I was very involved with debate during high school and did some judging during college, but this was many years ago. I got back into debate 3 years ago and I am now the new coach for a high school team. I am open to all forms of arguments, but have limited ability to follow full spreading and the more complex national circuit type argumentation. In final speeches, tell me why you have won the round.

I strongly believe in narrowing the debate in the summary speeches. I really want you to determine where you are winning the debate and explain that firmly to me. In short: I want you to go for something. I really like big impacts, but its's important to me that you flush out your impacts with strong internal links. Don't just tell me A leads to C without giving me the process of how you got there. Also don't assume i know every minute detail in your case. Explain and extend and make sure that you EMPHASIZE what you really want me to hear. Slow down and be clear. Give me voters (in summary and final focus). 

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I work very hard to flow the debate in as much detail as possible. However, if I can't understand you I can't flow you. 

History: I debated four years in Public Forum (with some LD debates thrown in there) for Houston County High School and now attend Oglethorpe University in Atlanta, GA. I have judging experience in both categories.

I like to see direct clash (they say this, we say that), analysis with warrants (prefer our argument, because…), impact/implications (what the world looks like if we don’t do x), warrants for why your impact(s) hold(s) greater significance/is more likely/is the reason I should vote.
Make it clear to me.
Ultimately, debate is an educational activity and a ton of fun! Please try to have a good time in a respectful, inclusive and meaningful way.
I will vote on topicality. These debates should be a clash between two competing interpretations and impacted. You need to tell me why I should prefer one interpretation over the other. Do not just list it as a voter and move on, because that won't convince me that it is important enough to evaluate. Critical Arguments—I really enjoy these debates, and truthfully it is where I focused my attention as a competitor. However, please do not operate under the assumption that I am familiar with your authors or your interpretations. Please be clear in identifying your links and implications. Specificity is key and tell me a story! Always a good choice to slow down! Also a great choice, cut the jargon.
If your strategy when confronted with a critical argument is to rest solely on your Framework laurels, you will have a lot of difficulty winning in front of me. I like to see arguments engaged directly— more on Framework….
So far, observing framework arguments, I am not a fan. I am not of the opinion that debate is the wrong forum and that arguments should, on face, be excluded. A more sophisticated argument, and one that I am definitely willing to vote for, is one that identifies how the argument operates as a disad to the critical case, provides impact comparison, and warranted analysis how they cant capture/access x advantage.

Email: jameshbrock@gmail.com

Handshaking: Even before current viral concerns, I wasn't a fan of hand shaking. If you feel the need for post round physical contact, I will either accept a light fist bump or a full hug of no less than 5 seconds in duration. Alternatively, you can just wait for my decision.

Overview: I am the debate coach at Houston County High School a suburban (closer to rural than urban) school 2 hours south of Atlanta. We don't travel outside of the state much. I am a big advocate of policy debate, but, the vast majority of tournaments we attend no longer offer the event. So, we have switched to PF/LD debate.

I flow. If I am not flowing, there is a problem.

Speed okay. If I am not flowing, there is a problem. The most likely reason I would not be flowing is, that the sound coming out of your mouth is not words. If this happens, I will most likely close my laptop or put down my pen until I can recognize the sounds you are making.

Disclosure Theory: I am a small school coach. My teams are not required to post their cases online. I don't like it when teams lose debates to rules those teams didn't know were "rules". If disclosure is mandated by the tournament's invitation, I will listen. I also, will not attend that tournament. So, just don't run it. Inclusion o/w your fairness arguments.

PF: I judge on an offence/defense paradigm. Logic is good, evidence is better. I'm the guy who will vote on first strike good or dedev. Tech over truth, but I will not give a low point win in PF, and try to stay true to the speaking roots of PF. F/W is the most important part of the debate for me. It is a gateway issue that provides the lens through which to view my decision. I have done a moderate amount of research, but I probably haven't read that article. I may be doing it wrong, but I like logic when judging a PF round. I don't think you have time to develop DAs or Ks, but have no other objection to their existence. Jeff Miller says to answer these questions if judging PF... - do you expect everything in the final focus to also be in the summary? Yes. At least tangentially. The first final focus of the round needs to be able to predict the direction of the the final speech. If it's not in the Summary it gives an unfair advantage to the second speaker. - Do second speaking teams have to respond to the first rebuttal? No, but its a good idea. It makes for a better debate and I will award speaker points will be awarded for doing this. - Do first speaking teams have to extend defense in the first summary? If you want to extend defense in the final focus. - Do you flow/judge off crossfire? Cross is binding, but it needs to be made in the speech to count on the ballot. That being said, at this tournament, damaging crossfire questions have provided major links and changed the momentum of debates. - Do teams have to have more than one contention? No. - does framework have to be read in the constructives? Responsive F/w is allowed but not advisable in rebuttal only.

LD: For me, this is policy light. I understand it, but I try not to be influenced by a lack of policy jargon in the round. IE I will accept an argument that says "The actor could enact both the affirmative action and the negative action." as a permutation without the word perm being used in the round. I tend to view values and value criterion as a framework debate that influences the mechanisms for weighing impacts. I am a little lenient on 1ar line by line debate, but coverage should be sufficient to allow the nr to do their job. I will protect the nr from new 2ar argument to a fault. I will not vote on morally repugnant arguments like "extinction good" or "rocks are more important than people".

tl;dr: Spend a lot of time on F/W. Impact your arguments.

Policy Debate: (Having this in here is a little ridiculous. Its kinda like, "back in my day we had inherency debates. No one talks about inherent barriers anymore...)

Procedural:
I am human, and I have made mistakes judging rounds. But, I reserve the right to dock speaker points for arguing after the round.
I have few problems with speed. If you are unclear, I will say clear or loud once and then put my pen down or close my laptop. I love 1NC's and 2ACs that number their arguments.
I want the debaters to make my decision as easy as possible. My RFD should be very very similar to the first 3 sentences of the 2AR or 2NR.
After a harm is established, I presume it is better to do something rather than nothing. So in a round devoid of offence, I vote affirmative

The K:
As a debater and a younger coach, I did not understand nor enjoy the kritik. As the neg we may have run it as the 7th off case argument, and as the aff we responded to the argument with framework and theory. As I've grown as a coach I've started to understand the educational benefits of high school students reading advanced philosophy. That being said, In order to vote negative on the kritik, I need a very, very clear link, and reason to reject the aff. I dislike one-off-K, and standard Ks masked with a new name. I do, however, enjoy listening to critical affirmatives related to the topic. I am often persuaded by PIK's, and vague alts bad theory.

Don't assume that I have read the literature. I have not.

Non-traditional debate: We are a small and very diverse squad, and I (to some extent) understand that struggle. I have coached a fem rage team, and loved it.

Theory:
I have no particular aversion to theoretical objections. As an observation, I do not vote on them often. I need a clear reason to reject the other team. I will occasionally vote neg on Topicality, but you have to commit. I think cheaty CPs are bad for debate, and enjoy voting on ridiculous CP is ridiculous theory. I still need some good I/L to Education to reject the team.


Parliamentary debate:
I enjoy this format. I will adopt a policy maker F/W unless otherwise instructed.

Introduction

I debated for four years in high school (1 year PF, 3 years LD) for the Lovett School in Atlanta, GA. My preferences are as follows and feel free to ask me about anything specific before the round starts either in person or via email at jamespbronsted@gmail.com.

General Philosophy

Lincoln-Douglas is a philosophical form of debate. You should have a framework in addition to contention-level arguments. If you do not connect your arguments to SOME framework (either yours or your opponent’s), I will have a difficult time evaluating it. I do believe it is the debater’s choice of where to create clash. If you feel that most of the clash will happen on the framework level, debate the framework. If the frameworks are relatively the same, only engage in framework debate if it has a very large impact in the debate and please do show that impact. That said, if the frameworks presented are different, I do enjoy a well-conducted framework debate.

Speaking/Spreading

If you choose to spread, I will do my best to get your arguments down. I cannot promise I will get everything or anything. If you want to make sure that I get your arguments, I recommend that you slow down for tags and citations. If the tags and/or citations are not at about conversational speed and emphasized preferably with a raised speech volume, I will probably not get it. I will yell “clear” or “slow” about once or twice before taking off speaker points.

Framework

I love framework debate when clash is both created and handled properly. If the frameworks presented in the round are more or less the same, I recommend that debaters engage with the framework if their specific framework has some important caveat that leads to some kind of impact. Do not debate frameworks if there is no clash to be had. In addition, framework debate is not regurgitation of your framework. A good framework debate will involve each side presenting reasons why their framework is better and why their opponent’s fails logically or is less preferable. If you want to attack your opponent’s framework, I would rather see you talk about how the framework is logically inconsistent rather than reasons why yours is more “suitable” to the resolution. I will accept the latter type of arguments, but I feel that they are weaker than arguments that fall under the former.

Contentions

Read evidence. Debate evidence. Do not regurgitate evidence. Good evidence debate involves giving reasons why your evidence comes from a better source. Good contention-level debate in general, however, involves the use of turns. Also, every argument should be linked back to some framework argument, typically, but not limited to, a criterion, and then weighed against the claims of your opponent. Winning is not done by merely discussing your position. It is done by proactively showing the ways in which your position is better or more impactful than your opponent’s.

Last Rebuttals

Give some voters. If you don’t tell me how and why you win at the end of the round I will likely not vote for you. Also, be sure that your voters are actually voters. Typically, a voter discusses an argument that you strongly believe that you won (i.e. because it was extended and wasn’t contested), how it connects to your framework (and/or your opponent’s), and how it outweighs other arguments on the flow. If I had to recommend a number of voters that I think is ideal, I would say two, maybe three. You should plan to spend a lot of time on each of your voters because voters are how you win the debate.

RFDs and Evaluation

I will vote for the debater that has the most offense at the end of the round: the debater that, in my opinion, most proactively brings about good impacts or avoids otherwise inevitable bad impacts. Speaker points are awarded based on the mere presentation of the arguments. Effective use of articulation, varying intonation and inflexion, emphasis on key points, and well-placed humor will be rewarded with higher speaker points. I am very willing to award low-point wins if I feel that both debaters were unconvincing with their delivery. In addition, I will award higher speaker points to debaters that are organized when making their points (i.e. signposting, voters).

I am a traditional judge.

Do not spread.

Civility is essential.

I value clear communication. Sign posts and voters are excellent tools.

I value clash. So listen to your opponent and tell me why they are wrong and your side is better.

Give weight to the most important arguments and tell me why they are the most important.

Write the reason for decision for me.

I debated LD for four years in high school and policy for 2 in college. I feel comfortable evaluating a wide range of arguments. Feel free to ask if you have any specific questions pre round.

I am a new judge, but I am experienced in the format of debate and the development of argumentation. Make every argument clear and tell me why it is important!Why should I vote for you?

Articulate clearly. Don’t use a ton of debate jargon/buzzwords- explain what you’re trying to say in your own words and make it clear. Big words don't impress unless they have meaning beyond trying to sound intellectual.

Eye contact is a must. Your conviction must show in your confidence which must come from the solidity of your argument.

Convince me (both in argument and responsive crossfire). I may have an opinion about the topic walking in. You don't know what that opinion is, so argue like you are trying going to change my mind. This is how I will judge the debate; not on oratorical prowess (though that will certainly be awarded in speaker points). Be responsive in Crossfire. Don't ignore the questions posed to you; do respond thoughtfully and with specificity. Ask strong, engaging questions that call specific arguments into question.

Most of all, have fun. Debate is a growth mindset, so let's grow together. ✌

For Debate:

- I focus on the flow of the argument

- I look for clashing - I want to see competitors breakdown the opponent's argument

For Speech Events

I look at the creativity in the speech, but also listen for tone and inflection and to present a speech or performance to convince me in what you are saying.

I led LD at Walton High School '14 for four years and judged local tournaments while attending Georgia Tech '18.

I try to be tabula-rasa-ish, so make sure you give me impacts or conditions under which you win, which you should be doing regardless. For those only experienced in local debate, this means I know nothing about the resolution or your case (including what qualifies your winning the round or how to weigh arguments); I will take your case at face value and actively avoid drawing conclusions until you give them to me clearly.

I'm fine with progressive techniques meaning spreading and Ks, and I enjoy weirder arguments. However, I always go back to the framework debate.

Paint the neg/aff world for me

Notes:

- Ideally, you should be spending roughly a third to half of your AC/NC constructing and justifying your framework; don't be vague

- I encourage use of weighing, impact turns, and counterplans

- Cross-ex blind. Learning how to rephrase/restate/emphasize is good practice for real life.

- Fine with flex prep as long as both debaters are

- Prefer standing over sitting because it makes you a better real-life speaker, but I'm flexible if this is difficult