About Me

Hi all! My name is Ben Brauser, and I competed in Public Forum, LD, and Parliament for four years as a member of the State College Area HS Debate team. I have extensive experience both in debating and judging these formats, have attended debate camps, and have competed at the state level. I thoroughly enjoy debate both as an exercise in rhetoric and as a means to better understand all caveats of debate topics. I currently study Economics and Political Science at Penn State University. If you have any questions about these subjects, University, or your cases after round feel free to email me at bmb286@psu.edu.

Judging Philosophy

I am very comfortable with both flow and lay debate styles, speed is not an issue. That said, I preference quality of arguments over quantity of arguments and will give greater consideration to points of debate that are emphasized. If you speak fast, but not clearly, I won't fault the other team for not being able to follow your argumentation and may miss the argument myself. Delivering and winning 3 strong arguments can often be more persuasive than spreading and hoping your opponent drops 10 arguments.

Creative/Non-Unique arguments are absolutely welcome so long as they are as well constructed as any other argument. On the same token, stock arguments are welcome and should be well researched as well. I value clash greatly, I don't want to hear exclusively why you are right, but also why you're argument is better than your opponents.

In LD, framework is critical. I value your values immensely ;)

Arguments

[If the below information is confusing, ignore it. It is just reference for debaters intending to go down this path]

Theory: Please reserve theory for abusive arguments or positions which leave one side no ground. I will not vote on theory unless it is specifically impacted to "Vote against my opponent for this violation". I will always use a reasonability standard. Running theory is asking me as the judge to intervene in the round, and I will only do so if I deem it appropriate.

Kritiks: Ensure you have a role of the ballot which warrants why my vote will have any impact on the world. I generally don't believe that most role of the ballots warrant genuine real world impact, and will require substantive reasoning.

Topicality: Fine. Just make sure you specify what the impact of topicality on the round is.

Presumption: I do not presume neg. I'm willing to vote on presumption if the aff or neg gives me arguments for why aff or neg should be presumed, but neither side has presumption inherently. Both aff and neg need offense - in the absence of offense, I revert to possibility of offense.

On Speaker Points

Do not become discouraged if you have a bad speech or a slip up, I am very forgiving with speaker points and will evaluate your speaking holistically. Speak clearly and with confidence, many of you have spent an extensive amount of time researching your cases and have no reason to be hesitant!

I will raise speaker points for the following elements

1. Respect for opponents

2. Clear and concise language (This doesn't mean you shouldn't expand upon points, but avoid redundancies)

3. Making me laugh

4. Utilizing Cross/Crossfire effectively (not asking questions just to fill time)

5. Responding to Cross/Crossfire effectively

I will deduct speaker points for the following elements

1. Excessive use of filler words (like, uhm, and, etc.)

2. Rude behavior (interruptions, shouting, snarky comments, etc.)

3. Misconstrued evidence

Contact Info:

Email - bmb286@psu.edu

Phone - 814-644-3277 (use for pressing questions about the round)

i'm a senior at state college area high school (debated LD one year, PF for three).

tl;dr: be nice, weigh everything, clash everything, impact everything, and feel free to ask questions.

basic prefs

speed: i can handle it, just slow down when you're reading tags and authors. i'll yell clear three times -- if you haven't slowed down, i'm done flowing, too. if you seriously have to go over 350 wpm (this is PF, pls don't), send me speech docs and make sure to read cards in full.

if the round is flighted or i'm the only judge and not in the room yet, go ahead and flip if all teams are present. i probably won't have a coin on me because i lose everything and anything i touch.

do off-time roadmaps before every speech.

weigh through the entire round. clash through the entire round. impact everything you say.

what the round should look like

all speeches should be signposted. i prefer line-by-line debate -- just let me know during off-time roadmaps how you intend to structure your speech and we'll be okay.

all arguments should be extended in full -- impacts, links, warrants, all of it -- through final focus. it's much harder to vote off of partially extended arguments, so please don't put me in that position.

i am okay with flowing dropped defense through the round until it is responded to by your opponents, but anything you want me to vote off of must be brought up in final focus. turns should be extended through each speech if you want me to treat them as offense, otherwise they'll be terminal defense.

i'm not okay with new off-case offense (over/underviews or whatever else you conjure up) in second rebuttal.

how to get the dub

i evaluate the round as tech as long as everything is properly warranted and impacted, unless there are squirrelly or questionable arguments (i will call for cards on these, probably) and the truth behind these is too far-fetched. i like unique arguments, but if you're going to argue that ending capital gains tax triggers a nuclear war with china with biotech innovation links, i'll probably get annoyed.

i'll vote off of anything if you warrant, impact, and weigh it.

i default status quo (on feb topic, con) if there are no impacts on the table.

T and K's are cool in varsity. T -- make the interp/violation/standards/voters clear.

i don't like disclosure theory. if disclosure is important to you, disclose/share docs in the room and with opponents + me.

be respectful in general, too. don't be condescending or offensive. words in the debate space have an influence outside of the ballot. i will drop debaters for racism, sexism, misogyny, and other forms of structural violence. it's a happy weekend, we're all happy, let's have fun!

what makes me happy

being nice.

avoiding paraphrased evidence (i may dock speaks and make comments, but i won't make a decision off of this).

don't bring up new offense in the back half, don't bring up new arguments in final focus.

i will call for cards at the end of the round if something is questionable or i am explicitly told to call for the card in round (don’t abuse this, i won’t call for twenty of them)

speaks

30 means you're the goat, 29-30 means you're 85% goat, 28-29 means you're 60% goat, 27-28 means you're 40% goat, 26-27 means you're a goat that didn't read my paradigm, below 26 means you're not a nice goat and we have a problem. all goats >27 are really cool and are doing/will do great in debate!

i give more speaks if you: quote vampire weekend, brockhampton, or any of my other fav artists (don't stalk my spotify); give your opponents and me food; act nicely and respectfully; send speech docs/disclose to your opponents and me (before the round AND in the room, not on the wiki); dab; help me get good at corrin on smash.

I coached at Danville High School (PA) from 2012-2019 (I stepped away from coaching when my wife and I had our first child in June 2019 so that I could have more family time). In high school, I competed in Extemporaneous Speaking and dabbled a handful of times in Public Forum Debate (referred to as Ted Turner Debate at the time). Because of my background in speech, delivery remains an important factor in my decision insofar as I must be able to understand the arguments that you are presenting to flow them. In other words, do NOT spread! To me, spreading is antithetical to effective communication, which is ultimately the reason we are here - to communicate arguments for or against a proposed resolution.

I subscribe to the school of thought that Public Forum is intended to be a lay person's debate in that anybody, regardless of their background knowledge on the subject matter or debate experience, should be able to sit-in on a round and follow each side's argumentation. As it was once explained to me, your grandmother should be able to listen to your case/speech and understand what you are saying.

An effective argument consists of three key components: a claim, a warrant, and an impact (STATE It, SUPPORT It, EXPLAIN It). An emphasis on any one of these facets at the exclusion of the others results is an incomplete argument. You can't win a debate with incomplete arguments! I say all this because over the 7.5 years I spent coaching, I witnessed a shift in emphasis away from holistic argumentation to an over-reliance upon evidence (warrants). Sure, evidence is important, but far too many debates that I've judged have devolved into a clash over whose evidence is superior or who has provided a greater quantity (the old "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" approach). As British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli once claimed, "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." Use evidence to support your contentions and your rebuttals, but also provide an explanation (impact) as to how it links back into the bigger picture argument that you are trying to make. Logic can be just as effective a tool in a debate as qualitative and quantitative evidence.

A few other logistics for the round:

- "Off-time road-maps" are fine, but should be brief.
- You may time yourself, but my timer is the official time piece for the round.
- Individual crossfires should be standing. Grand crossfire can be seated or standing (debaters' discretion).
- I will defer to the NSDA Debate Evidence Rules for PF and LD unless tournament/league rules state otherwise.