michels.browne@gmail.com

I competed in policy debate many years ago for Kansas and coached Lincoln Douglas debate for Penn State the past five years. This is my first year as a CEDA/NDT coach/judge. As an argumentation instructor, I value the quality of evidence and arguments. So, if challenged I will examine the evidence (all of it including the unhighlighted and minimized sections) in the round—best say what you claim it says. I also want to hear warranted arguments, not labels –i.e. just saying “education” on topicality is not sufficient. I, to the best of my ability, adopt the perspective of tabula rasa and will listen to any argument presented in the debate, EXCEPT I still retain common sense. If you tell me the sky is green with orange polka dots, I won’t buy it.

As mentioned, any types of arguments (Ks, counterplans, topicality, etc.) are accepted and can win you the debate, if you convince me why your position is best. I expect to hear an explanation for how you have won in your team’s final rebuttal. Plan-less affs are not my favorite, but I will listen. Not fond of PICs, but again I will listen.

I don’t view debate as a “game”. I perceive it to be an educational activity in which the participants demonstrate their acumen, analytical and argumentative abilities.

Be smart, be civil, have fun.

I debated for a few years in college. While at college I performed in a variety of debate styles including IPDA, Lincoln Douglas and world style. Since graduating I have judged several tournaments in both the IPDA and world style formats.

As a judge, I would appreciate it if the debaters would explain very clearly why they think they have won the debate. If you want me to be a stock issues judge, be sure to explain what issue you want me to vote for. If you want me to be a policy-maker explain how I should interpret the debate from that perspective.

I find topicality to be a critical portion of a debate, however I also believe that the negative should explain very clearly why the affirmative should lose on this issue. I find kritiks to be very interesting, but the burden is on the team initiating the these kinds of arguments. The reasons for me to vote on these types of arguments must be very clear.