Vance,+Austin

Currently: J.D. Candidate at the University of Oklahoma; Moore High School Assistant Coach Formerly: Debated for the University of Central Oklahoma; Edmond Santa Fe High School Assistant Coach; Debated for Edmond Santa Fe High School

I will attempt to evaluate debates objectively, but I think that is not entirely possible. I'll do my best to outline particular arguments that I have a higher threshold for so that you can decide to change a particular strategy in front of me without me holding a silent contempt for what is occurring in the debate. All that being said, the arguments I have a high threshold for is a small minority, and probably won't be an issue 99.9% of the time.

My debate background: In college I read everything from heg good to no plan text "K" affs (PoMo and Cultural), so you should feel free to read a wide-range of arguments.

Pet-Peeves: Rudeness, bad jokes

Theory: Generally is fine, but "reject the argument not the team" will usually be sufficient for me to focus on the more content driven parts of the debate.

Role of the ballot/judge: I made these arguments and enjoy them, but they need to be "impacted" for me to evaluate them or else the debate devolves into a tautological nightmare. The impacts do not have to be traditional debate impacts, but I need a justification to evaluate the debate through/with those means. **Ballot commodification is an argument I have a high threshold for. It can be used as a link, but on its own I think it lacks offense.

Framework/Topicality: There are two ways I generally evaluate teams responding to FW/T. Either a we meet with reasonability and counter-standards, or simply impact-turning the neg standards. Either way is fine and I will evaluate aff and neg arguments simply as they are debated. I unfortunately have quite a bit of experience with "clash of civ" debates so don't worry about FW v K aff as far as fairness is concerned.

DA/Counterplans/Impact turns- These arguments are great. Some clear analysis and logic and these are a good place to be.

Kritiks- I like them, but do not let the jargon and general philosophy cause the debate to turn into lecture. Links and alts need to be articulated in a fashion that is specific to the affirmative - this does not require specific evidence, just that evidence is explained in the context of the aff. In honesty, if you can not explain a "high theory" K to me in a way that deals with more tangible impacts you'll find yourself in a bad place in the debate.

I hope this is helpful, if you have any questions feel free to ask.