Zach Brisson

I debated @ Arizona State 2014-15, 2018-19, did three years of policy and one year of LD @ McClintock HS, 2010-2014.

Fancy myself as rigidly line-by-line. I default to offense/defense unless otherwise told. Will hear all good arguments, would prefer none of the bad ones. Intervention is bad and instruction to read a piece of evidence in place of explaining it shouldn't be part of a speech.

In terms of strategy, I believe depth is preferable to breadth. This applies to both sides. Well-developed, smaller negative strategies are almost invariably better than dumping everything you have in the box into the 1NC. Similarly, affs often benefit by banking on their central offense throughout the debate.

K Affs/FW: ... impact comparison and crystalization often gets lost in aff strategy, so do that. For neg teams running framework, these debates are more easily won on the substance side over theory. ...

Theory: ... will have to go in on a very clear abuse scenario has occurred in round to make this a viable option, ... Critical conditionality is good stuff and I have a slightly lower threshold for condo, in general. Other theory arguments are 99 out of a 100 times a reason to reject the argument.

The rest is pretty run-of-the-mill, please ask for any clarification. Questions to zach.brisson@gmail.com

Clarity and conciseness are very important with logical flow of ideas.

Normal paced delivery with an emphasis of quality of information over quantity are also very desirable attributes.

I am a 5th year LD coach for BASIS Phoenix in Arizona.

I did LD in high school (2009 - 2013) primarily in the Oklahoma local circuit attending a small private Christian school that no longer exists (American Christian School in Bartlesville, OK if you're curious).

Add me to e-mail chains: chisumdebate@gmail.com

SHORT VERSION

- Don't spread.

- Traditional LD good. Policy good. K’s good. Philosophy good. All of these have the caveat that if I don’t understand the argument and its warrants, I won’t vote on it.

- I have and will vote for non-topical cases, but I have a high threshold for doing so. My prior is that topicality is good for debate, and that debate itself is good. You are free to try to convince me otherwise in-round.

- Frivolous Theory bad (“I know it when I see it”). Tricks bad.

- Give voters; be clear how you want me to evaluate the round.

- Warrants, warrants, warrants. I need clear and developed reasons to believe your argument.

- Be respectful.

EXTENDED VERSION

Presentation

As said above, do not spread. That goes double in an online format where clarity is already impacted. I'm concerned about the quality, not the quantity of arguments presented, so excessive speed is both unnecessary and harmful. If you are going too fast for my taste, I will say "Clear!" After saying "clear" twice, I will simply stop flowing if you are still going too fast.

A lot of people ask me "How fast is too fast?" Here's my answer: Speak to me as you would speak to the most intelligent person you know who is not at all involved in debate.

Argumentation

I'm willing to vote on basically any argument that is well-warranted, clearly explained, and persuasively argued.

I have limited familiarity with most K and phil literature, so do not assume I will understand your arguments beforehand. If you do not believe you can explain the literature within the round in a way I can understand, probably don't run that K.

Policy Stuff

In terms of impact weighing, I tend to be more friendly to weighing on probability over magnitude (especially on extinction scenarios that are poorly warranted and obviously false). Instead of thinking solely of doomsday scenarios, risk evaluation is a much more practical way of thinking about impacts (and is much closer to how policy-makers in the real world make decisions).

For counter-plans, be careful that you are actually competitive to the Aff. I'm iffy on some of the more "tricky" CPs (Condo CPs, certain PICs, Agent CPs etc.), and I find perms or theory args against them to be fairly persuasive, so be careful about that.

Theory and Topicality

I have a high threshold for theory. In my view, theory ought to be a check on actual abuse, so if you're intending to run frivolous theory (I know it when I see it; you know you're running it), striking me is probably a good idea.

There are two questions that I will be willing to outright answer in the middle of a round:
1. “Judge, do you consider my theory (or my opponent’s theory) argument ‘frivolous’ theory.”
2. “Judge, do you consider my case (or my opponent’s case) topical.”

If I consider a theory arg frivolous, it will not be evaluated on my ballot, and it does not need to be addressed in rebuttals. If I do not consider a theory argument frivolous, it will be evaluated on my ballot and can be won by either side.

If I consider a case topical, I will not evaluate any topicality arguments on my ballot. If I do not consider a case topical, then I will be evaluating topicality arguments on my ballot, and either side may win that portion of the debate.

Other

I am a stickler on warrants. I need to understand why and how a claim creates specific impacts. If I don't understand your warrant or if it just doesn't follow, the only way I'll vote on it is if your opponent drops it entirely (and you extend it). Note: just because you have a card that makes a claim does not mean you have a warrant for why that claim is true.

If your opponent drops an argument, don't assume you automatically win the debate, or even that portion of the debate. You must extend that argument and tell me why it's important that it goes through.

Give voters. Tell me exactly why you should win the round. If you do your job as a debater, my RFD should sound extremely similar to the end of your last rebuttal.

As a last point, debaters should be respectful to each other and have fun. There's no reason to ever be disrespectful to an opponent or engage in any behavior that makes debate a less accessible and enjoyable activity.

I am a parent judge. This is my third year judging debate tournaments. Speak clearly, at a conversational pace and don't go off topic.

I am a relatively experienced judge and have competed in LD. I need to be able to hear and understand your case so please do not spread. I value a strong framework, relevant and well-used evidence, and good blocks.

I have a BA degree in Political Science and Journalism. My career was doing political fundraising for National and Statewide candidates until I decided to be a stay at home mom.

I am a parent judge who has been judging for 7 years, I have judged in Indiana and Arizonia. Most of judging has been in PF and Congress with a lot of Parli experience in Congress.

For scoring I need to be able to understand what your points are. In other words if you spread so fast I cannot understand you I cannot award you the points. A roadmap is fine but not necessary. Definitions of key points are important so that I know what you are using as a focus.

Being able to defend your opponents questions is the most important point for me. A canned speech that does not react to the round will not score well with me.

Please, please, please sign post and do your best to speak in a conversational manner. Also, if you can work in a mention of The Andy Griffith Show, you MAY end up with an additional speaker point!

Speech/LD coach 4 years; Policy debated in HS for 2 years at Brophy. Currently on the ASDCA subcommittee for Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, & Justice.

I will hear any arguments, I enjoy creative/outside-the-box cases when supported well. I can handle spreading, but it must be clear, and tech can often ruin that clarity.

My hope for the round is that it does not become a card-war, but a thoughtful analysis of ideas in said cards. Please offer key voter analysis to conclude your speeches.

LD:

This is my 8th year judging LD; I am a former competitor and a former LD coach. I'm currently working on a PhD in Molecular and Cellular Biology at Arizona State with a focus on the development of universal vaccines against influenza and enjoy giving back to the speech and debate community.

I prefer traditional argumentation, but that's all it is: a preference. I'm fine with, and welcome, speed and progressive argumentation (K's, DA's, CP's, perf, T, you can run whatever you want). Make sure you make good use of crystallization an key voters in the 2NR/2AR to ensure that I'm not missing whatever you feel is most important for my consideration.

Clear authors and taglines are appreciated, add me to the email chain/use the file share, and (specifically for novices) don't forget to crystallize, impact calc, extend, etc. Haikus are cool.

Policy:

See my LD paradigm but throw out the traditional argumentation thing (though there was one round I judged where the teams agreed to use LD style argumentation which was simultaneously disorienting and awesome). It's been a while since the days when I judged policy regularly. I didn't' do policy when I used to compete, and the activity has evolved so much in the couple of years since I regularly judged it. Bear with me, add me to the email chain, and feel free to ask me before round if you have any specific questions about anything.

I am a certified theatre educator and director with over 15 years of directing experience.

1) Movement - how choreography is incorporated whether it is body language of different characters to make them stronger, or use of a black book creatively.

2) Fluid story - I should know from beginning to end the rising action, climax, falling action, and resolve in your story. If it is a POI, I should see the same thing in the cutting of the pieces.

3) Hidden message - from the teaser to the introduction, all the way to the end of the piece, I want to be able to understand the hidden message of why you picked this piece(s) to support something you are passionate about.

4) Characters - There should be distinguished characters in each of the pieces. If you have multiple characters in one piece, each one should have a different "story", body language and voice to tell them a part.

For LD:

1) Evidence - using evidence sufficiently to support the claims in your argument.

2) Argument - your argument has to make sense, meaning you can't just argue that your opponent is wrong because of everything you already said. In cross I expect a new form of argument that still supports your stance.

3) Claims - I should hear a speech in your debate that clearly states the issues and how you resolve it.

I’ve been coaching debate of all varieties for over 20 years now. I love this activity, and believe it teaches some important and useful skills.

What you want to know:

1. Speed is fine. Be clear.

2. Disclosure is preferable at circuit tournaments (I’m less concerned about it locally).

3. Progressive arguments, in general, are good by me. Some caveats:

A. I generally prefer to vote on substantive issues over procedural ones. My threshold for theory is fairly strict, and the abuse has to be pretty clear.
B. Tricks aren’t cute. They’re intellectually dishonest bad faith arguments that I think are bad for debate. Run them if you must, but I’m generally disinclined to reward them.
C. Kritiks based on identity arguments (fem rage/trans rage/etc.) are relevant and important, but if you do not identify with the positionality upon which the kritik is based, and are running the argument for its strategic value, you are doing a really bad thing by co-opting a discourse to which you have no right or claim, and commodifying it for wins. Do better.

4. Good impact analysis is important to me, explain clearly why you should win. Tell me the story you want me to believe.

5. Don’t tell lies. Bad debate math counts as lies. I’m happy to evaluate all arguments, but lies are not arguments. There isn’t room in this activity for intellectual dishonesty.

6. Have fun, be kind and generous and charitable. This is a really rewarding game, even when you take an L. Enjoy it, and help others enjoy it too.

Edit for 2024: This applies largely to high school LD debate. I believe these things in general for all debate, but ask me if you have questions about specifics at a tournament. Thank you!

I was a judge last year and looking forward to listening to your arguments.

I'm looking for debaters to present with clarity, not just spewing facts and figures. I will also look to see how each side addresses the points the other team brings up, especially during cross.

I'm a limited prep coach now, and in high school, I predominantly competed in extemp with the occasional PF and BQ.

I like a good framework and relevant and strong evidence. I also strongly value a well-structured speech & the ability to defend it well. I love me a good off-time road map but please follow it in your speech.

PF:

I typically count reading cards that were called as part of prep time, but that's mainly for the sake of keeping rounds running on-time and not spending forever in a round because of card calling.

I WANT TO HEAR A WEIGHING OF THE ROUND IN SUMMARY & FINAL FOCUS SPEECHES. Otherwise you're leaving me to weigh the round for you and nobody wants that.

LD:

As long as you are clear, I have no preference for what you run. I will vote off what you give me. With that in mind, be very careful about running FW debates unless you have a specific reason to do so because I have seen it get messy quickly when students don't run it well.

I hate spreading. To me, a good debater does not need to rely on speed in order to win a round, and spreading makes the event less accessible overall. I can handle pretty fast speeds of talking, so don't feel like you have to go conversational, but if you're sacrificing enunciation for speed, that's where I draw the line.

Add me to the email chain at amy.lindteigen@gmail.com :)

Former Forensics coach - I've judged many debate rounds before. I prefer medium speed speaking. Organization of speeches and clarity moving point to point is very important to me.

- No spreading!

- I take into account what is said during cross

- I also take into account your attitude and the amount of professionalism that you show.

- I have only judged PF, so please explain LD and it's components before you speak.

He/Him/His. Hi I'm Nik. I was LD captain at Arizona College Prep for 3 years, and now I’m a data engineer. It's really hard to get a 30 from me, but if you do you're probably my new best friend. Would I like to be on the email chain? Why, I thought you'd never ask! nikpearce1@gmail.com

TLDR: Tech > Truth, Pref me if you read Bostrom

Speed: Slow down if I'm not familiar with what you're reading. I'm fine with almost any speed, but if you start slurring or becoming incomprehensible in some manner, I will say clear. The more times I say clear, the more speaker points you'll probably lose.

Order: Theory/T > K > all else, unless you tell me otherwise.

Framing: I need to know how to weigh the round. Therefore, I need a good framework debate with a clear winner by the end of the 2AR in order for me to make a decision. You really don't want me to make this decision for you, as one of you probably won't be happy. This doesn't mean the framing debate needs to take forever (if it does, I probably won't be happy), but, 15-30 seconds at the top of the rebuttal wouldn't hurt.

Ks: I'll have an easier time understanding lit I'm familiar with, which includes Boudrillard, Foucault, Cap, Anthro, Citizenship, Militarism, Set Col. That doesn't mean you shouldn't run other lit in front of me, but if you do, make sure you lay out your links and impacts clearly so I can understand why your topic matters more than what your opponent is discussing.

Theory: I ran theory when I was a debater and I'm open to hearing theory in round, just make sure your definitions are very clear. I default to Theory > K, but it's easy to convince me otherwise.

Speaks: If you care about speaker points, pay attention, as my system for achieving good speaks is somewhat unorthodox.

30: Be the best debater I've ever seen, or sing to me the entire first verse of Lose Yourself, by Eminem.

29: Be an all around solid debater who I legitimately think can win the tournament, or make half of your case Bostrom/existential crisis impacts.

28: Be a solid debater who I definitely think should break, or make a quarter of your case Bostrom/existential crisis impacts.

27: Be a good debater with lot's of potential, I may have had to say clear a few times, or at least mention Bostrom/existential crisis impacts.

26: I probably had to say clear multiple times, but your case was alright.

25: You screwed up somewhere, switched sides, stumbled, sat down with 1 minute left to speak, etc.

20: You were objectively bigoted in some way shape or form to your opponent, myself, or really anyone.

Best of luck!

”Do I need to be liked? Absolutely not. I like to be liked. I enjoy being liked. I have to be liked, but it's not like this compulsive need to be liked, like my need to be praised.” -Michael Scott

Philosophy major, former Forensics coach and AP English teacher, current writer for a marketing startup in Kansas City. I've judged quite a few debate rounds before, but you can almost consider me a 'lay' judge. I don't like jargon. I prefer medium speed speaking. Organization of speeches and clarity moving point to point is important to me. This is all about being convincing and confident. Reading something robotically, really quickly, filling your speech with little data points that even you don't understand, does not convince anyone.

I love it when you are able to say, "Ok, here is basically what happened so far in the round. You may have heard this and this, and this and this, but THIS is what you really should focus on, and here is why." I love the clarity and authority that such a move brings.

This is all about having fun, being respectful of your opponent, and being reasonable!

I am a lay judge who does not understand jargon (e.g. words such as solvency, counterplan, kritik, disad). Treat the debate like a performance. Do not spread. I do flow. I prefer traditional over progressive. I listen to and consider cross-ex in making decisions. I would like impact calculus and key voters in your speeches to condense the round and make it easier for me to vote.

Debate:

I am a relatively new judge. Please speak slowly, or I will not be able to flow and judge this debate properly. I am not familiar with much debate jargon either, so please sum things up nicely and tell me what exactly to weigh on.

I was a policy debater for four years in high school and four years in college at Arizona State University. I debated at the NDT in 1988 and 1989, and broke in 1989.

I don't have strong opinions what arguments should or should not be made. I'm fine with critiques, framework, theory and performance but also like "traditional" (plan, solvency, topicality and disad) debates. My verbal paradigm when I'm asked is that I have probably seen it all and have voted for it at some point. I am fine with speed and will take a flash of the speeches to get a better idea of the evidence as it is being presented. My RFD's are based on in-round arguments. I've been a volunteer coach and judge since about 2008 and in that time have judged multiple debates on each year's policy topic. I also judge Lincoln Douglas with the same paradigm.

email chain: cammiesoderquist@gmail.com

History: Former LDer and policy debater in previous century. LD state champ, nationals, etc.

Side note: I get that 21st century LD has become more like policy in regards to solvency, plans, spreading and the like. I like direct clash, thus I prefer LD stay in LD camp ("should we...?") and policy stay in policy camp ("how do we solve...?"), but I'll judge fairly on what's presented. I'm a flow judge.

-----------------------------------

Specifics:

Framework. If two are presented, tell me why yours is superior or, better yet, how you uphold both.

Argumentation. Claim, warrant, impacts. Please weigh everything in rebuttals and explain why I have no choice but vote for you.

***This is probably the most important point I can make. Don't just say your evidence says the opposite of your opponent's evidence. Explain WHY your evidence is superior, and if both are saying the opposite, WHY yours still outweighs. I want to hear the analytics.***

Theory. Explain why critical. I will not vote on frivolous theory, but I have voted on educationally-sound theory before (ex: time skew spreading abuse).

DAs. Be explicit on uniqueness. I'd love to see interesting impacts other than the tiresome environmental extinction, nuke war. (ex: DA with impact of losing one's soul/loneliness/isolation. It was awesome!)

Ks. These can be interesting, but this is often less clash. Explain why you would choose this strategy instead of direct clash. (If you can't explain why, don't do it.) Make link obvious. I rarely vote for Ks because I have seen many debaters reuse them to avoid preparing on the new topic. I have voted on a few which were extremely well executed and applicable. (ex: Trans K ran on "The illegal use of drugs ought to be treated as a matter of public health, not criminal justice." with examples of hormone therapy--expertly applied to topic.)

Plans/CPs. Not my fav at all. We're not solving things in LD, that's policy, but I will judge fairly provided links and uniqueness are strong and why yours is clearly better.

Spreading. Don't. Although I was a policy spreader, this technique should stay in policy debate, simply due to the evidentiary requirements to support plans. LD doesn’t require proof as it’s asking “should?”, and I want to hear the reasoning not blasting of evidence. Instead of spreading, convince me with your amazing and unique analysis and weighing. I won't call "clear". That's not a speed appropriate for clash and crystallization.

Tricks. Don't like 'em. Instead of these tactics, wow me with your analytics, CX and and knowledge of reso.

-----------------------------------

Things that make me happy:

• Argument clash, crystallizing why your position is superior and why you win the round. Make it easy, do the weighing for me.

• Strategic CX. Lay foundation for args in speech and I'll be singing Pharrell Williams. I LOVE CX! (Unless it's brought up in speech, though, it won't flow, but just say "as I showed in CX, or as my opponent agreed to in CX.")

• Key voters. (Don't just list contentions, have the REAL KEY VOTERS of that round and why you win.)

Things that make me sad:

• Giving a win due to a dropped arg instead of why.

• 1NC spreading for the express purpose of the above (weak tactic).

• Referring to cards by citation only in rebuttals. You’ve heard your case 20x, I haven't. Don't just refer to the citation (ex. "williams '20"), please use tag and cite (ex. "my williams '20 card that explains the negative psychological impacts blah blah")

-----------------------------------

Random:

• There's a word I love (mentioned 10x above). Use it often, and it will make you a superior debater.

• Evidence is important, but a logical, well-thought-out argument to question evidence is even better. Analytics is what I see missing from LD nowadays, and it's very sad. It shouldn't be who can blast as many pieces of evidence, it should be who can logically and thoughtfully use the evidence to make an argument and support it the best. I love unique arguments based on simple logic. (ex: "The US ought not provide military aid to authoritarian regimes" where Neg explained the psyche of dictators is that they ONLY speak in terms of weaponry thus applying Aff's examples to Neg and gaining those impacts. Unique and brilliant strategy!)

• I leave bias (political, social, etc.) at the door and only judge on what is in round. Do not worry about any arg that I might personally disagree with--doesn't matter. I was a debater; I get it. Tech over truth, except for totally obvious historical facts.

• Casual/friendly. Be comfy, take off jacket, heels; hope opponents can be friends--joke and laugh

My primary coaching event is Congressional Debate. Don't freak out, I prefer the debate portion of the event as my high school background is in PF/LD.

For CD: I’ll always consider a balance of presentation, argumentation, and refutation. If you happen to drop the ball on one of those traits during a speech, it won’t ruin your rank on my ballot. I look for consistency across the board and most importantly: What is your speech doing for the debate? Speaking of which, pay attention to the round. If you're the third speaker in the row on the same side, your speech isn't doing anything for the debate. I definitely reward kids who will switch kids or speak before their ideal time for the sake of the debate, even if it's not the best speech in the world.

For both PF/LD: As long as you're clear/do the work for me, I have no preference for/against what you run/do in the round. I'll vote off of what you give me. With that, I really stress the latter portion of that paradigm, "I'll vote off of what you give me". I refuse to intervene on the flow, so if you're not doing the work for me, I'm gonna end up voting on the tiniest, ickiest place that I should not be voting off of. Please don't make me do that. Respect the flow and its links.

PF specific: I love theory. I don't prefer theory in PF, but again I'll vote off of where the round ends up...it'd be cool if it didn't head in that direction as a good majority of the time you can still engage in/ win the debate without it.

I don't time roadmaps, take a breather and get yourself together.

Speed isn't an issue for me in either event.

Avoid flex prep.

I prefer googledocs to email for evidence sharing (brittanystanchik@gmail.com).

While I have not participated in speech and debate myself, I have been judging Lincoln Douglas debate for several years now and am trained in traditional forms of debate. If you want to use progressive argumentation, that is fine as long as you are clearly explaining your argument and defining any rare terms you use. It helps to tell me why you're winning the framework debate and why that matters in the round. Also, please roadmap, do key voters, etc. Impact calc and extensions will help you immensely. I'm not comfortable with spreading (very high rates of speech); if I cannot understand you, I can't flow you, and that's not good for anyone. I'll say "clear" as a heads-up if I can't keep up with you.

It's important to me that everyone is considerate to one another and has fun!

Lay Judge. Prefer traditional. Please go slower. Looking to hear clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.