anthonyrbrown85@gmail.com for the chain

*Please show up to the round pre-flowed and ready to go. If you get to the room before me or are second flight, flip and get the email chain started so we don't delay the rounds.*

Background

Currently the head coach at Southlake Carroll. The majority of my experience is in Public Forum but I’ve spent time either competing or judging every event.

General

You would probably classify me as a flay judge. The easiest way to win my ballot is through comparative weighing. Explain why your links are clearer and stronger and how your impacts are more important than those of your opponents.

Speed is fine but if I miss something that is crucial to your case because you can’t speak fast and clearly at the same time then that’ll be your fault. If you really want to avoid this issue then I would send a speech doc if you plan on going more than 225 wpm.

I do not flow cross so if anything important was said mention it in a speech.

I would classify myself as tech over truth but let’s not get too crazy.

Speaking

Typical speaks are between 27-30. I don’t give many 30s but it’s not impossible to get a 30 from me.

I would much rather you sacrifice your speed for clarity. If you can’t get to everything that you need to say then it would probably be best to prioritize your impacts and do a great job weighing.

Any comments that are intended (or unintended in certain circumstances) to be discriminatory in any form will immediately result in the lowest possible speaker points.

PF Specific

I’m probably not evaluating your K or theory argument at a non-bid tournament. If you’re feeling brave then you can go for it but unless the literature is solid and it is very well run, I’m going to feel like you’re trying to strat out of the debate by utilizing a style that is not yet a norm and your opponents likely did not plan for. If we're at a bid tournament or state, go for it.

Don’t just extend card names and dates without at least briefly reminding me what that card said. Occasionally I write down the content of the card but not the author so if you just extend an author it won’t do you any good.

I have a super high threshold for IVIs. If there's some sort of debate based abuse run a proper shell.

LD Specific (This is not my primary event so I would make sure I check this)

Cheatsheet (1 is most comfortable, 5 is lowest)

Policy: 1

Theory: 2

Topical Ks: 2

Phil: 4

Non-Topical Ks: 4

Tricks: 5

I’ll understand your LARP arguments. I’ll be able to follow your spreading. I can evaluate most K’s but am most comfortable with topical K’s. I will understand your theory arguments but typically don't go for RVIs. I would over-explain if you don’t fall into those categories and adjust if possible.

Speech:

Intros are one of the most important parts of a speech. Make sure to explain your topic well and draw me into your piece and connect it with your story/piece. Be influential.

Movements and gestures need to appear natural, smooth, and flow naturally with speech.

When you are performing the emotions needs to genuine rather that it makes be believe and I'm in the story or it comes to life.  Draw me into your world. 

Debate (PF/LD/WSD):

Do not SPREAD, so what that means is if you are gasping for breaths you are going to fast or if it turns into one long run on sentences then that doesn't do it for me.  I do not need you to read all of your "cards" or evidence but rather snippets of it and the importance/impact of your evidence. 

Make it clear to me, essentially writing the ballot for me will get you the win.  Thus that means you are connecting the points for me rather than me having to guess what the purpose or point is.  

Congress:  Do not repeat the same points over, especially if we have been three rounds of speakers in.  Would prefer some clash and evidence to back up your points and reasons. 

Extemp: A roadmap would be good along with three points.  I like to have two pieces of evidence per each point with a variety of sources. I would like to have an intro and your conclusion to link back to your intro.  If you can weave your intro throughout your entire speech that would be better.   

1. I am a Current DC speech teacher and coach. Background in communications, though I've been within the realm of speech and debate for close to 6 years.

Higher preference in traditional LD rounds, with min spreading. Need to be able to clearly understand and hear contentions and significant points, however won't completely judge against competitors.

2. a. With a preference in traditional LD cases, value and criterions are significant in the round.

b. If using K's, should be clear to follow and refute throughout round.

c. Voting issues should be given, throughout the flow or final rebuttal.

d. Winner decided by key arguments and sense of persuasion.

e. Notes/flow is taken based off off significant arguments throughout round. If I cannot follow, I cannot judge.

Memento Mori

Since I judge a lot more Public Forum now than the other events, my paradigm now reflects more about that activity than the others. I've left some of the LD/Policy stuff in here because I end up judging that at some big tournaments for a round or two. If you have questions, please ask.

NONTRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS: These arguments are less prevalent in PF than they are in other forms. The comments made here still hold true to that philosophy. I'll get into kritiks below because I have some pretty strong feelings about those in both LD and PF. It's probably dealt with below, but you need to demonstrate why your project, poem, rap, music, etc. links to and is relevant to the topic. Theory for theory's sake is not appealing to me. In short, the resolution is there for a reason. Use it. It's better for education, you learn more, and finding relevancy for your particular project within a resolutional framework is a good thing.

THEORY ARGUMENTS IN PF: I was told that I wasn't clear in this part of the paradigm. I thought I was, but I will cede that maybe things are more subtle than they ought to be. Disclosure theory? Not a fan. First, I am old enough that I remember times when debaters went into rounds not knowing what the other team was running. Knowing what others are running can do more for education and being better prepared. Do I think people should put things on the case wiki? Sure. But, punishing some team who doesn't even know what you are talking about is coming from a position of privilege. How has not disclosing hurt the strategy that you would or could have used, or the strategy that you were "forced" to use? If you can demonstrate that abuse, I might consider the argument. Paraphrasing? See the comments on that below. See comments below specific to K arguments in PF.

THEORY: When one defines theory, it must be put into a context. The comments below are dated and speak more to the use of counterplans. If you are in LD, read this because I do think the way that counterplans are used in LD is not "correct." In PF, most of the topics are such that there are comparisons to be made. Policies should be discussed in general terms and not get into specifics that would require a counterplan.

For LD/Policy Counterplan concepts: I consider myself to be a policy maker. The affirmative is making a proposal for change; the negative must demonstrate why the outcome of that adoption may be detrimental or disadvantageous. Counterplans are best when nontopical and competitive. Nontopical means that they are outside of the realm of the affirmative’s interpretation of the resolution (i.e. courts counterplans in response to congressional action are legitimate interpretations of n/t action). Competitive means there must be a net-benefit to the counterplan. Merely avoiding a disadvantage that the affirmative “gets” could be enough but that assumes of course that you also win the disadvantage. I’m not hip deep sometimes in the theory debate and get frustrated when teams choose to get bogged down in that quagmire. If you’re going to run the counterplan conditionally, then defend why it’s OK with some substance. If the affirmative wishes to claim abuse, prove it. What stopped you from adequately defending the case because the counterplan was “kicked” in the block or the 2NR? Don’t whine; defend the position. That being said, I'm not tied to the policy making framework. As you will see below, I will consider most arguments. Not a real big fan of performance, but if you think it's your best strategy, go for it.

TOPIC SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS: I’m not a big “T” hack. Part of the reason for that is that persons sometimes get hung up on the line by line of the argument rather than keeping the “big picture” in mind. Ripping through a violation in 15 seconds with “T is voting issue” tacked on at the bottom doesn’t seem to have much appeal from the beginning. I’m somewhat persuaded by not only what the plan text says but what the plan actually does. Plan text may be topical but if your evidence indicates harm area, solvency, etc. outside of the realm of the topic, I am sympathetic that the practice may be abusive to the negative.

KRITIKS/CRITIQUES: The comments about kritiks below are linked more to policy debate than LD or PF. However, at the risk of being ostracized by many, here is my take on kritiks in PF and maybe LD. They don't belong. Now, before you start making disparaging remarks about age, and I just don't get it, and other less than complimentary things, consider this. Most kritiks are based on some very complex and abstract concepts that require a great deal of explanation. The longest speech in PF is four minutes long. If you can explain such complex concepts in that time frame at a comprehensible speaking rate, then I do admire you. However, the vast majority of debaters don't even come close to accomplishing that task. There are ways you can do that, but look at the section on evidence below. In short, no objection to kritiks; just not in PF. LD comes pretty close to that as well. Hint: You want to argue this stuff, read and quote the actual author. Don't rely on some debate block file that has been handed down through several generations of debaters and the only way you know what the argument says is what someone has told you.

Here's the original of what was written: True confession time here—I was out of the activity when these arguments first came into vogue. I have, however, coached a number of teams who have run kritiks. I’d like to think that advocating a position actually means something. If the manner in which that position is presented is offensive for some reason, or has some implication that some of us aren’t grasping, then we have to examine the implications of that action. With that in mind, as I examine the kritik, I will most likely do so within the framework of the paradigm mentioned above. As a policymaker, I weigh the implications in and outside of the round, just like other arguments. If I accept the world of the kritik, what then? What happens to the affirmative harm and solvency areas? Why can’t I just “rethink” and still adopt the affirmative? Explain the kritik as well. Again, extending line by line responses does little for me unless you impact and weigh against other argumentation in the round. Why must I reject affirmative rhetoric, thoughts, actions, etc.? What is it going to do for me if I do so? If you are arguing framework, how does adopting the particular paradigm, mindset, value system, etc. affect the actions that we are going to choose to take? Yes, the kritik will have an impact on that and I think the team advocating it ought to be held accountable for those particular actions.

EVIDENCE: I like evidence. I hate paraphrasing. Paraphrasing has now become a way for debaters to put a bunch of barely explained arguments on the flow that then get blown up into voting issues later on. If you paraphrase something, you better have the evidence to back it up. I'm not talking about a huge PDF that the other team needs to search to find what you are quoting. The NSDA evidence rule says specifically that you need to provide the specific place in the source you are quoting for the paraphrasing you have used. Check the rule; that's what I and another board member wrote when we proposed that addition to the evidence rule. Quoting the rule back to me doesn't help your cause; I know what it says since I helped write most or all of it. If you like to paraphrase and then take fifteen minutes to find the actual evidence, you don't want me in the back of the room. I will give you a reasonable amount of time and if you don't produce it, I'll give you a choice. Drop the evidence or use your prep time to find it. If your time expires, and you still haven't found it, take your choice as to which evidence rule you have violated. In short, if you paraphrase, you better have the evidence to back it up.

Original text: I like to understand evidence the first time that it is read. Reading evidence in a blinding montone blur will most likely get me to yell “clear” at you. Reading evidence after the round is a check for me. I have found in the latter stages of my career that I am a visual learner and need to see the words on the page as well as hear them. It helps for me to digest what was said. Of course, if I couldn’t understand the evidence to begin with, it’s fairly disappointing for me. I may not ask for it if that is the case. I also like teams that do evidence comparisons. What does your evidence take into account that the other teams evidence does not? Weigh and make that claim and I will read the evidence to see if you indeed have made a good point. SPEECH DOCUMENTS: Given how those documents are currently being used, I will most likely want to be a part of any email exchange. However, I may not look at those electronic documents until the end of the debate to check my flow against what you claim has been read in the round. Debate is an oral activity; let's get back to that.

STYLE: As stated above, if you are not clear, I will tell you so. If I have to tell you more than once, I will give much less weight to the argument than you wish me to do so. I have also found in recent years that I don't hear nearly as well as in the past. You may still go fast, but crank it down just a little bit so that this grumpy old man can still understand the argument. Tag-team CX is okay as long as one partner does not dominate the discussion. I will let you know when that becomes the case. Profanity and rude behavior will not be tolerated. If you wish me to disclose and discuss the argument, you may challenge respectfully and politely. Attempts at making me look ridiculous (which at times is not difficult) to demonstrate your superior intelligence does little to persuade me that I was wrong. My response may very well be “If I’m so stupid, why did you choose to argue things this way?” I do enjoy humor and will laugh at appropriate attempts at it. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask. Make them specific. Just a question which starts with "Do you have a paradigm?" will most likely be answered with a "yes" with little or no explanation beyond that. You should get the picture from that.

I have competed in or coached various debate formats for over 20 years. Namely, I competed in policy debate for 7 years and competed and coached public debate for another 12 years. Ultimately, I value being a tabula rasa judge at the core.

For PF in particular, my desire is to see debate focus predominantly on persuasion and reasoning. Evidence should be a guide to the debate, not the debate itself. Impact calculations should be obvious, explained, and well defended by logic and reasoning. Debaters should not depend on evidence to speak for itself, nor should they be unable to explain basic warrants when prompted. Kritical argumentation and topicality should only be used if it is applicable, provides needed negative/con ground, and should not be used as a time suck. Finally, debaters should be well rehearsed with signposting and telling me where they want arguments on the flow; I shouldn’t have to make that judgment for them.

For email chains: jbagwell05@gmail.com

email- hannahrodriguez2003@gmail.com

pronouns- she/her

Coaching & Competitor History

(2023-Present): Director of Debate & Speech, Prosper High School

(2018-2021): Policy Debate competitor, Princeton

Background:I approach debates with an emphasis on critical analysis, deconstruction of power structures, and engagement with alternative frameworks. My judging philosophy is centered around evaluating debates that delve into issues beyond the policy-oriented or traditional arguments. I appreciate debates that challenge mainstream ideologies, interrogate assumptions, and offer unique perspectives.

Deep Analysis: I value depth over breadth. I prefer in-depth analysis and thorough explanation of critical arguments rather than superficial coverage of multiple arguments.

Open-Mindedness: While I have a preference for critical arguments, I am open to all forms of debate. If traditional or policy-focused arguments are presented effectively, I will evaluate them accordingly.

Speed is fine just slow down a bit in the rebuttals. I say clear twice before I stop flowing. If you are SPREADING through tag lines I AM NOT LISTENING !

Topicality: Ah, I love a good topicality debate, but I do think it tends to get unnecessarily messy. Please extend your interps... I don’t have a preference for competing interps or reasonability though, that’s something that will depend on the debate. Yes, you need impacts but no, I don’t have a preference on whether education or fairness is better. DA’s and turns on the standards debate are particularly convincing but if you go for one of these I don’t want a blippy explanation.

Theory: I think the only convincing theory shell I’ve ever heard while competing was condo, so I hope that tells you that I’m not the judge where you should go all in on theory in the 2ar/2nr. Despite this, I will still listen to theory, but please note I have a very high threshold for abuse. Also, if there has been a serious technical concession, I do think that voting for a theory shell becomes more convincing, but I think this is the only time I’m persuaded.

Disads: I’m good w/ any DA you want to run (even politics), but I generally like the link to be more specific because it’s often more persuasive. Generic links are fine though as long as your doing the internal link devoplement. Also persuasive is DA turns/outweighs case.

Counterplans: I don’t judge kick unless you tell me to, but also make sure you have some explanation of why the squo is, at the very worst, still better than the aff. Any counter-plan is fine. You need a net benefit, but I don’t have a preference for whether it’s external or internal. Any CP or PIC you read is fine, see the theory section for more.

I look for well-organized arguments. Avoid formal and informal logical fallacies, as I will look for them and will dock points for them. A passionate delivery is great, but will not overcome an incoherent argument.

Remember, if you speak so quickly that I cannot process and remember all of your arguments, then I cannot give you credit for them on the ballot. A small number of well-presented arguments often has a greater persuasive impact than a rapid-fire reading of many arguments. Pausing to emphasize key points and making succinct clear explanations is almost always better than reciting a long list of arguments as quickly as you can.

Quoting sources and having lots of cards demonstrates that you have done research. However, if you quote many sources without explaining to me why they are credible and relevant to your argument this will have far less impact than citing fewer sources but explaining well how they support your argument. Your opponent is likely to have sources with contradictory information. Unless one side explains why their source is more relevant to the argument, I have no way to weigh which source citation is more credible. To be clear, I will not score you highly just because you have a lot of source citations. I will score you highly if you use your sources to support a coherent argument. You need to tell me why the source's opinion matters and how it supports your side.

Attack the other side's arguments vigorously. But do not make it personal. For example, explain why their argument is misleading, confusing, or full of contradictions. But accusing them of lying or not understanding the issue becomes personal. Interrupting or shouting over during crossfire will not score you any points. I will not moderate during crossfire but will dock points if any of the parties consistently shout down or demonstrate rudeness.