Email for chains: chrisbrannen(at)gmail. com (Put the @ where the (at) is)

Teacher in Goose Creek CISD

I’ve been an educator for 15 years and coached Debate for 8 years.

On Policy:

* On Impacts: I prefer real-world impacts. I'm generally deciding the debate by weighing the impacts of arguments at the end of the round.

* On Kritiks: I don't like kritiks much, but I recognize they are a thing and that even the actual government uses the reasoning present as a justification for some policy decisions. Personally, I find K logic to be circular and uncompelling. If you and your opponents really want to K debate, I'll hear it and try to judge it but I probably won't enjoy it much. :(

* On DAs: Make sure that you do solid impact comparison. At the end of the round, I need something to weigh. The link controls the direction of uniqueness/the DA, not the other way around. Arguments like this can be helpful to you

*On Framework: If you give me a framework, and win the framing debate, I will view the round through your framework. You still have to impact the debate and win down the flow. In other words, if your opponents meet your framework better than you and say so they win. If your framework is morally repugnant to me I will reject it. In the absence of framework debate, I default policymaker.

* On Topicality: The plan is what makes you topical. I will view the round through the lens of competing interpretations unless you tell me to do otherwise. I don’t think affs need to specify their agent.

* On Speed: I'm good on most speed. I’m kind of deaf so yell. Please signpost clearly and slow down for tags.

* On Theory: I default to reasonability. I'll hear a good theory argument, though, given that it is thoughtful and has a point. I don’t vote for whining. I really don’t care if your opponent hurt your feelings or offended your sensibilities. Beat them on the flow and we can discuss them being mean after the round. I'll even go tell on them to their coach if they were really bad. :)

* On Counter plans: I like them. I prefer single-actor counter plans to multilateral actor counter plans. I generally believe that if the US already belongs to that organization then the counterplan is plan plus or the net benefit doesn’t have a link. Absent debate, I think PICS are good and dispositionality or unconditionality makes for good debate.

* On Decorum: I award speaker points based on my preferences. I like polite debaters who appear to enjoy the activity and I reward that. I like debaters to stand during their speeches and during cross-examination. I find objectionable language unacceptable as it rarely provides a good warrant.

* On Evidence: If you want me to call for evidence, it must be red-flagged in the 2NR or 2AR. I generally find quality round overviews in the last rebuttal to be helpful for me to understand why you think you have won the debate.

* If you have questions about anything, feel free to come talk to me at any tournament. I’ll do my best to answer your questions.

On LD:

# I expect you to share evidence. Don't even wait for your opponent to ask. Plan on sharing it.

# On Speed: I'm good on speed. I’m kind of deaf so yell.

# On Framework: If you don't provide a scale in the round to judge by, I will (likely) fall back on who argued their Value/Criteria framework the best.

# On Plans in LD: I prefer a traditional debate, but some of the resolutions these days really do lend themselves to plans. I don't love them, but I'll try to keep an open mind if you want to run a plan or a CP.

# On Clarity: Use conditional statements and make your logic clear for me. Don't make me guess. I want to hear your reasoning. Don’t make assertions without backing those assertions. (Warrants? Impacts?)

# On Signposting: Signpost clearly. Make sure you remind me where we are and what the order of the arguments are. Repetition is a skill in speeches. It isn’t bad unless you overdo it.

# On Rebuttals: In your rebuttal, crystalize for me. Give me voting issues. Use debate jargon, I’m good with it. I’m looking for who wins the key issues of the debate. Tell me what you think those are and why you think you won them. (Or why you think your opponent lost it.)

# On Decorum: There are lines of decency one should not cross. LD is about values. I have no problem imposing a base level of my own values to the round. I award a wide range of points in debate based on my preferences. I find objectionable language unacceptable as it rarely provides a good warrant.

# If you have questions about anything, feel free to come talk to me at any tournament. I’ll do my best to answer your questions.

On PF:

% I expect you to share evidence. Don't even wait for your opponent to ask. Plan on sharing it.

% On Speed: I'm good on speed, but PF is about communication. Don't be too obnoxiously fast. If you're going faster than Ben Shapiro, you're going too fast. Also, I’m kind of deaf so yell.

% I like frameworks. If you don't give me a framework in the constructive, I will default to reasonability.

% On Clarity: Use conditional statements and make your logic clear for me. Don't make me guess. I want to hear your reasoning. Don’t make assertions without backing those assertions. (Warrants? Impacts?)

% On Signposting: Signpost clearly. Make sure you remind me where we are and what the order of the arguments are. Repetition is a skill in speeches. It isn’t bad unless you overdo it.

% You have to do the order of the speeches and crossfire the traditional way. Don't negotiate to change the times or skip the grand crossfire.

% Use the final focus to tell me why you won. Crystallize the round for me.

On Congress:

! On Structure: Speeches that have solid structure make me glad. Intro/Thesis/Transition/Body/Transition/Conclusion.

! On Clash: DEBATE!!! It is Congressional DEBATE! DEBATE! Clash with your opposition!

! On Decorum: But be nice about it.

! On Argumentation: I don't like or expect the same speech 4 or 5 times in a round. The flow ought to grow. Call out the names of other reps and agree and/or clash with them! I start giving lower scores for speeches where I just hear the same thing. Bring something new! (CLASH, baby, CLASH!!!)

For me, I am looking for the best communicators who have resolved the issues. I lean toward policy-maker simply because I like to stick to the issue rather than go off topic. I will listen to counter plans and vote for them. I will listen to Ks, but I'm not a huge fan. I do NOT like spreading. I can understand a good clip if you enunciate, but I don't want to hear garble for the sake of "getting it all in." Please make sure to roadmap your speech and sign post within your speech. I want to know where we are going and where to flow your arguments. Be polite! Oh and before I forget, make me care about your position. Why should I care about your side of the argument. How is it going to affect my constituents. Have a great round!

In policy debate, I am a HEAVY stock issues judge with the exception of topicality. I usually feel people call T when they do not have anything else to call. Obviously sometimes there are topicality issues. Make it convincing if you call topicality.

I am definitely not a tabula rosa or kritiks judge. I am also not easily convinced by impact calculus. I am looking for who just has the best overall convincing arguments.

Spreading - not a fan. I am 50 years old and just cannot listen that fast. If I did not hear you say it, it did not happen. If you spread, I put my pen down and I will not listen.

I am not a fan of nukes.

Counterplans are okay.

Attorney, and old CX and LD competitor and judge.

1. Mostly a tabula rasa judge (“clean slate”) which means I don’t try and insert my opinions and beliefs into the round. If the debater says “the moon is green” then I must believe that unless the opponent says otherwise. On the other hand, if you are running a low probability argument (like Nuc War), I'm not going to be easily convince of it.

2. Stock judge...I want to hear the stock issues debated...framework in LD, Topicality, Inherency, Solvency and Significance in CX.

3. I believe that this is a full body/mind exercise. In that vein, I expect for everyone to stand when speaking, judiciously use facial and hand gestures, as well as tone of voice, display proper etiquette (“is opponent ready?) and refrain from rude behavior.

4. Cross examination is a critical component of debate. In my opinion, perhaps the MOST critical, as it truly reflects the knowledge, thinking and skills of the two debaters. Students should spend almost as much time preparing for Cross as they do their constructive speeches. I expect a spirited cross.

5. As to LD, I don’t believe that values debate can be completely divorced from the real-world aspects of their decisions.

6. Spreading: Speed, tone and modulation of voice are all aspects of the art of persuasion. Vomiting out arguments in an unending, unbroken, and unmodulated stream of verbiage does NOT appeal to me.

I have taught speech and at the secondary level for 14 years, coaching interp, extemp, and other speaking events. I have taught and coached debate at the high school level for 7 years, having 6 teams qualify for 3A State CX contest within that time.

I am looking for a poised speaker with clear and organized ideas, sharp analytical skills, and powerful persuasion. As long as I can understand you, speed is not a problem for me.

I consider myself a hybrid policy-maker/stock issues judge. I vote on stock issue arguments and impact arguments with equal weight.

I enjoy a well-crafted Counterplan. In the "quality" vs. "quantity" of evidence question, both are regarded as equal importance within the context of the round.

I very rarely appreciate Kritik arguments. It has to be virtually impenatrable for me to vote for it. I do flow rounds, so please provide roadmaps and signposts, then stick to them.

Relax! I am a teacher, first and foremost. I want each round to be a positive learning experience for all involved, regardless of the outcome.

I judge and coach primarily LD Debate and Public Forum, though I have coached some CX, and I married a CXer! I have an Extemp Debate paradigm at the bottom also.

LD Debate:

I consider myself traditional. I do not like what LD has become in the TFA/TOC/National circuit.

I do not like speed. Debaters who spread their opening cases because they are not ready for a traditional judge have not done their homework. Speeding up at the end of a rebuttal because you are running out of time and want to get to the last few points is somewhat forgivable.

I do not like you spouting 27 cards and trying to win the debate just by having more evidence and more points than your opponent. I want you to explain your position clearly. I want you to explain how the evidence you are providing is relevant and how it helps to make a logical argument.

I dislike debate jargon. Debaters tend to develop bad speaking habits as they go through their careers. I like a debater that can talk like a normal human being. For example, rather than saying, "Counterplan" as some overarching title, say, "I want to suggest we do something different."

I do believe that LD Debate is at its core still a values debate. I want to hear you talk about values and explain how a value is reached or not. That said, I prefer a contention level debate to an overly long framework. Think about it...we call it FRAMEWORK, yet some debaters spend nearly the whole speech on it! Give a brief framework and move on to explain the argument that supports your V-C and connects clearly to the resolution.

I like a summary at the end of the NR. For the 2AR, please do NOT think you have to do line-by-line. Stick with a simple explanation of why you won.

PFD:

See the LD paradigm on speed, etc. PFD is about simply convincing me your side is right. If both of you have contradictory evidence for the same point, then point that out, and try to win the argument somewhere else. Presentation matters in PFD more than in any other debate event, except maybe Congress.

CX/Policy:

I'm a stock issues judge. Slow down! Give me clear Harms--Plan--Solvency. Provide clear funding if applicable. I'm good with CP's and like disads. However, I think the nuclear war impact is rather silly and could be destroyed by someone that got up and pointed out that it hasn't happened and likely won't happen just because Russia gets mad. T's are okay, but I don't suggest you put all your eggs in that basket. Knowing that I'm an old LDer, the best CX teams will appeal to my logical side, rather than my "I think I have a card around here somewhere" side.

EXTEMP DEBATE

This is NOT a shorter version of LD or Policy. You have two minutes. Just give me a clear explanation on why your side is correct. Essentially, this is a crystallization debate. Brief evidence is necessary, but this is not a card v. card debate. Don't chastise your opponent for not having evidence for things that are generally known. Don't chastise your opponent for not addressing your case in the Constructive; they don't have to. Don't provide definitions unless it is truly necessary. Don't be FRANTIC! Calm, cool delivery is best.

1. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate?
1. Policy maker
2. Which best describes your priorities in judging policy debate? (check only one)
   _____Communication skills are more important than resolution of substantive issues.
   _____Resolution of substantive issues is more important than communication skills.
   X Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance.
3. Which best describes your philosophy concerning evidence in policy debate? (check only one)
   _____Quantity of evidence is more important than quality of evidence.
   _____Quality of evidence is more important than quantity of evidence.

X_Quantity of evidence and quality of evidence are of equal importance.

1. Indicate your preference for the following items (check one number for each item):
1. Preferred Quantity of Arguments ____1____2__X__3____4____5 (1= limited quantity - 5 =Unlimited quantity)
2. Topicality ____1__X_2__ __3____4____5 (1= rarely vote on – 5 =vote on often)
3. Counterplans __X_1____2__ __3____4____5 (1=Unacceptable – 5 =Acceptable)
4. Disadvantages ____1____2__ __3_X__4____5 (1= Not essential – 5 Essential)
5. Conditional Arguments ____1__X_2__ __3____4____5 ( 1=Unacceptable – 5 =Acceptable)
6. Kritiqs __X_1____2__ __3____4____5 ( 1=Unacceptable – 5 =Acceptable)

Are there any teams you should not judge due to affiliation or prefer not to judge.

Additional Comments: I am a policymaker judge who does not ignore the stock issues. State your case up front as soon as possible and as clearly as possible in the 1AC. Running generic DAs or topicality arguments by the negative is risky, I'm not a fan. I prefer on-case DAs however I've noticed that this year's topic is often attacked and attacked well with "generic" DAs. Well-thought out analysis and evidence of DAs will be essential to winning a NEG ballot. Extinction arguments don't usually sway my vote. Impact calculus will sway me—tell me why the harms/advantages outweigh the disadvantages, and vice-versa. Don't claim abuse on a technicality and don't spread because I am not sympathetic and I think spreading is abusive. If I don’t hear and understand it, it didn’t happen.

SPEAKING AND INTERPRETATION:

I look for the three "P's" when judging events of this type:

(A) Is PRACTICE/PREPARATION evident?

(B) Is the delivery POLISHED?

(C) Is the delivery of the speech (and the behavior and attitude of the speaker, especially towards other competitors) PROFESSIONAL?

If applicable to the event, I also look for a deep and solid analysis of a topic. For example:

(A) Were objections to the speaker's position/thesis thoughtfully considered and addressed in a serious manner (i.e. not just mentioning an objection and then dismissing it outright as ridiculous without further argument)?

(B) Are statements overly general or well-supported by facts, evidence, or specific examples?

(C) Does the speaker, in their speech, contradict themselves or fall victim to the very biases or errors they are advocating against?

DEBATE:

You are there to persuade me, the judge. This means three things:

(A) You must speak clearly and at a rate that I am able to flow as you speak. This means DO NOT SPREAD. It does not matter how many arguments you have, if I as the judge cannot follow and understand them, I cannot be persuaded by them and you will not have time to sufficiently explain and defend them.

(B) You are there to persuade me that your argument is better than your opponent's, not to make your opponent cry. That does not mean you cannot be firm in defending your case and attacking your opponent's, but there is NO excuse for being rude or unprofessional.

(C) Never assume anything about your judge or audience. Do not get caught up in jargon or assume that your listeners know what Kant's categorical imperative (or anything else for that matter) is. If you're going to throw a term or thinker out there like that, you must define and explain it.

For LD, argue from your value and criterion, and use evidence (as needed) to support your arguments. Do NOT turn the debate into a debate over evidence. Persuade me that your value, criterion, and arguments are better than your opponent's, not that you have a “better” or more recent source/card.

Finally, you MUST keep to the allotted time limits, including prep time. "Brief off-time road maps" should be no more that 3 seconds. Period. If your prep time has ended, do not proceed to take 20 more seconds to collect your notes, stand up, and take a drink of water. If your prep time has ended, your prep time has ended.