Gaston,+Bryan

 Affiliation = Heritage Hall School School Strikes = Heritage Hall School Years Coaching: 14th year HS, 2 years college NDT/CEDA Rounds Judged On China Topic:

Judging Philosophy 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. I view debate as a competitive game, and I think its the most educational and strategic game that exists. I will try and be as helpful as possible in this philosophy to let you see how I evaluate debate rounds. If this philosophy does not answer all your questions feel free to ask before the round. Y

__** My Golden Rule: **__ Debate however you debate best! If your a K debater do that, if your a policy debater that hates the K--do your thing. Method v method debates...ok. Big policy vs policy debates...ok. Method debate v framework...ok. Great debating is great debating regardless of whether your running a policy, critical, or performance strategy. I like watching great debates. I would prefer you to run your best strategy and play to your strengths rather than adapt to my "perceived" argument preference. Don't radically change your strategies because I'm in the room but I will offer the following information about how I tend to view debate...

__Paperless Debating:__ 1. You need to provide a readable copy of all evidence used in your speech (in one speech doc---like 2AC Round 6, do not open up 7 files on your computer and tell the other team you are reading different things from all of them). 2. You should let the other team view your speeches on their own laptops if they choose. 3. You should have a viewing computer for teams that use paper (or you must let them use one of your computers if they ask). 4. Give me a digital copy of the speech also. Why? See "clipping" below... 5. DO NOT give your opponents speech docs with all the tags and/or cites missing. This is not acceptable. You may leave out analytics (not tags) if you choose. **//6. I will stop prep when you tell me your are saving the speech to the jump drive//**. The transfer time will not come out of your prep time. In outrounds I stop prep when you start the saving process unless other judges object. Why because its outrounds you deserve a little more leeway.

Pro-tip #1: The partner that is not speaking should be in charge of the speech transfer while the debater who is speaking should stand up after saving to the jump drive and get the podium ready and announce the order. Pro-tip #2: FLOW---don't stop flowing just because you have a speech doc.


 * __"Clipping" in debate:__** Clipping in debate is a serious issue and one of the things I will be doing to deter clipping in my rounds is requesting copy of all speech docs before the debaters start speaking. Don't worry I will still flow but if I suspect someone of clipping I want to have the doc on my computer so I can follow along and verify my suspicions.

Some argument specifics...

__ Affirmatives __ : I'm much more open to a variety of Aff strategies than I was say 4-8 years ago. I still at my heart of hearts prefer and Aff with a plan thats justifiably topical. But, I think its not very hard for teams to win that run if the Aff is germane to the topic thats good enough. I'm pretty sympathetic to the Neg if the Aff has very little to nothing to do with the topic. If there is a topical version of the Aff I tend to think that take 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" 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 its just a smarter 2AC strategy, but if a DA clearly has zero link or zero chance of uniqueness you can win zero risk. Perms on politics DA's are not my favorite argument but if your a wiz with politics perm theory go for it. I tend to think politics DA's are core negative ground--so its hard for me to be convinced I should reject the politics DA because debating about it is bad for debate.

__ 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, unless the Aff proves some type of specific abuse. On counterplan theory, I lean that conditionality and PIC’s are a 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. 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 to you need at least some evidence supporting your mechanism. If you are Aff you can still win theory that these are bad for debate. If you out debating a team on a theory I will not take that away from you. If you win that the Aff CP is unfair via a theory arg--my default is that I reject the CP not the team.

__ Case debates __ : Negative teams typically under-utilize this. I believe well planned impacted case debate is essential to a great negative strategy. Takeouts and turn 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 the Aff are very important---the more specific the better. Some K lit bases I'm decently familiar with: Capitalism, Security, Anti-blackness, Natives, Reps (various types), Fem IR, Anthro, Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Queer theory. Some K lit bases I don't know very much about: Baudrillard, Bataille, Deleuze.

__ Big impact turn debates __ : They are great. Want to throw down in a big Hegemony Good/Bad debate, Dedev vs Growth Good, method vs method, its 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 sides defense.

__Impact framing__--its pretty important, especially in round where critical vs policy strategies clash.

__ 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 __ : Speed is fine, and clarity is important. If you are not clear I will yell out “Clear.” Average debate starts at 27.5, Good is 27.6-28.9 (most national circuit rounds end up in this range), Excellent 29-29.9, Perfect 30 (I have given 3 in 16 years judging). I will punish your points if you are excessively rude to your opponents or partner during a round.

__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 after the round has started about what's happening in your round, please stay and listen to RFD's, and don't deliberately spy on the other teams pre-round coaching.

Have fun debating!