Please Note: ADD me to the Email Chain [dbraswell@chicagodebates.org]

My Paradigm is as follows,

I am a stickler for structured organized debate. As a previous high school and college debater; I stress the importance of the AFF team hitting all stock issues (Inherency, Harms, Solvency, Plan, and T), signposting, line by line clash, Impact Cal, poise during cross ex, and leaving no argument unaddressed. For the NEG Team, I welcome off case and on case arguments, they must be clearly signposted (If DA- Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact. ETC for T/K/CP/Theory arguments), use line by line, Impact Cal, and politeness as well during cross ex (Keep It Cute). I am a firm believer of strategy as well, so go for whatever strategy you feel works best for you IN the debate round. I can flow spreading however IF you are spreading, IT MUST BE CLEAR AND CONCISE. Actual spreading doesn't sound like gibberish and run-on sentences. If it is a digital debate with files online, PLEASE set up Email Chains and Flash Drives before the round, it takes away from actual debate time. I do signal how much time you have as time goes down and you can finish your sentence when the timer goes off. In the event someone has to go to the restroom, it would be counted as prep time. I have judged the following debate/speech events: CX, PF, LD, Congress, College Parli, OO, and other speech events. As I have been a debater, debate team captain, coach, and program assistant; My goal is to educate and build upon your knowledge of debate as well as help you grow as an aware and autonomous being. Debate has played a tremendous role in my growth and development; I hope it does the same for you. I do not disclose unless instructed to by the league however I do believe in giving meaningful feedback at the end of the round.

Respectfully,

Derrick Braswell

I really like to read docs, so please include me on chains/send docs: angelocthechef@gmail.com. I flow on paper like a normal person, so give me a little time to switch sheets and signpost often.

While I currently debate at Gonzaga University, I also like to dabble in judging and coaching.

I'm also newer to actual debate than most debaters in the college scene. I did mock legislature for 4 years of high school, and started PNW/CARD debate in 2021.

I have one philosophy as a judge: be cool.

Be cool, collected, and kind during debates. If you're getting red in the face yelling during cross-x for no reason I'll be sad :(

Cool/interesting arguments MAY also make me prefer your side, and give you the benefit of the doubt. Just don't take anything too serious if it doesn't need to be taken as such. (Things like racism, homophobia, transphobia will be taken seriously)

I also really appreciate heavy impact calc, laying out in ground terms why your plan/idea has a superior outcome. I'm also always down with Ks, or anything interesting really. All I need is for you to explain why I should cast your ballot.

For more complicated K's, framework, and theory, I'll need some heavier baseline explanation.

Caleb Drechsel - competed in Speech and Debate 2008-2011; 5+ year coach.

Tl;dr:

More traditional than progressive, though I enjoy a good kritic

Quality > Quantity - a clearly spoken word is more effective than speed-reading gibberish.

If I didn't flow it, I didn't find it important enough (or I missed it) -rarely votes on flow-points

Claim, Warrant, IMPACT

VOTERS - much good, very nice, more please.

---

As a debater, coach, educator, and community member, I believe debate is a form of collaborative truth-seeking. As such, I am not here to count points. I am here to listen, learn, and follow where the truth points me... And decide who won my ballot!

You and your opponent are my guides in that truth. I take you both as assumed-experts on the resolution, and so a great way to win my trust is to show yourself competent on the topic and context. Debate is not always an either/or decision. I may agree and want a resolution but withhold my vote because sufficient doubt was cast on it, or I'm not comfortable with the reasoning for it. That being said, I may have great concerns about a resolution/bill, but the NEG/CON didn't give me sufficient reason to justify those reservations.

It's what you say... Not what you "meant" to say. I try to be aware of the curse of my own knowledge so that I do not fill in your arguments. I hope I can summarize your argument at the end of the round, so give me signposts, key phrases, and impacts to track. I am less concerned with whether or not your opponent hit every one of your contentions. I am more concerned that I can follow your argument, that I am not having to fill in gaps because I could not understand or comprehend your thoughts. My voting record shows I am swayed more by clear, informed arguments than spread, jargon-heavy contention-bashing.

...And how you say it. Debate is communication and connection between you, your audience, and your message. Treat your judge and opponent with respect - both in your words, behavior, and tone. If spreading your case requires you to shout, spit, gasp, or disconnect from your words, it probably will influence my decision. Consider the irony and dissonance in shouting "IT'S FINE!" and the confusion of describing the theoretical end of the world in the same voice you'd order a burger.

My RFDs tend to follow this pattern: The AFF argued the resolution by [my summary of their position]; the Neg tried to argue/show [my summary of their position]. I voted for the [winner] because...[RFD]; I would have voted for the [loser] if... [feedback].

If time allows, I try to briefly (1 sentence) disclose verbally a strength I saw in each case (though time rarely allows in tournaments outside of finals), and what I would offer for improvement - either in the case itself or in delivery. I recognize I am one judge and a specific audience member, so please take any feedback or suggestions accordingly.

Below are some more specifics in my mindset around different debate types:

Lincoln-Douglas... is a value debate. Cards (evidence) help us relate reality to the values and moral obligations that guide us. Philosophies are frameworks of thought and morality, but ultimately, we must consider the actual and practical impact of those values on our world. I find myself voting most often on which debater/argument gives me confidence in a position.

I'm far less concerned with how "safety" is infinitely more important than "justice" - both are important. I am far more interested in which value is most appropriate or important in the resolution, and how the value criterion can guide us to a position on that resolution. we can find an "island" - a solution - where we can have both to the maximum potential.

Public Forum ... is a fact debate. We are seeking to understand the costs and benefits of a given action in a scenario. Cards and evidence help us be confident in whether supporting the resolution will have a better/worse outcome than the status quo. I look to both sides to inform me of what factors, details, and considerations should be most important when I vote.

It is also a team debate. While I do not vote on teamwork or speaker points/performance in the round, I do actively resist voting for low-point wins.

Congress... Simulates our policy-making process. You are not there to perform a speech but to convince an audience of your peers to vote in favor or withhold support for a given bill or resolution. You are there to use Parliamentary procedure to ensure the social contract is upheld for your constituents.

Speakers should contribute to debate and progress the flow of debate on a bill - not just read a prepared speech. Signpost your speech by references previous speakers, points or concerns, or clear indicators you are introducing a new contention. Call for specific actions from your colleagues, give them voters, use your tone and character to create appropriate urgency for what is being considered. DIRECT QUESTIONING: Ido take not of competitors who stand out (or flounder) during direct questioning. Questions are not always antagonistic or combative but can also collaborate with the speaker.

Presiding Officers: You are to lead the chamber. I will support your decisions while protecting the integrity of the chamber. In Open, I will stop an out-of-order motion from the Chair, but I will wait for you to correct out-of-order behavior before interrupting. That being said, if you feel I made a mistake, you can use that as an opportunity to model Robert's Rules and challenge me! I want to give your as many opportunities to showcase your skill to the judges (and draw their attention to it).

Policy... is an evaluation of a comprehensive policy that fulfills the spirit of the resolution. In Policy debate, the debaters can use the stock issues to signpost, label, or otherwise present their plan to fulfill the resolution. The assumed goal is solvency of the proposed resolution or a counterplan. Cards become the backbone of these constructive arguments and should guide me in how to weigh the significance of harms and inherency of factors, advantages, and disadvantages of each case plan.

I respect that this debate format encourages spreading to meet these expectations, but I have yet to be convinced that a debater should be evaluated by their speed to read words over the clarity, tone, and rhetorical technique in delivering those words. I also have yet to see a real-world application of the skill in the debates and public forums of our world - specifically those that craft and present policy. I admit I often find myself led more by the narrative of an argument more than the number of arguments. In other words, the volume of evidence and warrant given should be measured and framed appropriately to what effectively links the claim with the impact.

---

Thank you for your time and dedication in this activity! I encourage you to not lose sight of the purpose and application of the skills you're practicing here: research, listening, comprehension, critical thinking, speaking, rhetoric, analysis, etc. You are coming of age in a world where nearly every person is one swipe/click away from being/finding an audience. Your ability to speak to be understood and listen to understand (Sean Covey) will determine whether you become a mover or the unconsciously moved.

I did debate in high school and have been judging for a few years.

Things I like to see in a round:

Good clash--please do not just restate your evidence when it conflicts with your opponent's; tell me why your evidence is better, that is, more comprehensive, more recent, the reasoning is better or more intuitive, etc.

Aggressive CX--do not be rude and please do not talk over each other. Having said that, I like a hard line of questioning, getting to the heart of arguments, and getting an opponent to state their position and follow those positions to their natural conclusions. I do not flow CX, but there are plenty of rounds where the winning argument is developed from something that comes up in CX, if you want me to flow something that comes up, mention it in your next speech

Unique arguments/framework--I will hear out any argument you want to run if you have evidence supporting it and can make a coherent rational argument for it. I do not care if you want to run a funky framework, if your opponent runs an abusive framework, don't just tell me it's abusive, explain why and why that abuse is bad for the debate or the discussion of the issues.

Pet Peeves

Formalistic arguments about PF rules-- I am not a rule stickler, and I frankly do not care about running what might technically be considered a plan or counterplan. The point of debate is to improve rhetorical skills and learn about relevant topics. Neither of those goals is hurt by stating a specific course of action in regard to the topic or proposing an alternative answer to the one suggested by the topic. Public Forum is not Policy or LD, so I don't really care to see a formal plan, counterplan, pic, etc. run like you would in another form of debate. However, the conceptual ideas behind them absolutely belong in Public Forum debate. Giving me a general idea of how the topic would be implemented, or a mutually exclusive alternative course of action to the topic, etc. is encouraged. It makes the debate better by forcing teams to expand the scope of the arguments, be more rhetorically elastic, and make the debate more interesting generally. However, there are things that teams can do which are bad for the debate itself or do not advance an understanding of the topic. In those cases I want the opposing team to point out the abusive/unproductive tactic being used by the other team and explain why it is bad for the quality of the debate or for education of the topic. If you make that case I am happy to flow that argument as a turn for your side. Also I do reserve the right to drop the argument, whether or not the other team brings it up, if it both contradicts the overarching goals of debate and is in violation of a public forum rule.

Giving time signals--I am terrible at remembering to give time signals. This is totally my fault, but I think it is only fair to give a fair warning. If you really really need me to give time signals I will do my best, but I strongly encourage you to time yourselves.

Not Giving Voters--PLEASE GIVE VOTERS! I don't want you to cover the flow the last speech. Pick the couple of issues that win you the round and explain why these issues are the most important to the debate and why you win them.

If you are in a rush please skim the bolded text for what is relevant to you, the not-bold text that follow is just the longer clarifying explanation for those that might want more details.

wasmith7899@gmail.com is my contact email for any other questions or if you need to add me to a potential link chain

Competed and learned all debate styles in high school.
Competed at NFL(now known as NSDA) Nationals in Congressional Speaking.

Was a high school assistant coach for 3 years. (Currently an unaffiliated judge)
Currently pursuing Bachelor degrees in: Communication, Early Childhood Development, and Psychology.

I do not flow cross-examination period. Meaning only the words spoken in a speech are noted on paper for my decision of the winner. I do listen though so, if you want a notable answer marked in my decision bring it up in your speech so it is on my flow(otherwise it 'didn't happen').

Speed - is no problem. If online I need camera on while spreading though- I have a much harder time keeping up with a case if I cannot read your lips while you're talking if you cannot have your camera on for any reason please slow down your speaking slightly and make sure to emphasize your tags. Standard SpReading rules: Slow for Tagline, Author, Date of evidence. Sign post occasionally. I will say "Clear" if I no long understand you.
I strongly encourage you time yourself. I keep silent Official Time unless told otherwise- but I am not very good at providing time signals while I am also flowing. . If you run out of time I allow approx 4 second grace periods to finish your sentence before I'll have to cut you off. If I am verbally cutting you off you have already gone over time and I will only flow 2-3 more words after the cut off. No new thoughts after time has elapsed. In questioning periods if time runs out with a question unanswered I would prefer a brief answer, but allow the debater to decline and move onto prep for the next speech if they so wish.
If you make personal attacks on your opponent's character, your speaker points will suffer significantly. It is rare but occassionally if you are too rude and lacking in decorum you can loose a round from that alone. (We all make mistakes, malicious intent vs a slip up is very obvious.)

I believe it is your debate round so you, the debater, determine the direction of the debate. I will listen to any type or style of arguments you want to run, simply explain why that is the most important thing to be looked towards in the round. I say I will listen but that does not mean you win just because your argument is unique. Whoever wins is whoever best explains and supports their claims, and refutes your opponents claims.

Tabula Rasa as much as I can be- knowing i have my own biases and experience that I try to leave at the door but isn't entirely possible. Primarily with emphasis on Flow. I weigh what you present and unless you are clearly and blatantly perpetuating obvious falsehoods I simply look at the facts presented on my flow, if something isn't on my flow it didn't happen in the debate.
Every claim needs a warrant and justification of relevance.
I will leave my political opinions at the door and do not reference them. I don't care what party the current acting president or house leader is, you will refer to them by the office they hold and no other. Don't assume that because you think I believe something personally that I will need less supporting evidence for your claims.

In Public-Forum the round is generally yours to do with as you please.
Courtesy to your opponents is vital. Being as 4 people can get very heated on topics quite easily I will not put up with disrespectful, rude, or threatening behavior in anyway. PF Cross-fire is the most common place in the debate sphere I consider if a team should loose on decorum, remember you are still talking to other humans that have to go back to their lives after this round ends, loosing civility is not worth maybe winning a round and if I'm judging you probably wouldn't end up winning anyways.
I love Voters at the end please- it helps show what you as debaters believe to be most important in that round.
If no RA, framework, or definitions are provided by either side I will loosely judge the round assuming the most common Webster definitions of terms and utilize a Cost-Benefit Analysis approach of who most accurately addressed and supported their claims in relevance to resolution question and demand, but student defined frameworks(within reason obviously) are my first preference weighing mechanism for the round.

In Lincoln-Douglas I have a slight preferential bias towards more traditional style and format. I will absolutely still listen to progressive styles, you must simply continue to warrant and justify all claims.
I think values and morality ultimately are the core of LD and debates of value are vital to a good LD debate.
I try to use the Value and and Value-Criterion as my first tool of weighing the round. I would really like to see how the value and value-criterion are supported by the rest of the following points of your cause. Ideally an LD debate does not devolve to just stating one side has a better value than their opponents, and should just win Becuase that value is "better." Instead I like to see V and VC incorporated throughout the flow and relating to your contentions. Tell me how your value is achieved in your world through what you have presented in your case and how you are doing that better or the values you are achieving will have more impact than the evidence and values the opposite side presents. If you get near the end of the debate and aren't sure how to conclude, impact calculus is one of my favorite formats for finishing out a speakers speech to get my onto the same page of what you think was most important in the round today.
If you opt to utilize a Standard instead then you must explicitly explain why you chose a Standard over a Value and Value-Criterion and the relevancy of that, all other incorporation into the debate applies the same as what I want to see for V and VC.
If you are running progressive: your evidence needs to be relevant, if I could read your case in 2 months on a different resolution and nothing would need to change then your case will have much less ground to stand on in my eyes.

In Congress I am a seasoned Parlimentarian, I've held Parli as multiple state level tournaments in both Idaho and Washington, I look to Roberts rules and NSDA standards. I prefer that POs use audible time signals such as knocking or make a timer accessible and easy to see for the speaker. The more you can effectively manage the room and keep things in order without me having to interfere the more successful I will perceive the PO job you did.

In Policy I have the least experience. I have not dealt with Policy style debate much in quite a few years so I am not especially up to date.
I can listen to spreading but I have been hearing LD spreading primarily so consider slowing down a titch - especially on taglines.
Please do not do Performative Affs. I think they are very cool but often, for me, lead to just having more trouble tracking the debate thus harming you in the long run.
Don't expect me to just know your cards and arguments. You have to explain and justify your arguments. If you just say a tag and move on then you aren't willing to work for my vote and likely won't receive it.
I know most concepts within policy but am very lacking on the jargon that coincide so quickly throwing out a lot of jargon specific to this debate types will lose me.