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.

IPDA DEBATE

This is my judging philosophy shown in my Tabroom judging paradigm.

ABOUT ME: I have been judging the IPDA debate for over four years now. This is my favorite and preferred type of debate to judge.

MY JUDGING PARADIGM AT A GLANCE: IPDA Debate is an audience-friendly style of intercollegiate debate. In stark contrast to NFA-LD, CEDA CX, NDT, or NPDA, I will not tolerate any heckling or spreading. I ascribe to the principles of IPDA as mentioned within the IPDA Constitution and its By-Laws. Hence, I expect a highly rhetorical and oratorical-based style/approach from both debaters. This means you lose my ballot if you insist on excessive speed, "spreading" or stacking too many contentions, not being cordial, or using unnecessary meta-debate jargon and techniques.

PREP TIME: Preparation time occurs before the actual debate round. The 30-minute prep-time period shall commence upon the first negative strike. That means you’ll need to choose your topics wisely but promptly. I also advise debaters to prep ALONE without the presence of other fellow teammates or coaches to limit distractions. Plus, I believe that students should be crafting their arguments and evidence without assistance.

DISCLOSURE: Normally, I don’t coach debaters to disclose their weighing mechanism or argumentation framework to their opponents before the round since it could give the other side an unfair advantage. Nevertheless, I recognize that debaters from different regions may exercise their ability to disclose their side to their opponent as a courtesy gesture. Therefore, if you want to announce your argumentation framework and weighing mechanism to your opponent, you are more than welcome to do so.

DEFINITIONS: AFFIRMATIVE has FIAT POWER and has the right to define the resolution and to provide a useful framework that will guide the entire debate round. The AFF has the right to limit the parameters of the resolution but must do so reasonably. Suppose the AFF provides resolutions that are extratropical (definitions that go beyond the scope of the resolution) “non-topical” (definitions that bear no relevance to the resolution at hand), or abusive or difficult to comprehend. In that case, the NEG has the right to provide alternative definitions that fit the resolution better.

CRITERIA/WEIGHING MECHANISM: Once again, the AFF has FIAT POWER. That means the AFF has the right to set the parameters of the debate that they think is best. However, the AFF must do so reasonably. The AFF must also take time to explain to me why they chose that weighing mechanism. I’ve witnessed many rounds where the AFF provided a weighing mechanism that didn’t fit the resolution or failed to explain their criteria choice adequately. This act resulted in a loss for the AFF for that round. The NEG is more than welcome to provide an alternative criterion if they disagree with the AFF’s weighing mechanism.

ROADMAPPING & SIGNPOSTING: I highly encourage debaters to roadmap all their arguments before the debate round and signpost between main ideas and their subpoints. I expect debaters to keep their argumentation “taglines” concise and intuitive. Moreover, I want to hear organized and detailed debaters and respect their own time limits.

ARGUMENTATION & REFUTATION: For AFF debaters, I expect well-developed definitions, criteria, and arguments with well-reasoned evidence. Since AFF has fiat power and has the “burden of proof,” I expect a thorough explanation of arguments (your claim), evidence (your warrants), and any logical connections to the resolution at hand (your impacts). To the NEG, I expect a direct “clash” of the AFF’s claims and warrants in your constructive case. Since the NEG has a “burden of clash,” you are free to provide disadvantages (DA) or counter plans (CP) to the AFF’s contentions. The NEG should link any off-case positions to whichever NEG philosophy they espouse. To both AFF and NEG debaters, your evidence must have the 5 “R’s”: RECENT, RELIABLE, REPUTABLE, RELEVANT, and REPRESENTATIVE. Your proof must be well-sourced and referenced throughout the speech

ETHICS: I expect both debaters to be courteous and to refrain from heckling or interrupting each other. I expect debaters to refer to each other as “my opponent” and call their names directly. I also expect both debaters to follow the rules of IPDA debate, refrain from looking at other web pages, and have their phones on “airplane mode” during the debate round.

TOPICALITY & META-DEBATE: At times, I understand that their side must present topical arguments addressing their opponent’s deviation from the debate topic at hand. However, I don’t want debaters to spend most of their speaking time issuing topicality arguments or mentioning topicality violations. I also don’t want debaters to regurgitate complex debate terms and jargon that a lay judge cannot easily comprehend.

INDIVIDUAL EVENTS SPEECHES

ORAL INTERPRETATION

I have coached many oral interpretation rounds and developed specific tastes for observing and watching these rounds. I highly value oral interpretation performers that make their performances their own! As a seasoned forensicator, I can quickly tell someone is immersed in their performance piece instead of wholly detached from it.

Don’t just perform for the sake of performing. I want to hear WHY your piece matters. As of late, I feel that oral interpretation has become a lot more persuasive, where performers have added a great deal of advocacy and activism within their performances. Your blocking, facial expressions, posturing, volume, accent, voice, eye contact, and cadence must all be highly expressive and illustrative of your chosen theme, storyline/characters. I will also judge how well your initial teaser, explanation, tension, buildup, climax, and conclusions flow within your piece. I also expect a clean binder technique. I have deducted many speaker points from oral interpretation performers who exhibited sloppy binder techniques and page turns. Lastly, I expect page-turn transitions between scenes and characters to be smooth, not choppy or disjointed.

PROSE: I expect Prose performers to have an illustrious array of Prose literature cut from various texts. I also expect Prose pieces to be centered on storytelling based on a first-person narrative. I will judge what theme(s) your piece is about and how well you chose to interpret your story. I enjoy well-developed Prose performances with an interesting teaser, explanation, tension, build, climax, and conclusion with seamless transitions and highly expressive blocking. I have judged and witnessed many Prose performances resemble DI pieces and vice-versa. This should not be so. As a follower of the AFA-NIET rules and guidelines, Prose and DI categories should be kept separate! I will rank down any Prose performance that resembles a DI piece. Your Prose should focus on storytelling and illustrate how that story develops from a first-person narrative.

POETRY: I love judging this speech event because I witness creative performances. I will judge Poetry rounds based on poetic literature cut from various sources. You are welcome to present a poetry performance either through a first-person or third-person narrative. I will judge what theme(s) your piece is about and how well you chose to interpret your story. I enjoy Poetry performances that are well-developed with an interesting teaser, explanation, tension, build, climax, and conclusion with seamless transitions and highly expressive blocking

DRAMATIC INTERPRETATION: As per the AFA-NIET rules, I will judge DI performances based on the character-driven themes you’ve chosen to perform during the round. I expect DI performances to be derived from a play script cutting that features different characters that evolve within the piece. I will judge what theme(s) your piece is about and how well you chose to interpret your story. I enjoy well-developed DI performances with an interesting teaser, explanation, tension, build, climax, and conclusion, seamless transitions, and highly expressive blocking. I have judged and witnessed many DI performances resemble Prose pieces and vice-versa. This should not be so. As a follower of the AFA-NIET rules and guidelines, I believe that DI and Prose categories should be kept separate! I will rank down any DI performance that in any way resembles a Prose piece.

PROGRAM ORAL INTERPRETATION: This is my favorite oral interpretation speech to judge. Here, your piece can be centered on literally anything! Therefore, I expect a vast and diverse array of cuttings from many literature sources. Newspaper articles, Tiktok videos, song lyrics, poems, free verse, slam poetry, current events, novels, biographies, and more. This is your opportunity to get very creative about how you construct and interpret your piece. Just as long as it’s organized, free-flowing, and within the 8-to-10-minute limit format. I have witnessed many solid POI pieces get ranked down because the performer either went overtime, under time or wasn’t expressive enough. I will judge what theme(s) your piece is about and how well you chose to interpret your story. As with the other oral interpretation speeches, I enjoy well-developed POI performances with an interesting teaser, explanation, tension, build, climax, and conclusion with seamless transitions and highly expressive blocking.

DUO: As one performer once said, “DUO is like DI, but with friends!” A true and funny statement. Please refer back to my comments on DI performances. I will also judge how well the partners’ roles enhanced the performance and the synchronization of the two performers. Duo partners should look directly at each other but must always maintain eye contact with the audience and the space around them.

LIMITED PREPARATION

IMPROMPTU: I expect Impromptu speakers to ask me their time hand signals before the round. I also don’t allow extra time for speakers to read the quotation after flipping the prompt on the desk. Speakers generally use up about 2 minutes to prepare their 5-minute speech. I will rank down speakers who go vastly under time or overtime. I will also rank down speakers who take excessive preparation time and rely on their notecards too much during the round. “Canned” attention getters (AGD) and examples will also be ranked down. I will judge speakers based on the merits of their interpretation of the quotation, their taglines, arguments, relevant supporting examples, and summarization at the very end. Speakers should keep their arguments and supporting examples succinct because this is a limited preparation event.

EXTEMPOREANEOUS: I expect Extemp speakers to report to their designated extemp draw location on time. I also expect extemp speakers to have a cursory knowledge about the question they’ve selected. I appreciate extempers who tell me what their question is before they begin speaking. Extemporaneous speakers should always ask me what their time hand signals are before they commence their speech. I will rank down speakers who do not adhere to the 7-minute speaking time limit and who don’t adequately explain their arguments and examples. I will also rank down speakers whose arguments are poorly developed or deviate from their chosen question. “Canned” attention getters (AGD) and examples will also be ranked down. Like IPDA debate, I value speakers who explain their arguments and examples in an audience-friendly format with no spreading or speed talking.

PUBLIC ADDRESS SPEECH

Public Address (PA) speeches have always been fascinating to me. During my competition days, I used to compete in only PA’s! I expect PA speakers to have their speeches completely memorized and rehearsed before the round. I will rank down any PA speaker who is not fully memorized or relies on notecards during their speech. I expect PA speeches to be thoroughly referenced with at least 8 – 10 recent sources from within the past calendar year. Speeches should be centered on topics that pertain to each speech category ascribed by the AFA-NIET rules and by-laws. PA speeches must be at least 8 minutes long and should go over the 10-minute limit.

INFORMATIVE: Informative speeches are designed to inform the audience about a new scientific innovation or discovery, historical events or individuals, or informative speeches about social causes or issues currently happening within our society. Therefore, I expect informative speeches to be topical, timely, and intriguing. I will rank down informative speeches with old and recycled topics or poorly conceived themes. Generally, I expect info speeches to 8 – 10 minutes long with well-constructed implications.

PERSUASIVE: Persuasive speeches are designed to change and alter the audience's beliefs, attitudes, and opinions about an important subject. These speeches are a form of advocacy. Therefore, I expect your Persuasive to highlight the depth/extent of the problem(s) and explain how that problem came to be before finally explaining solutions. I expect your solutions to be practical, plausible, and plausible. These speeches must also be 8 – 10 minutes long.

AFTER-DINNER SPEAKING: After-Dinner speaking speeches (ADS) are often modeled in a persuasive speaking format. Like my comments for Persuasive, I expect ADS speeches to change and alter the audience's beliefs, attitudes, and opinions about an important subject. These speeches are a form of advocacy. Jokes should be unique and must be done in good taste. I will rank down speeches with excessive swearing, references to sexual objects or genitalia, or jokes that are racist or offensive. I will also rank down ADS speeches with too many self-deprecating jokes. I expect your ADS solutions to be practical, plausible, and imaginative. These speeches must also be 8 – 10 minutes long.

COMMUNICATION ANALYSIS: Communication Analysis (or Rhetorical Criticism) is a factual speech about an artifact explained through a theoretical framework centered upon a research question. Therefore, I will judge your CA based on the merits of your artifact, your explanation of the theoretical model, the application and implication of the model, and your research question. I will also critique how well you explained the significance of your artifact to me. I will rank down any CA that doesn’t adequately describe what their artifact is and why it matters. CA speeches should be topical and informative about artifacts worthy of analysis.