** It helps me greatly if you have some way to suck up most of the aff offense. A TVA, truth testing, impact turns to the aff’s method, or some combination of these will greatly benefit your 2NR.

*** On the aff, I am most persuaded by arguments about how framework creates a poor educational model and/or necessitates exclusion.

*** You need to be defending your aff as a debatable argument. I'm not a good judge for impact turns to clash and fairness. Defensive arguments about how to preserve limits, ground, predictability, etc., coupled with your offense, are a much better strategy in front of me.

*** I would greatly appreciate seeing impact comparison from both sides. I feel that the neg is often ahead on questions of fairness, and the aff is often ahead on questions of education. Determining which impact outweighs is critical.

***LD Paradigm***

General Thoughts:

---- Spreading is fine, but be clear.

---- I am fine with progressive and traditional LD, and I have experience in both.

K AFFs/CP/DA/Framework/Ks: These are all good and addressed in my policy paradigm. Other thoughts I have specific to LD are:

*** I am more lenient towards CP theory in LD rounds due to the time structure. One condo CP or K is probably fine, but anything beyond that is probably abusive.

*** Comparative analysis that typically happens in the policy 2NC needs to be in the LD NC.

Plans: These are acceptable and I enjoy these debates.

*** I am willing to vote on Nebel T, and I am interested in hearing more of these debates.

Phil: Despite my primarily policy background, I enjoy these arguments quite a bit. I find philosophy fascinating, and these cases are the heart of LD, so please don’t hesitate to read them if this is your A strat.

*** Giving examples that prove your philosophy is vital.

Theory: My receptiveness to your shell will largely hinge on a personal “gut check.” If legitimate abuse has clearly occurred in the round, I will grant you more leeway on the theory debate. However, I will be frustrated if it seems as if you are fishing for a theory violation to run from substantive debate. This also means that I lean strongly towards reasonability on theory, not T; I think most experienced debaters intuitively know whether their strat (or shell) is reasonable.

*** This does not mean I won’t vote for frivolous theory. If you win the arg, I will vote for it. However, I cannot promise that you will be happy with your speaks.

*** I am fine with metatheory in instances where there is legitimate abuse.

*** RVIs are possibly fine. I will vote on it if you win the flow.

*** It helps me when you give a title for your warrants. For example, instead of saying “a) x b) y ” say “a) Time skew (or whatever warrant) – x b) (separate warrant) etc.”

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.

Experience

Currently the Director of Debate at Casady School.

Competed at the University of Oklahoma and Owasso High School.

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

On Evidence

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

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

K Things General

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

“You are a debater, not a philosopher.”

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

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

If you plan on reading the K

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

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

If you're answering the K

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

Theory Issues

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

Tech vs Truth

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

K affs/T-FW

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

Common reasons I vote aff on FW:

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

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

Common reasons I vote neg on FW:

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

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

Misc

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

Guaranteed 30 if you’re paper debate team #PaperDebate

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

I vote for the team that debates the best. That's my paradigm.

If forced to pick a point of view I would call myself a policy maker. I debated for 8 years in high school and college (NDT style) and am open to just about any argument so long as it is debated well. This includes critical arguments, performance, theory, etc.

Other points that may help you adapt to me:

Speed. You can go as fast as you can read, but be clear. Most debaters try to sound fast without actually being fast. Be clear. You get more points if I can understand you, less if I don't. Did I mention to be clear?

Make arguments: Provide a claim, warrant and evidence for each argument. Number them. Explain why I should prefer yours to theirs. Help me evaluate competing claims, show me how they interrelate and how your version of the world is preferred over theirs. Help me write my ballot.

Show me you understand the chess match: Explain cross applications, contradictions, interrelationships, etc. Indict evidence and explain why yours is preferred. ARGUE THE INTERNAL LINKS. Kick out arguments you are losing to spend time on arguments you are winning (and know the difference). Grant arguments that help you. Be strategic.

Evaluate scenarios and explain how yours is more probable, happens first, or has a bigger impact than theirs. Explain the thesis of your critical or policy scenarios, and why they force a choice for you. If you are running a critical argument be able to clearly explain the philosophy and why this is a reason to reject your opponent's worldview. I consider this activity policy debate, so even if you are making a critical argument it is best to explain its impact as if I am a policy maker.

CX: Be nice. I'm OK with open CX, but I get annoyed when the two debaters who aren't supposed to be doing the CX are the only ones talking. Let your partner try to answer before you jump in. A solid CX can get you better speaker points and earns credibility, especially if it is used strategically to set up your upcoming arguments.

T: It is a voting issue and I like good T debates. Most of them are not good. If you plan to go for T on the negative you have to commit. Explain why your interpretation is better (abuse is not a reason unless you can show how they are actually abusing in this round). I like to hear examples of cases that meet/don't meet or examples of how the interpretation impacts limits specifically.

CP: I guess I'm a dinosaur but I believe a CP needs to be a reason to reject the topic and not just the plan (i.e. it should be non-topical and competitive). I could be convinced otherwise if argued well, but that's where I start. You also better have a solvency advocate if you want me to take the CP seriously.

Theory: If you are just reading a brief don't waste your time. If you want me to vote on theory you need to explain why the other team's abuse is a reason to reject. I probably won't vote on this unless you really commit and explain why the abuse in this round justifies voting on the theory argument.

Experience: I debated for Owasso High School for 4 years (Civil Liberties-Alternative Energy), University of Central Oklahoma for 1 year (Nuclear Weapons) and University of Missouri-Kansas City for 2 (Energy, Military Presence).

tl;dr: do what you do best, and I'll try and evaluate it.

I view debate as a game through which we contest ideas and methodologies. What this means is, I'm equally as comfortable judging a straight-up policy throwdown as I am K-on-K violence. A few general things:

1. Specificity > generality. This applies to policy arguments as well as kritikal ones.

2. Impact debates are important. For realsies.

3. Framing arguments are paramount. This doesn't just mean policy style framework arguments, but epistemology, ontology, and other framing arguments as well. Not answering them is a big problem.

4. Go as fast as you want, as long as you're clear.

5. Don't be an asshole.

Some specific things:

Disads/Counterplans: yeah, sure, whatever. I'm not the biggest fan of PICs from a theoretical standpoint, but I'm not going to insult you publically for running them (unless they're like, really stupid). Counterplans need to have net benefits.

Topicality: despite my largely kritik-centric debate experience, I really do enjoy a good T debate. A few things to keep in mind:

1. Your impacts need to be specific. It's not good enough to just say "explodes limits" and move on. They should be specific to the aff. What types of affirmatives does the aff justify, and why are those bad?
2. Reasonability is not a complete rejection of competing interpretations, but rather a re-orientation of how we should evaluate the competition. There is no other way (kritiks of topicality aside) to evaluate a topicality debate other than by evaluating the two interpretations side-by-side. What's important is the calculus we use to make that decision, and that's what the reasonability vs competing interps debate is for.
3. Debates over "substantially" are incredibly lame unless you have some pretty specific evidence. They better be fire. Like, my-mixtape-burns-the-house-down-when-you-play-it fire. Like, Nas torching Jay-Z on "Ether" fire.

Framework: I recognize that these debates need to happen, I just don't get excited over them. T version of the aff is pretty important, as are the framing arguments coming from the aff. This is not an argument you can expect to win with a 30 second blip unless your opponent really, really screwed up. Also, I'm not a huge fan of "Ks are cheating" framework on the aff. It's 2017. We've established that they aren't cheating. Cut better answers.

Theory: Sigh. Yes, I've won debates (plural) on Conditionality bad, Intrinsic perms bad, and multiple perms bad. Does that make them good arguments? No. Does that mean you should run them? Probably not. There are scenarios in which you should potentially contemplate maybe considering thinking about running them. Unless the neg reads 27 off case (which would be impressive, actually, considering my record is 16), I'd advise against it.

Kritiks: This is my bread-and-butter. Chances are you won't lose me with a literature base, so go ham. I have a soft spot for Marx, but anything is fair game.