Robin Brown Paradigm

Last changed 18 June 2019 8:36 AM PDT

LD
Judging Experience: 10 Years
High school coach, 10 years
High school policy debate, 4 years.


Overview: in general, I prefer traditional value debate in LD. My judging will emphasize how well you explain your value, how well you weigh your value against your opponent’s, how well you link your arguments to your value, etc.
I like to hear voters. You need to signpost and extend your arguments; if I don’t know where you are on the flow, it’s as if you aren’t making the argument.
I am not likely to pick you up if you don’t spend any time on impact analysis.
I would much prefer three solid cards with excellent analysis to thirty cards without any analysis. Be a debater, not a competitive librarian.


Plans: I will accept cases which offer some kind of loose plan, so long as that plan clearly and fully relates to the resolution. I see LD as being different from Policy—I don't think very narrow and specific plans are effective in LD. If you are using a plan to show that there is a smart way to do whatever your side is, great. If you are using a super narrow and specific plan to show that you could come up with something squirrely (and potentially abusive), that’s not ok. With that in mind, it's debaters' responsibility to point out that their opponent is running squirrely/abusive plan.


Kritiks: I'll accept them.


Values/ Criteria: I strongly prefer a framework that allows me to clearly pick one position over another. If your value is “morality," make sure you can give me a good sense of what is more moral and what is less. You should have cards in your framework.


Speed: The extent to which you use speed should not interfere with your ability to communicate intelligibly. If you want me to put your arguments/cards on the flow, slow down. You’ll know you’re speaking too fast if I stop flowing.


Cross-ex: Questions/Etiquette: If your opponent is abusing your cross-ex by taking too long to answer a question, you may politely interrupt; I will not consider you rude for the interruption. However, not every question has a yes or no answer, and your opponent is perfectly within their rights to say they need to give an explanation. The person answering the questions may only respond with questions for clarification (“Are you asking about my 1st or 2nd contention?” for example) and may not respond with substantive questions.

Blatantly offensive arguments: I will drop debaters for arguing (within either frameworks or contentions) that something we all agree is horrible is actually a good thing (e.g. slavery, rape, etc.).

Full Judging Record

Tournament Lv Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
GDSDA2 HS 2020-10-10 VLD R3 AM 2101 AG 2100 Aff
GDSDA2 HS 2020-10-10 VLD R3 AF 2102 AT 2101 Aff
GDSDA2 HS 2020-10-10 JVLD R2 AF 3200 BC 3200 Aff
GDSDA2 HS 2020-10-10 VLD R1 AF 2100 AD 2101 Aff
GDSDA2 HS 2020-10-10 VLD R1 AF 2103 AX 2100 Neg
Arizona St Hugh Downs School of Human Comm Invitational HS 2017-01-05 VLD Semis Canyon Crest EL Pinnacle KA Neg Neg 2-1
Arizona St Hugh Downs School of Human Comm Invitational HS 2017-01-05 VLD Octos Corona del Sol ZE Layton AN Neg Neg 2-1
Arizona St Hugh Downs School of Human Comm Invitational HS 2017-01-05 VLD Octos Pinnacle KA Kent Denver SL Aff Aff 2-1
Arizona St Hugh Downs School of Human Comm Invitational HS 2017-01-05 VLD Double Mountain View AZ Canyon Crest EL Neg Neg 2-1
Arizona St Hugh Downs School of Human Comm Invitational HS 2017-01-05 VLD Double Kent Denver DT Brophy AP Neg Aff 2-1
Arizona St Hugh Downs School of Human Comm Invitational HS 2017-01-05 VLD R4 Salpointe Catholic MM Canyon Crest AL Aff
Arizona St Hugh Downs School of Human Comm Invitational HS 2017-01-05 VLD R3 Coral SB Canyon Crest CC Neg
Arizona St Hugh Downs School of Human Comm Invitational HS 2017-01-05 VLD R3 Tempe Preparatory LN Brophy ZL Aff
Arizona St Hugh Downs School of Human Comm Invitational HS 2017-01-05 NLD R1 Juan Diego Catholic CS Red Mountain MC Neg
Arizona St Hugh Downs School of Human Comm Invitational HS 2017-01-05 NLD R1 Catalina Foothills SS Hamilton NK Neg
2016 Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV HS 2016-02-06 VLD R2 Harker SN Chaminade CP BS Neg
2016 Golden Desert Debate Tournament at UNLV HS 2016-02-06 VLD R1 College Prep ZD Polytechnic DM Aff
The Meadows Invitational HS 2015-10-30 LD R5 La Reina ES Canyon Springs GG Neg
The Meadows Invitational HS 2015-10-30 LD R5 Harker EM FSHA (Flintridge) ML Aff
The Meadows Invitational HS 2015-10-30 LD R3 La Costa Canyon JC Sage Ridge AC Aff