I like a nicely structured debate. Making the framework and definitions clear is important. However, I do not like for this to carry on. Make the structure clear and move on. You should not still be debating what the framework is in your last rebuttals.

I look for quality sources, not quantity

Debates that build off each other are the best. Don't debate at me, debate with your opponent.

I also look for speaking style. Since I am primarily a speech judge, I take speaking skills into account. Mumbling, speaking monotonously, over using hand movements, and stumbling will rank you lower.

Lastly, I just want the argument to make sense. Don't give me a convoluted, overly complex argument. Make it make sense.

Background:

Sedrick Brown

Email: sbrown3@unc.edu

I am a junior at UNC-Chapel Hill studying Public Policy and Economic. For all four of my years in high school, I debated for Massey Hill Classical High in Fayetteville, NC. I did PF for almost 2 years, and LD for another 2.

How I Evaluate Rounds:

1. Anything said that is inherently racist, homophobic, sexist, etc will result in an instant loss. As a person of color, I believe that debate should be a safe space for everyone, and I refuse to tolerate any discriminatory behavior. Period.

2. I will not vote for you if whatever argument you are going for (link and impact) is not fully extended in summary. Frontlining is not extending. If neither side is properly extending then I'll intervene

3. I'm a flow judge. Anything above 300 wpm is too fast, and I won't get it down (which will probably not bode well for you).

4. I vote off the weighing debate first. whoever wins the weighing debate tends to win the round. If there is no weighing or the weighing is a wash, i vote for the cleanest piece of offense. If there is no offense, i presume first speaking team. If you want me to presume differently, tell me why.

Other Stuff:

1. Please collapse in Summary and Final Focus, it makes judging much easier. Collapsing strategically will boost your speaks. Don't go for everything.

2. Please weigh, and start as early in the round as you can. In the scenario that both teams weigh, I would like some sort of metaweighing or comparative analysis between both weighing mechanisms.

3. The second rebuttal should frontline, it doesn't have to be a 2/2 split, but I want to see some interaction with the first rebuttal. I believe this makes for a better debate. If you don't respond to turns in second rebuttal, I will consider them dropped and evaluate them as such.

4. Will generally be tech > truth, but within reason. You can not get away with a blatantly false argument.

5. Make sure you terminalize your impacts in both summary and final focus, otherwise I don't know why I am voting for you.

6. I will evaluate prefiat arguments like theory or Ks. I have a higher threshold for explanations and general warranting for such arguments not because I don't like them but simply because I have relatively less experience with them. That said, I'm pretty confident evaluating progressive argumentation - more theory than Ks but I can handle either. If you explain the argument well, I'll vote for it, just slow down and be a bit more thorough with these kinds of progressive arguments.

Speaker Points

- Be as funny/savage in crossfire as you want (More entertainment = Higher Speaks)

I have been the sponsor of the Speech and Debate Team at Apex Friendship High School for the last eight years. This is my eighth year judging. I have taught English for 20 years and Speech for five.

1. Framework is critical. If you don't connect your evidence to your framework, you haven't succeeded.

2. Do not spread--I value quality over quantity.

3. I value strong CX skills--being able to think on your feet and attack an opponent's case is key to winning the round.

4. Civil discourse is expected.

Update for Harvard 2024

If you are going fast enough that I need case docs - add me to the chain - Josh.Herring@thalescollege.org

Updated for Princeton Invitation 2022

I am a traditional debate coach who likes to see debaters exercise their creativityINSIDE the conventions of the style. For Congressional Debate, that means strong clash and adherence to the conceit of being a congressional representation. For LD, that means traditional>progressive, and if a traditional debater calls topicality on a progressive debater for not upholding "ought" on Aff, I will look favorably on such an approach. That being said, if someone runs a K coherently, and the a priori claim of the K is not refuted, I will vote for the prior claim. I try to be as tabula rasa as possible, and I like to think I'm tech>truth, but don't ruin the the game with progressive garbage. If you love progressive argumentation, please strike me. I hate tricks, don't like K's, think performative debate is dumb, and really don't like want to see the resolution replaced by this month's social concern. For PF, I want to see strong evidence, good extension, crystallization, and framing. In essence, I want good debate with clear burdens. Write my ballot for me - give your opponent burdens to meet, meet your own, and explain why you win. I think debate is a beautiful game, and I want to see it played well.

Couple of last minute DON'Ts - I don't buy disclosure theory; I think it has harmed smaller schools by pretending to legitimize approaches big teams can deploy, and it has made spreading much more common. I cannot spread, and I cannot hear a case at speed. If your opponent spreads, and you call them out on it in the sense that their speed disadvantages you in the round, I will look very favorably on that as a prior condition of sportsmanship in the game. Don't spread, and don't fuss at your opponent for not putting a case on the Wiki. It's a voluntary system, and does not constitute systemic harm if you actually have to refute in round rather than prep on arguments read 30 minutes before the round.

Original paradigm from several years ago:

I learned debate at Hillsdale College from Jeremy Christensen and Matthew Doggett and James Brandon; I competed in IPDA and NPDA. I've been a coach since 2014. I have coached PF, Coolidge, LD, and Congressional. I judge on the flow. I'm looking for sound argumentation tied to the resolution; if you go off topic (K, etc) or want to run a theory argument, be prepared to explain why your strategy is justified. I am not a fan of speed in debate - convey your arguments, evidence, and impacts without spreading.

Debate is a wonderful game, and I enjoy judging rounds where both teams play it well. Accept your burdens, and fight for your position. Evidence goes a long way with me, so long as you explain the validity of your evidence and the impact that it links to. In LD, Im a big fan of traditional values-driven argumentation. In PF, I want to see the purposes of public forum respected - no plan, no spreading, and publicly accessible debate on a policy-esque resolution.

I have done events ranging from PF (2nd speaker), Big Questions, and OO for 3 years and placing in each. I am currently a student at UNC.

If you don't want to read, this short part is for you: Clear arguments win debates, stick with your arguments. Tell me why something is important and why I should vote for it. Don't be rude, don't forget to address your opponent's arguments. My standards are low for arguments because I would rather have you have a bad case but argue it well enough to win than have you have a great case but unable to argue it.

First and foremost, I do not offer feedback post-rounds. My ballots won't have much. I won't flow the entire round on the computer, (debate) only summary and final focus just so you can see where my thinking is at the end of round, cause that's what matters. If it wasn't addressed at the end of round to tell me to vote for it, why bring it up earlier?

PF-

I will look for clear arguments and line of reasoning. If you're going to tell me to "extend across the flow" or any other debate jargon, which I appreciate, tell me why. I will pay attention to every part of the round, including crossfires (be assertive but don't be rude). Signposting is appreciated. I have my preferences against spreading but I will be able to flow it. Enunciation is vital and so is general clarity. I don't mind voting for the craziest arguments but I do expect that you fully explain your case so your opponent and I can have an understanding. Your case does nothing for me if I cannot understand it. What happens in round matters, if it didn't then judging would be as easy as a side by side comparison of the cases. If you include observations in your case, keep up with them. Now onto speaks. I will drop you if anything comes up that is overtly disrespectful to anyone. I come from an Arab household and I can tell you, yelling does not make you right nor does it make me care. Any sign of disrespect, which includes laughing at the response of your opponent will be reflected in your speaks. TALKING TO YOUR PARTNER WHILE YOUR OPPONENT IS TALKING IS NOT PERMITTED EVER AND WILL NOT BE TOLERATED. We're all taking time out of our schedules and we just want to have some fun. I will try my best to not judge screw anyone over because we all know how awful that feels.

To discuss evidence, it matters. This is public forum debate, you should know this. I expect evidence at every level of the debate. Is one option more economically stable because of potential rise in prices in another? I've taken econ but I'm no expert. If your link-chain-warrant is missing evidence, the arguments falls. That said, I will not judge the round based off how I would've debated it, cause that is just awful. However, if your argument isn't clear to me, I cannot vote for it. I'm pretty lay on the standard of making your argument just because even bad arguments can win a round if your opponent doesn't address it. If I catch you falsifying evidence, you will be dropped. If I catch you misrepresenting evidence, you will be dropped. Where it really matters is when your opponent calls your card. If it becomes a keystone in the debate, I will request to see the card at the end of the round and it will hold influence on my decision. Keep a clean round and keep it exciting.

LD-Value structure is one of the most important aspects. An ought resolution means I need to know why I'm voting for your sense of morality and structure. If you abandon your values and favor your opponents or if they do not connect to your case, this will weigh heavy on my ballot. Tell me why Im voting for you and not your opponent. Don't spread to the point where you are blue in the face-clear and simple. I am less experienced in LD but I know how to flow and what a great round is. I expect respect for each other. As in PF, your case does nothing for me if I cannot understand it. Any type of case is permitted including tricks. Doesn't mean I will fall for it, but I'll allow it. You wanna run a case using moral nihilism? Go right on ahead. Wanna tell me morals don't exist? Why the heck not, you just better be prepared to defend it. In an attempt to not judge screw anyone over, I will not decide a round because I don't like your choice of argument. What I like and don't like are left at the door except for round preferences. Just because I don't like the way you formulated your argument, values, or what have it, does not mean I will drop you. I have allowed arguments in PF to pass by that I absolutely hated, but they were good and were argued well. I allow the same in LD.

Speech-The Achilles heel of many speech performers is the forgotten basics: eye contact, format, movement, enunciation etc. It is necessary for any and every round and that should not be discredited. Above this, I pay attention to comfortability and eloquence. I can overlook simple nerves getting in the way, but that does account for every performance. A round of 5 really awesome people is hard to judge, which is why I want to judge one. Every single speech has the capability to win first, no matter the topic. Delivery is key. Now if it comes down to it, I will rank on excitement, engagement, and overall possible interestibility? (thats a word? right? sure). Just because I do not find the topic particularly exciting does not mean you won't get ranked first. What I find exciting would make for the most boring speech ever so I pray none of you manage to tap into that. The vibe between debate and speech are different and thus I treat them differently. In debate we shake hands afterwards. In speech, we clap before and after. See what I mean? Despite being debate heavy, I will not subject any of you to my debate requirements.

I did extemp and policy debate in high school at College Prep in California. I did policy debate in college, at UC Berkeley. I am a lawyer, and my day job is as a professor of law and government at UNC Chapel Hill. I specialize in criminal law.

I coached debate for many years at Durham Academy in North Carolina, mostly public forum but a little bit of everything. These days I coach very part time at Cedar Ridge High School, also in North Carolina.

I'll offer a few more words about PF, since that is what I judge most frequently. Although I did policy debate, I see PF as a distinct form of debate, intended to be more accessible and persuasive. Accordingly, I prefer a more conversational pace and less jargon. I'm open to different types of argument but arguments that are implausible, counterintuitive or theoretical are going to be harder rows to hoe. I prefer debates that are down the middle of the topic.

I flow but I care more about how your main arguments are constructed and supported than about whether some minor point or another is dropped. I’m not likely to vote for arguments that exist in case but then aren’t talked about again until final focus. Consistent with that approach, I don’t have a rule that you must “frontline” in second rebuttal or “extend terminal defense in summary” but in general, you should spend lots of time talking about and developing the issues that are most important to the round.

Evidence is important to me and I occasionally call for it after the round, or these days, review it via email chain. However, the quality of it is much more important than the quantity. Blipping out 15 half-sentence cards in rebuttal isn’t appealing to me. I tend to dislike the practice of paraphrasing evidence — in my experience, debaters rarely paraphrase accurately. Debaters should feel free to call for one another’s cards, but be judicious about that. Calling for multiple cards each round slows things down and if it feels like a tactic to throw your opponent off or to get free prep time, I will be irritated.

As the round progresses, I like to see some issue selection, strategy, prioritization, and weighing. Going for everything isn't usually a good idea.

Finally, I care about courtesy and fair play. This is a competitive activity but it is not life and death. It should be educational and fun and there is no reason to be anything but polite.