POLICY DEBATE PARADIGM

Name: Jamelle Brown

Current Affiliation: The Pembroke School, Kansas City, MO

Debate Experience: 25+ years as a Head HS Coach, Debated 4 yrs in High School and 1 semester during college

List types of arguments that you prefer to listen to.

1. I appreciate real world impacts.

2. I love the kritical arguments/AFF’s with this year’s resolution. Make the debate real and connect to the real social issues in the SQ.

3. For T, neg if you want to prove that the AFF is untopical, provide valid standards and voters. AFF, then correctly answer these standards and voters. However, don't expect to win a ballot off T alone.

4. Know and understand what you are reading and debating. Be able to explain your card’s claims.

List types of arguments that you prefer not to listen to.

1. Every impact should not equal nuclear war. I want to hear realistic/real world impacts.

2. Generic disadvantages without clear links to the AFF.

List stylistics items you like to watch other people do.

1. I prefer medium-speed speaking. Completely not a fan of spreading.

2. Label and signpost for me. I like to keep a very organized flow!

3. Let me see your personalities in CX.

4. Impact Calc – I want to know why you want me to vote for you and weigh the round.

5. I am excited about performance teams!

List stylistics items you do not like to watch.

1. I dislike unrecognizable speed.

2. I am a Communications teacher, please allow me to see valuable communication skills. (Pre-2020 comment) For example, don’t just stare at your laptops for 8 minutes. Hello, I'm your judge – engage me!

In a short paragraph, describe the type of debate you would most like to hear debated.

Debate is a slice of life. I appreciate seeing a variety of styles and “risk takers.” Debate is also an educational venue. I enjoy K debate and appreciate high schoolers tackling K lit. There are so many important social justice issues that debaters can explore. As your judge, engage me into the round. I will not tolerate rude debaters or disrespectful personal attacks. I am a current high school Speech & Debate coach – please don’t forget about the value of communication skills! I coach all of the speech and debate events, so I love to see kids fully engaged in this activity by utilizing the real-world value it brings.

Debated at Missouri State and graduated in 2004

Executive Director of DEBATE-Kansas City until 2017

Assistant Coach and then Head Coach at Barstow starting in 2018

Online update - I have done little online judging, so I don't know how it may alter my ability to understand top-end speed. Based on the other judges, it seems going a touch slower and focusing on clarity helps judges get more on the flow.

Yes, I want to be on the chain, and please be as efficient as possible with the emailing. Email: gabe.cook@barstowschool.org.

I am open to almost any argument, but I defer policy. I like a compelling narrative, especially in the link debate. I value both technical skills and argumentative truth. Clarity and flowability will increase speaker points and chances of winning.

T - I defer to reasonability on T and I do not mind larger topics. That doesn’t mean I won’t vote on T if you win the argument. Limits can be the cleanest standard for the neg to win but I also find ground loss important to provide context. I want both sides to explain the model of debate your interp creates and impact why it’s comparatively better.

K-AFF/Framework - I am fine with kritik affs, but I will also vote neg on framework. TVAs can be persuasive for the neg, and both sides should focus on what their model means for debate. I believe k affs need a topic link and a clear method for the negative engage. I lean towards believing you do not get a perm in a method vs. method debate.

Case - Here is where I copy and paste from every judge paradigm and say I want more case debate. I dislike AFFs with lousy internal links, and I will reward NEGs that take the time to point out flaws in AFF ev.

K - You need a specific link, and I appreciate it when debaters use lines from the 1AC to get a link. I am open to voting on presumption/turns case. But you need to explain how the K actually eliminates solvency and/or turns the case, and contextual examples help.

By default, I evaluate ontology, epistemology, discourse, and AFF consequences through the lens of link and impact rather than as something resolved or excluded by debate theory.

NEG FLEX - I generally believe the negative should have the flexibility to run a K and disads as long as they don't try to create and go for double turns.

DA - The starting place is to be on the right side uniqueness. Then I need a compelling link story contextualized to the AFF. Impact comparison is obviously essential. I will vote on effective AFF criticism and/or takeouts of low probability disads.

When I debated I went for politics often, and I still cut a lot of politics cards. For me, uniqueness research determines the viability of any politics DA. I don’t like forcing a story because of the links or impacts. I appreciate nuanced and clever link stories, and I will reward NEG teams that have a compelling link story.

CP - I like core of the topic CPs and smart PICs. I dislike process CPs with little topic literature that compete only at a textual level. I also dislike consultation CPs. This doesn't mean I refuse to vote for them, but that I am receptive to theoretical objections and solvency arguments.

Condo/Advocacy Theory - I believe the fairest standard is to give the NEG one conditional CP and one conditional K. Or I think you can have unlimited dispositional advocacies. The more advocacies the neg runs, the more grounds the aff has for a condo argument.

Points

29.6 – 30 – Approaching perfection to perfect.

29.1-29.5 – Excellent

28.5 – 29 – Above average to very good.

28.4 – Average

28.3– 27.7 – Slightly below average to below average

27.6 – 27 – Below average to well below average.

26.9 and below – Bad to potentially offensive.

Hi!

My name in Matheno. I have been a participant of this activity for about over 20 years. I started to debate in High School out of the DKC Urban Debate League. I emerged onto the national circuit my novice year in 2004. I have attended debate camps at University of Iowa, University of Missouri Kansas City as well as the University of Louisville. "Performance" debate is mostly how I approached debate as a framework. Do not call it Performance debate. Debate itself is a performance. I do understand what many call "traditional debate." It's how I got introduce to this activity. I just felt better equipped as a debater dozing into what felt more authentic for me. I judge my debates on what is on the flow sheets. If its not on the flow then I cannot evaluate it. Speed does not mean to forfeit persuasion. I will listen to mostly everything. I like new and different arguments. I was a big fan of K arguments and of course ran many Kritiks. I am now a staff member at the Bay Area Urban Debate League as a Program Manager. I have been a judge every single year since I left debate as a competitor. I love this activity! I have assisted BUDL, DKC and also Atlanta Urban Debate League. Write the ballot for me. If I have to do a lot of framing and impact calculus myself then I don't think you did much coverage of handling the flow. Write the RFD for the judge. Who knows what may happen if you leave it in my hands. I have a very queer mind.

Email thread: bfandbo@gmail.com

Experience: This is my third year doing high school policy debate at Sumner Academy.

What I prefer and look for in a round:

I prefer plans with evidence stating specifically how plan solves; give me the details, the funding mechanisms, time frame, etc. If opposing team points out vagueness in plan solvency, I'll be less likely to vote on that plan.

All off-case is welcome, but I will most likely not vote on topicality and find it a waste of time. Not a fan of extinction arguments.

I debated 1 year in High School earning a NFL Ruby. I then debated two years in college placing in the top 5 on our circuit. I have coached Middle School debate for 14 years. I am a flow judge and base my decisions on argumentation.. I am not a fan of speed talking or of Kritiks. I want to hear about Inherency, significance, harms, and solvency, Counterplans are acceptable, Topicality can be an issue if argued well.

Middle school debate coach for 5 years, Language Arts teacher for 10. Have clear arguments that show you firmly grasp the stock issues and your (and your opponent's) claims and reasoning. I'm not picky on types of arguments, just don't wait until rebuttals or cross-x to make it clear (beyond reading cards) why what you're saying matters; you should be explaining that each step of the way.

As a Language Arts teacher, any creativity that helps make the story you're telling through your debate more interesting and appealing is welcome (debate should be fun!). Just keep it grounded in reality, have strong clash, and clear impact calculus.

I oversee the program at my school as head coach. Having said that, I am a pretty traditional judge. Trickery, excessive speed, and jargon usage are not appreciated and could lose you the round. Gain the advantage by demonstrating the coherence of your presentation, the strength of your argument, and the accuracy of your supporting data. I will only reveal if asked to do so by the tournament organizer. I will not provide verbal feedback. The ballot is intended to serve those two purposes.

When assessing you, these are some of the things I look for when judging.

1. Speak slowly and clearly. Learn to judge adaptability if you are accustomed to speeding. You've lost the round if I can't follow your reasoning and comprehend what you're saying.

2. I prefer empirical data; attempting to win an emotional debate will not win you the round.

3. I prefer cases that are well-planned and logical; I want to be able to draw connections between the many points.

4. I'm not as skilled at flowing as someone who judges PFD on a weekly basis, but I can still flow and can tell if you are doing the same.

5. DO NOT BE RUDE. I can handle assertiveness, but it's not appropriate to yell, ridicule opponents, roll your eyes, shake your head, or act in general contempt.

I'm a former HS and College debater... Here's what I would like to see:

Use your words - enunciate when giving speeches ESPECIALLY arguments that you want to highlight

The spread is ok... but remember quality over quantity, I'm looking for some depth in arguments

Know your stuff, or fake it well enough to make clear, concise points that are unrefutable

Beware of important dropped arguments - I can't debate for you. If you miss a moment to go in for the win- that opportunity is just lost.

Everyone needs to live, money needs to be saved.... and without your plan, the world ends. Or something to that effect. Basically, make me a believer using your plan and supporting evidence.

Debate:

- I would like to see:

- Money saved

- lives saved

- Great enunciation of words, and powerful young speakers

- Not a huge fan of spreading

- I love seeing new ideas

- Love seeing on case attacks as well

IE Forensics:

- I'm looking for the following

- Your own interpretation of the literature

-Good Memorization

- Understanding of the character

- Understanding of the entire literal selection

- Good characterization

- Projection