General Paradigm

If you have questions about my decision/want feedback or want to complain about what a terrible judge I am

email me: benlbrazelton@gmail.com

(If there are any issues I need to know before the round regarding physical/non-physical accessibility, shoot me an email.)

Experience

Competed for Madison West High School. Public Forum, Extemp, and limited Congress experience in High School. I coach a few schools privately now, and teach at camps.

Personal Info

I study Education with an emphasis on critical race/queer theories. I'm further left than liberal, so I especially respond to well-constructed Critical Race, Gender or Queer Theory arguments. Equity is the name of the game, but I'll accept any criteria that is well-warranted.

As a Judge, I am...

- Pretty Flow. I will be flowing on excel or paper or whatever else.

- A little lay. Teams that speak clearly and persuasively have an innate advantage over those that don't.

- Very lazy. Do the work for me, because I hate the mental gymnastics for teams that don't weigh, signpost, etc.

- Kind of Tabula Rasa. I'll drop my individual opinions, and technical knowledge, etc. and be as close to a blank slate as I feel comfortable being. That said, I'm not going to pretend like people aren't incorrect or lying. Also, see the next section for when I stop being tabs.

What you MUST DO when I am judge:

- If you choose to make arguments that concern sexual assault, racialized/gendered violence, stuff like that, and either a. do not offer some sort of warning ahead of time or b. do it without the delicacy it deserves, I will almost categorically drop the argument. These arguments are almost always personal to someone (whether they be in the room or at the tournament), so that needs to be respected.

- Don't be blatantly (or subtly) racist, sexist, classist, etc. It's obvious to put in a paradigm, not so obvious in round. I will call you out, and (based on the magnitude of what you said/did) drop you. Tabs come off.

- Don't be a jerk. Gendered and racialized dynamics are everywhere, and if I get a whiff of exploitation therein, tabs are off.

What you CAN do:

I'm a big fan of including theory and Kritikal debate-- if we are talking about debate, any kinds of arguments (no matter how 'accessible' they may be) should be fair game. If you want to run K's or theory, whatever, that's fine by me, so long as you give me clear reasons to vote for them.

What I look for in argumentation:

- Be smart. This seems obvious, but you aren't going to win the round by obfuscating arguments, or trying to convince me that basic facts aren't true. This is one of the most cliche things to put in a paradigm, but smart analytics beat a lot of cards. Having an appreciation for what the world is like when the debate round is over helps everything. Teams that can find contradictions in opponents' cases can cross out contentions without every dropping a carded response.

- Claims, Warrants, and Impacts. Please extend the later two into summary, and absolutely in Final Focus. If it isn't in both I won't vote for them. Please refrain from extending through ink, or resurrecting dead arguments.

- WEIGHING. Please weigh for me, because I get really frustrated having to weigh myself. If you don't weigh the round for me, I will, and I will use criteria that will definitely frustrate at least 50% of competitors in the room.

- Teams that tell a consistent story will do much better than teams that stretch themselves out. Paint me a picture of what the world will look like, aff or neg, and stick to that. Framework and overviews help.

What I look for in Cross-X:

- I don't flow CX, but I will sit patiently and wait for it to end.

- If you get any strong concessions, they should be in your speeches too. If they aren't, they didn't happen.

- Don't be a jerk. I don't just consider it rude, I think the predatory, aggressive debater really exploits a lot to get there. Assertion should not trespass into aggression, and if it does, I will wreak havoc on your speaker points.

Speaking Points:

Points are evaluated based on the tournament (TOC will be tougher to get 30s than a local).

- 30s = you are a flawless debater. J. Scott Wunn himself would fall to his knees and praise you.

- 29.5s = you are a very, very good debater. J. Scott Wunn would likely shake your hand after the round.

- 29s = Very good debater. Maybe you make a few mistakes, but overall gave a very high-quality performance. J. Scott Wunn would likely call you "buddy."

- 28s = Exactly average. J. Scott Wunn probably would not remember you.

- 27s = Quite a bit of room for improvement. J. Scott Wunn would be concerned.

- 26s = you either have a lot to work on, or you messed up big.

26> = Uh oh. You must've said something very offensive.

Evidence Ethics

It is the responsibility of the other team to call for evidence, unless I absolutely know it to be miscut, or there is so little weighing in the round that I need to evaluate the strength of link/impact myself.

If someone miscut/misinterpreted evidence, call for it and let me know in your speeches. If you are accused of miscutting, offer something more substantive than "no it's not"-- either apologize and drop it from the round, or defend your interpretation.

My vengeful judging fury:

- I'm a very spiteful judge, so if you are acting like jerks, or making stupid arguments, I will earnestly want to drop you. I've picked up teams very begrudgingly, and that is typically reflected in speaker points. Consider yourselves warned.

"Finally, I flow as completely as I can, generally in enough detail that I could debate with it. However, I'm continually temped to follow a "judge a team as they are judging yours" versus a "judge a team as you would want yours judged" rule. Particularly at high-stakes tournaments, including the TOC, I've had my teams judged by a judge who makes little or no effort to flow. I can't imagine any team at one of those tournaments happy with that type of experience yet those judges still represent them. I think lay-sourced judges and the adaptation required is a good skill and check on the event, but a minimum training and expectation of norms should be communicated to them with an attempt to comply with them. To a certain degree this problem creates a competitive inequity - other teams face the extreme randomness imposed by a judge who does not track arguments as they are made and answered - yet that judge's team avoids it. I've yet to hit the right confluence of events where I'd actually adopt "untrained lay" as a paradigm, but it may happen sometime."

- My Coach in High School

Policy Paradigm

K's and Performance

If they run T and don't engage with the warrants, they've conceded them. Please extend warrants and don't just make it a Framework debate.

I'm a big fan of K's if they have something important to say. That said, if y'all just wanna win spreading Baudrillard and try and trick people out, I'm less convinced. I see K's as a kind of necessary resistance to the oppressive structures of debate––if you're going to reject the resolution, make sure it's for a good reason and not just to be tricky.

I'm a big fan of intellectual clarity in your K's, so don't run sources that don't agree with each other (i.e. Afropessimism and Marxism shouldn't be in the same speech without clarifying those ideological differences).

Spreading

After however many years of debate, I'm pretty good at flwoing. That said, I shouldn't have to read the round to understand it. If you are speaking in a way that I don't understand and can't follow the round, I won't flow. That means heavy tech debaters who do double-breaths will probably be disappointed. Speak clearly––if your card is read so fast you don't care if I catch it, it's probably not valuable enough to be in your speech.

Policy-making

I'm far more convinced by a strong link (high probability/timeframe) than a big impact (magnitude and scope). I tend to weigh based on how real the arguments sound and if it sounds like you're making a stretch I'm less interested. That is to say, I'm far more likely to vote for a well-warranted regional impact than global nuclear extinction. I'll almost never vote for global nuclear extinction if I'm presented with a clear alternative impact.

Please feel free to run evidence indicts in justifying the strength of the link––if somebody is justifying nuclear war impacts with a Krauthammer card, just indict.

Public Forum Paradigm

See general paradigm

As of Harvard 2018: no off-time roadmaps; evidence indicts should be a part of strategy.

Hello! My name is Jonathan Collins, and if you're reading this you shouldn't pref me. I'm actually a terrible judge. If you are unfortunate enough to have me as your judge, then preferences, experience, and email are below.

Experience: Debated policy starting Sophomore year in High School (Currently an undergrad freshman). Was mostly on the Washington Urban Debate League Circuit but I went to a few National Circuit tournaments in high school. I currently debate policy at Harvard.

I will vote on any and all arguments. I enjoy both policy and criticisms. It is said a few times below but: Flow > my feelings

Spreading: Love it, just be clear. PLEASE slow down on theory debates and during rebuttals. I need to hear explanations for offense and defense. If I miss an argument on the flow it didn't happen.

Theory: Don't be afraid to go for theory, I will vote on it. Make sure to flesh out the impacts and be specific to the round. In order for me to vote on theory you need to explain why you're interp is the best model for debate. Bonus points if you can prove in-round impacts.

K: Explain the theory of your critique in the overview. I'm familiar with basic K literature but you should debate like I'm not. If you're reading blocks in the rebuttals on the K but can't answer basic Cx questions I know you don't understand your critique. Please understand your K if its gonna be in the 2NR.

-Don't underutilize the framework portion of the K. If you win the aff shouldn't be weighed + an impact I automatically vote neg.

-Make specific links. "They use the USFG" probably wont cut it

-I know its strategic to explain the alternative loosely, but it should defend some action, method, etc.

DA: You need to do impact calc and have taken a sizeable chunk out of the aff if a DA is your 2NR strat. "DA turns case" arguments are important too.

CP: Have a NB, solve the case, you win. If you don't solve 100% of case your NB needs to outweigh the impacts you don't solve for. I usually dont vote on perm theory but dont be afraid to go for it. Flow > my feelings.

T: Just prove the aff isn't topical and why that's bad. Nuanced topicality arguments have a special place in my heart so don't be afraid to define terms creatively. If the aff is explicitly non-topical it becomes a question of impacts and the best model for debate. Flow > my feelings

Affirmatives: Don't let the neg do the stuff above - and prove the aff is a good idea. Have 2AC and 2AR overviews and explain warrants. Make sure to use the case offensively against off-case positions. "Case solves a portion of the K", "Case link turns the DA", "Advantage 2 is a DA to the CP" are all arguments I like to hear.

To me, average speaker points is 28.

Please put me on the email chain: jonathancollins55@gmail.com

Please be courteous as well. I strongly dislike rude behavior, and that will affect speaker points. Most importantly have fun and learn something!

I debated with University of Rochester from 2006 – 2010. I started college with no debate experience and worked my way to varsity, so I have an appreciation novice debate. While speed is fine, it’s in your best interest to be clear as possible.

While at Rochester I debated pretty much everything but settled on K debate as my bread and butter. However, I’m open to all arguments as long as they’re clearly articulated and contextualized. No one is really tabula rasa, and here are my predispositions that may affect how I perceive your arguments.

General: At the end of the day the debate comes down to impacts. Why should I value one argument over the other? If you can clearly articulate magnitude, probability, and timeframe you’ll most likely do well. This applies to K impacts just as much DA impacts. Should I value discursive violence or nuclear war more? Pretend I’m stupid and tell me how I should evaluate your competing impacts. Otherwise, you won’t be happy with my default evaluation.

Cross-x: Always fun to watch. It is binding, so don’t lie. Cross-x is can be competitive and heated and that's ok. But if I feel the cross-x is getting hostile and personal, I'll intervene, dock speaker points, and potentially even end the round. Please respect your opponents and be respectful.

Theory: Good theory debates are fascinating, but most tend be blocks read against each other with no clash and analysis. Specifically show how the other side is abusive, what education is lost, and why it’s important. Competing interpretations are key for these debates.

Aff: Run whatever you like, as long as you connect it back to the topic. At the end of the debate, why should I prefer the world of affirmative? Set the framework early to tell me how I should evaluate the debate and what impacts I value more.

T: As long as the aff is talking about the topic in some way, I’ll allow latitude. If you’re going for T, be prepared to point to specific ground lost within the context of the debate and why it’s important.

Framework: It is important to lay out the grounds for how I should evaluate the debate. What arguments should I value and why should I value it? Recently, I will default utilitarian unless told otherwise.

Disads: The link debate here is key. Be prepared to offer specific analysis as to why the case causes the impacts of the disad and why the status quo or CP is better. While most DA are fine, politics DA tend to be uphill battles in front of me. If you’re going politics, historical precedent is important. Lay out a predictable pattern of behavior.

Kritiks: Like most K debaters, I have lower patience for bad K debate. While I’ve run everything from Psychoanalysis to Ecofeminism, don’t assume my knowledge of the literature to win your debate. With K debates, examples and context are important to clarify the K itself. At he end of the round how should I evaluate to the K impact against the case. You can win the links but if you can’t articulate why your impacts are more important than the aff’s, I won’t find the K persuasive.

Performance: Like K debate, good performance is fascinating and bad performance is hard to watch. Personally, I do feel the policy debate is more accessible to the privileged few and elitist at times. However, the principles of argumentation still apply to performance debate. Why should I not value traditional literature? Why is personal experience more important? Who is being excluded and how does your performance affect those on the periphery? Speed bad while rapping just as fast by the is never a good strategy in front of me.

Overall, I believe debate has great value. It’s helped me grow intellectually and made me a more effective communicator. I hope you get something out of each round that’s outside of the W.

I participated in Open division high school debate for 2 years and college debate for one semester. I am most familiar with policy debate. I have since been judging Policy Debate for the last 3 years. 

My judging style is could be described as Tabula Rasa, however on Kritique and Debate Theory arguments, I require that these be well developed, or they are easily defeated with Topicality and Fairness counter arguments.  If you do run a Kritik, I encourage you to know the philosophy to some depth.  There have been a number of rounds where I have had to begrudgingly vote for a K, even though it was clear that the team running it was not well versed in, say Nihilism.  As a Tabula Rasa judge, it is up to you to properly define the framework within which the round should be judged.

I prefer a few, well reasoned arguments that are carried, developed, and built upon throughout the round.  Most rounds typically come down to the rebuttals, where the debaters tell me the important issues, how, and why I should vote in their favor.  I like to have a clear, concise summary of the issues you believe are important, and where you stand.

Roadmaps and sign posts are a key component, and especially necessary if you spread.  Spreading should be done in a way that still conveys your arguments and logic. While communication skill is important, I will weigh issues more heavily in a decision. 

tl;dr yeah, you can go fast

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: jrmartin707@gmail.com

--

Debated in college for UC Berkeley, have coached high school and college teams at local and TOC levels, etc. Doing a bit of occasional coaching and judging now but I'm not plugged into the circuit hardcore; you should assume I'm familiar with everything argumentatively/stylistically and very little on the topic. Generally, same stuff everyone says: debate like you want to debate, explain things and impact them, tell me why you winning or losing an argument does or does not influence my decision, and have fun. Otherwise, here’s some things you probably want to know:

- My own argumentative evolution has been from a pretty exclusively K debater early on to almost all policy work by the end, though I've coached all kinds. For what it’s worth, if you need an easy way to rank me, I lean more and more towards enjoying straight-up policy debates the more I judge. It's tough to disentangle "what are you a good judge for" and "what are you gonna have more fun watching" sometimes, even though they're definitely different, so I'm just gonna be honest and say that if you have no good reason to pick the K or the DA or which of your affs you're gonna read, might as well read the policy one. My favorite debates to judge are: huge in-depth case throwdowns, techy aff-specific counterplan debates, K on K clashes that are grounded in true disputes in the literature, impact turn debates (on the case or against a DA/K), and well-executed topicality debates.

- I do fundamentally believe that framework is true and debate would be better if people read plans, not that that means I exclusively vote negative in those debates. Predictability and debatability sound like pretty important things to me, and I think most aff framework counter-interps do not develop a feasible role for the negative and what neg prep should look like in their version of debate, but that doesn't mean any given neg team executes properly. I think like most everyone I’d rather here some clever unique strategy, but I dislike the dichotomy that framework isn’t a “substantive” argument and that the negative “didn’t engage the aff” by reading it. It's a good argument. The best aff answers lay out really clear alternatives for what debate should look like and impact turn all the skills that policy-focused debate generates.

- I’m generally unpersuaded by arguments along the lines of “the permutation/framework/etc. is violence/stealing our advocacy/etc.”, arguments that the negative doesn’t have to disprove the affirmative, purely nihilistic alternatives, and K speeches that consist entirely of buzzwords where you expect me to fill in what I already know about your concepts. I’m not afraid to give decisions which consist mostly of “I have no idea what you were talking about most of the time” if you just repeated the words “rhizome” or “foundational antagonism” at me, even if I know what you were trying to mean. Additionally, I'm super not down with arguments that are about things outside of the debate, like "show us your prefs" style stuff. I think the other team needs like a ten second defense of "you can only critique stuff we actually said" and I'm checked out.

- I have relatively few strong predispositions about common theory arguments; conditionality is probably fine but not necessarily, etc. I'll be extremely flow-centric here: I have absolutely voted for really bad theory args that got dropped, and also refused to vote for dropped ones when they were never a full argument with an impact in the first place.

- Evidence comparison, and calling out your opponent’s terrible, terrible evidence for what it is, is both extremely important and probably the best way to rack up your speaker points, alongside detailed impact calculus. The best ways to hurt your speaker points are to be a jerk to your partner, to get angry for no reason in cross-ex, and to spend your whole speech behind your laptop not paying any attention to the judge's reactions. Try to be a kind person who knows their stuff and the rest will follow.

- Because so many debates start with the question, "Can we do open CX?", the answer is always the same: you can, technically, there's no rule against it. But I would really recommend you don't - it's always better to get practice handling your CXs alone, going to your partner only as a last resort. It's important that they have the time to prep their next speech (that's three full minutes of free prep time!) and it's also much better for both of your speaker points if you each look organized and have mastery of your material.

TL;DR- Competed competitively in high school for three years but have been "out of the loop" for a couple of years. I've only done a few rounds on the topic, so please don't assume too much background knowledge on your cases, even if they are common for this year. Fine with everything, but topicality needs to have in round impacts for me to vote on it. If you're super techy that's fine, but please spell out to me how each of your arguments interact with each other if it gets into an in-depth Framework debate, especially in the rebuttals.

If you have more time to read about me-

Experience: Competed in Policy for thee years at a school in Northern Utah (Sky View High School). I never went to the TOC but I made it to a few bid rounds my Junior and Senior year and got 4th Speaker at NSDA Nats. I almost exclusively read and ran critical arguments (Afro-pessimism primarily) and honestly was never the most techy of debaters, but I can follow and appreciate a good "traditional" round as well. I took two years off after high school and am now a sophomore at Harvard College and generally help coach for the Urban Debate League in Boston.

Affs- Don't really have a preference on if it's topical or not, but I want to know what exactly I'm voting for if I send in an aff ballot (so if that's an advocacy statement or an idea or a narrative, just make sure it's clear to me what the affirmative is AFFIRMING. Or if you don't think you need to affirm something, make sure you clearly lay out why that is and what my ballot does in that case). The narrative of the 1ac should be clear throughout the round, so please have at least case overviews in the 2ac (and if you're reading a traditional case, please extend each of your impact scenarios you plan on going for in each speech).

CP's/DAs- Chill with basically everything. Regardless of my personal opinions on PICS/Severance CPs, it's all good with me until the other team reads theory. Then I'll evaluate that theory based on the in-round impact and the standards presented. Please have a net-benefit, but whether that's internal or external is up to you.

T- If you're going to go for this in the 2nr, please have in round impacts. If not, I highly doubt that I am going to vote for it. Just being honest.

K's- This is more my home, but I have been out of the game for a bit so make sure you clearly explain your links and alternative to me throughout the debate. I expect you to have some sort of framing as well, so that should be presented to me in the block if not earlier. Good K debate isn't about just talking past the Aff team with big words, I want to hear some in-depth analysis on how your K interacts specifically with their aff (not just the topic in general), what the impacts are, how your alternative solves (or doesn't if that's conducive with your literature), etc etc. If I don't understand what I'm voting for or why I'm voting, then I'm not going to do it.

Theory- Unless there has been some very clear abuse, I likely won't make it a voting issue. I'm much more likely to side with a "x justifies y" line of argument where them doing something unfair justifies you doing something unfair as well.

FW- Not the most experienced in this area, but I definitely think it's a viable strategy/thing to include in the round. Just be sure you explain to me what exactly your vision of debate is under your framing, the reasons for preferring that vision, and if it gets really nit-picky than please please flag for me the most important issues/arguments that you are winning, and how winning that point interacts with the remaining points.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask me before round.

Debate however you debate best! I would prefer you to run your best strategy and play to your strengths rather than adapt to my argument preference.

Speed is fine, clarity is good.

Treat everyone in the room with respect.

I debated in high school (policy) and college (policy but mostly parliamentary) and have been judging off and on for nearly 10 years.

I try to be as much of a blank slate as I can and am open to hearing any argument that you wish to make. But I expect debaters to be respectful to the other team and the audience. Convince me why your framework is best and why you best achieve your framework and you'll win the round. If one side drops framework, I will assume whatever framework the other team gives me.

Please extend your positions throughout the debate. If you drop an entire position in a speech, even if you bring it back later, I will vote on fairness/violation issues (but only if the other team actually explains the nature of the violation and why I should care that there was a violation in the round).

I will only ask to see evidence if there has been a direct challenge by the opposing team to its content or validity. In general, I try to avoid this if it all possible.

I'm okay with speed but am not as fast as I used to be. I ask that you be clear and I won't punish you if I have to ask you to be slower mid-speech. I also only judge a couple tournaments each year and therefore have limited topic knowledge.