Brock Spencer – brock.spencer.bs@gmail.com
 Experience/Background - Current Assistant Coach @ Casady HS (OK) (5 Years), Judge Experience (8 years), Debated 1 year CEDA/NDT @ UCO , 4 years of National Circuit HS @ Tulsa-Union (Ok), Former Assistant Coach @ Tulsa-Union HS (Ok) (1 year)
 TLDR – You do what you do best, and tell me what to do with my ballot as your judge. Write the RFD/ballot for me in the last speech. I’m down with voting for most things that have a well-warranted reason and impact behind it. Offense/Defense Paradigm. Debate is fun, enjoy yourselves!
 Speaker Points - I tend to heavily reward teams who do phenomenal research/ utilize evidence in comparative ways.
 (LD Paradigm is below) -- POLICY --
 Policy AFFs --
 Advantages are good....10 advantages are not.
 I prefer few advantages w/ specific internal link chains that don't have 8 loosely tied together scenarios begging to lose to a security K. Update your IL UQ's - it goes a long way in front of me.
 Utilize your AFF vs. off case args, too many policy affs lose because they start debating on the DA/K flow ignoring, and not using the AFF to it's potential.
 K AFF’S –-
 AFF’s I have read haven’t defended much so I’m definitely willing to vote for these.
 The aff should still defend doing something, but this is a pretty low threshold.
 Vs. K's go for perms and impact turns to Alts
 Vs. FW go for DA's as impact turns.
 Topicality/Theory –-
 Theory is underutilized. I love creative Theory/T debates. Limits are love, limits are life!
 I evaluate T similar to any DA flow from offense/defense point of view, and default competing interps, but can be swayed to vote for the aff being reasonable. I reward spec interps/violations vs. an aff.
 Impact out your standards/counter standards, and make spec args as to things they did in the round that harmed ground, what they could have done based on their strat, or other potential abuse. RVIs are a non-starter, and I will evaluate "K's of T".
 Framework –-
 Neg - I'll vote on both soft FW Interps that are creative and hard line USFG FW. Either way limits/predictable ground are most useful standards to win my ballot. Limits are love, limits are life! Point out when aff is vague/a moving target as another link to these standards. Topical Version of the AFF is the easiest way to win my ballot on FW. Typically don't vote on democratic engagement/deliberation args, but not against them.
 K AFFs - make sure to leverage your impacts vs. FW. If a negative drops the AFF Impacts I’m easily swayed by the argument that AFF impacts are Impact turns to the interpretation, and why their model of education is bad to begin with.
 CP –-
 These should have a clear net benefit such as DA or internal net benefit. Better solvency isn’t sufficient. I often find myself voting on perms so these net benefits should be articulated as reasons why the perm doesn’t solve.
 Also if you want me to kick it for you if you’re losing it that needs to be clear in the 2NR.
 Cheating Cps *you know who you are* - I tend to side w/ the aff on these so you'll want to allocate sufficient time to theory in the block if necessary.
 DA –-
 I love a good da. I hate a bad da. Specificity is lovely! I'll still vote for your generic topic DA, but apply it to the aff in the block.
 Need clear impact calc from both the aff and the neg. - updated UQ/IL UQ will be rewarded w/ speaker points, and usually W's on the ballot!!
 Both teams should use comparative analysis and explain why their ! ows, is more uq, or turns the other etc.
 K’s –
 I’m most familiar with this type of debate throughout high school, and college. I hack for Security K's that are embedded in other K's - I find that most policy aff internal link chains are garbage, and you can make them defend things they don't want with security esque arguments.
 The K’s I’m most familiar with are the greatest hits of dead European dudes (Nietzsche, Baudrillard, Heidegger, Deleuze), and being from Oklahoma I hear, and have read Settler Colonialism/Cap a lot.
 Fem I.R. K is drastically underutilized, but very good in debate because there's literature on everything.
 Alts should have a clear articulation of why it solves the AFF and the links. I also find myself voting on perms b/c the neg doesn’t do a good job explaining the difference in the aff solvency and the K alt solvency world. To help beat perms the Links should be offensive – I typically won’t vote on a link of omission.
 QUOTE THE 1AC EV evidence as link analysis.- You can read your "sick" Baudrillard 81 card, but in the block there should be an explanation of the link in the context of the 1AC ev and scenarios.
 I’ll vote on roll of the ballot claims and framing issues as long as there are impacts and warrants attached to those and reasons why the other side doesn’t’ access them.
 Floating Piks, and Counter Perms I'm familiar with, and will vote on.
 Speed -
 Go for it! Please be somewhat clear.
 -- LD -- 
 Most of what I said above in policy applies to what LD is currently, but I'll add a few specific things unique to LD.
 Value/Crit -
 Offense to their Value/Crit would be lovely. - Winning the framing is helpful, but more debaters need to impact out why it matters.
 Use your contentions as net benefits to your Value/Criterion and DA's to theirs and explain why their FW cant access/solve your impacts. I often find myself just voting on impact calc based on which contention OW's the other because the framing debate isn't articulated enough.
 K's/CP's/DA's in LD? -
 Sure, why not. I'll evaluate these the same as any other argument (read above in policy for specifics)
 I am willing to vote for FW args on why this isn't allowed in LD as long as you have well warranted impacts/theoretical args, but tend to think these are allowed and you should have answers if they apply to the case.
 Contentions -
 I love creative contentions in LD to justify what should or should not be debated, but open to voting for theory arguments as to why said contention is unfair etc.
 Theory -
 I typically err aff on theory in LD, but can be convinced otherwise.
 Read above for more specific Theory in Policy Section.
 Speed -
 Go for it! Please be somewhat clear.
 Random Info - I find myself voting for floating pics a lot in LD rounds.