Spencer,+Brock

Brock Spencer Experience/Background - CEDA/NDT College Debater @ UCO, 4 years of National Circuit high school debate at Tulsa-Union (Ok), Assistant Policy Coach @ Tulsa-Union HS (Ok) Email – brock.spencer.bs@gmail.com (yes if there is a chain I want to be on it)

TLDR – I’m down with voting for anything that has a well warranted reason and impact behind it. Clash/Comparative analysis is key. Make Jokes, and enjoy yourselves.

Paradigm – You do what you do best, and then tell me what to do with my ballot as your judge, and why. The 2NR/2AR should be writing my ballot/decision.

Topicality – I enjoy these debates although many times these debates are bad if a team doesn’t make warranted impacts to the topicality flow. I evaluate them similar to any dis-ad flow from an offense defense point of view. Default Reasonability, but can be swayed to vote wherever you want.

Theory – I like theory debates similar to topicality on needing to make impacts for each of the standards. I'm willing to vote for Condo/Pics Bad etc. if you're winning it vs a CP, but default to reject the arg not the team at less you make explicit reasons otherwise.

Framework – Yes, I’ll vote on it. The Negative should not be afraid to read this in front of me. Many debates I found myself saying in the RFD that the Neg should have gone for FW because that's obviously what they we're best at, but didn't because they we're worried to go for the argument in front of me. Yes, I understand K lit the most, but I know FW is the best option at times, and can lead to positive engagement. Don't just ignore the AFF although. I prefer creative FW arguments that don't make the AFF defend necessarily everything, but I'm still willing to vote for USFG FW args. Negs should have a TVOA to solve the AFF impacts, reasons why the standards such as limits, and predictability turn their x argument, and reasons why the AFF precludes productive engagement. Also, Impacting out Education, and Competitive Equity in comparison to AFF impacts is important. Too many FW 2nrs win a link to limits, and ground arguments, but haven't given a substantial reason why education or competitive equity in debate is good to begin w/ in comparison to the AFF impacts.

K AFF’S/Non Traditional – AFF’s I have read haven’t defended much, or anything at all so I’m definitely willing to vote for these. Vs. FW - leverage your impacts. If a negative drops the AFF Impacts I’m easily swayed by the argument that AFF impacts are Impact turns to their interpretation, or to their standards. Vs. K's - go for impact turns to alts in combination w/ perms.

Policy AFF's/Traditional - Sure. My biggest criticism of policy AFF's is the weak IL chains, and lack of specific story being told w/ the aff in favor of recycling old ev. Case should be utilized to answer arguments. I'm willing to vote for an AFF that drops a DA, but still wins the Case OW's/Impact Calc. Vs K's - The AFF should utilize the case as an impact turn to the Alt, answer the negative framing arguments, and set up their own framing args such as util, pragmatism, consequentialism etc.

CP – Must be competitive, and have a clear net benefit such as DA, or internal net benefit. Better solvency isn’t sufficient. Net benefits should be articulated as reasons why the perm doesn’t solve as well. "Cheating" CP's such as Riders, Unfunded Mandates, and Delay are arguments that I won't reject outright, and are fine as long as you are winning the theory debate.

DA – Yes, I’ll vote on it. I prefer specific link stories over generic. DA turns case examples are important. Make sure these debates have clear impact calc from both the aff and the neg.

K’s – This is my favorite part of debate, and what I'm most experienced in. The K’s I’m most familiar with are Nietzsche, Heidegger, Baudrillard, Cap, Trauma/Academy, and Natives, With that being said just because I’m most familiar with these doesn’t mean you should go find your school's back file on (insert K) and read it in front of me.

Kritiks should have a clear story throughout the round w/ specific articulation. Link spin, and context to the AFF goes a long way. Even if you're reading your favorite Baudrillard 81 ev you read in every round you should spin it in the context of the specific AFF in that round, and quote the 1AC/2AC evidence as further link analysis. The negative needs to win a difference in the aff solvency and the K alt solvency world. Links should be offensive to answer perms – I typically won’t vote on a link of omission, but can be swayed otherwise. This might be a "method debate", but the negative still needs to win a reason why a combination of strategies via a perm isn't a method. I’ll vote on roll of the ballot claims and framing issues such as ethics, epistemology, or ontology as long as there are impacts attached to those and reasons why the other side doesn’t’ access them.

Miscellaneous - - If you want me to Kick your CP or K alt if you're losing it then you should tell me that in the 2NR. - Offensive arguments are key. - I'm willing to vote neg on presumption - Prep ends when the flash drive leaves the computer. - Don't steal prep. If this is done excessively then it will harm your speaks. - Don't Clip Cards. If there is substantive proof that you did then you will lose the round, and get 0 speaks. - I prefer to be called by my name instead of judge, but that's just a preference, and doesn't really matter. I doubt you'll get this far into the wiki anyways once you've already skipped to the K's, FW, and K AFF sections.