Bruschke Invitational at CSU Fullerton
2017 — Fullerton, CA/US
Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Hello, I hope all is well.
Judging is an honor, having competed in Policy Debate (aka CX) since middle school, I am keenly aware of the amount of time, research, energy, and sacrifice that you the debater invest in preparing for debate tournaments, and including the amount of time spent raveling to and from debates. You could be doing something is with your time, instead, your here doing battle against the teams of others schools (sometime teams from your own school) Its because of my background that I have the utmost respect for debaters. Your the future, remember that. As such, I am not on any social media during a round, I don’t have someone sitting next too me distracting me from the verbal battle before me. I’m not on my phone talking with some unless its of the extreme in that an emergency may be taking place involving one of my debaters at the tournament.
Oh, I need to let you know that my moniker is Judge Dredd. Go see his recent movie, I'm that serious about judging debate and the nuances of debate.
I’m not one of those judges that says at the beginning of a round, “Oh, by the way, I don’t like K-Affs”, please I’ve written my K-Aff when I varsity debated in 9th grade, yes, I made my own cards. I love debate itself, not how the argument is delivered. Aff you have a burden that you must me. Defense wins the debate; offense wins the round. Regarding cards, if your read a ethnic/race specific argument, and you’re not of that ethnicity/race, your arguments better be on the level of the Supreme Court. Don’t just pick a resolution that you think might trip-up your opponent, if you’re confident in yourself, pick topics that’s near and dear to your heart; trust me, those are the best debate rounds.
I am a flowing judge, I flow through the entire round, I flow everything. Often, I will flow on the ballot itself if it is a paper ballot. I refer to my flows in helping me decide who won the round. I will often ask to look at the flow sheets of the debaters. A strong, fluid flow sheet is a good thing for me to see, conversely a weak, sparse, incoherent (and I don’t mean penmanship), written in any old fashion doesn’t really help the cause.
You need to sell you position to me the judge because the only person whose opinion matters is the judge, so if you’re only reading cards and at no point are you looking at me I’ll eventually tune you out. You must sell, sell, sell, your position, spreading is just talking fast. Yes, you have a lot of information you want to cover, and maybe your trying to overwhelm your opponent with information, but reading half as many cards can be as effective in as much as reading all of your cards at blistering speed can be ineffective. I’m from Boston, Massachusetts; you can’t spread at any speed where I won’t understand what you’re saying/reading. Yet remember, its debate, not speed talking.
Speakers points are based on coherent arguments, strong rebuttals, and good clash, and I mean Roman Colosseum gladiator clash (with respect of course). Questions for questions sake is both boring and lazy. And avoid asking a question, giving your opponent 3 seconds to answer, and rudely cut them off with a, “Okay, thank you, my next question.” Be respectful.
I like respectful clash, and during the clash you should be looking at the judge, not at each other. Ask challenging questions, not questions that you hope leads to dropped arguments because I judge on arguments, not drops. Again, I judge on arguments, not drops.
“Perm do both” isn’t an argument, what are you perming? Reading a tag line without warrants isn’t debating. The debate isn’t about if the author is credible, it’s about if the authors credible enough to support the warrant.
I don’t allow prep time to be used for cross-x, and I also like to keep the time during the round as its annoying to hear several timers ring out of synch. I say put away the timers, please don’t argue with me about it. If you keep your own time, do a countdown that seems to be prevalent these days, “3,2,1, go”, because the minute you start talking, I start timing.
I will go over the good that debaters did during the round and will go over the bad that the debaters did during the round. I love giving feedback, not just for feedback sake, but to help you improve as a debater. I have given feedback at the end of a round only to see the same opponents on the opposite sides of the ballot, using my feedback for when I judged the last. The funny thing is that I had said to them that if I judge them again, I need to see improvement. Life is funny that way. If I have a time limit for RFD, I am always available if you see me walking about the tournament. A hint: if I’m giving feedback, you’d better be writing it down. If I’m talking and your packing away to leave for the next round, my decision may change because it tells me that you don’t respect my time and input that way that I respected yours for 1 hour and 40 minutes.
My background? I’ve coached Policy Debate for 9 years now, and during that time I’ve also (and still do) coach the Moot Court Team, Mock Trial Team, and Shark Tank Team intramural competition teams.
By the way, I’m a student of history, global politics, geopolitics, etc., so please don’t make up information to help you win, I’ll know its false, and that can affect your chances of winning. I’m a die-hard Boston Bruins fan (I played right-wing in Middle/High School) and I’m a New England Patriots fan, Boston Celtics, Boston Red Sox, and New England Revolution (football aka soccer is in blood, I can’t help it).
Lastly, I will make sure that the room we debate in is a safe place, having a law background to me it has the sanctity of a church. I tolerate no disrespect in any form, nor do I tolerate profanity even if its part of your cards. I don’t like patronizing. If you have fellow schoolmates watching the round, they must remain quiet, and not engage with you (I don’t mind if they flow. I’ll ask them to sit peaceful (I don’t mind if they flow) one time. The second time I’ll ask them to eave the room.
By the way, if I suspect that your receiving information via IM during the round no matter who its from, I’ll ask you that I see your computer screen. If I see messaging, I will disqualify your team right there and then.
No, I don’t have a favorite school so I have no bias for or against any of the schools competing in the tournament.
Have a great tournament and thank you for the honor of judging your round.
Thank you kindly,
Hello, I’m Skyler (They/She) (email@example.com) - I coach and judge both Policy and LD debate.
About me: Debated in HS, TOC qualled, debated in College for a bit (Policy).
(2017-2019) Futures RA - 2 TOC quals and deep elims at every tournament including the TOC.
(2019-2020) Oak Hall KZ - TOC qualled, deep elims at every tournament + several tournament wins
(Currently) Bellarmine EG
Coached multiple policy teams as well, but focus on LD season-long.
I’ve worked with all styles of debate/literature, and I enjoy judging all styles of debate.
I love this activity and think it holds immense value, please be respectful to one another and please have fun.
How I think about debate:
Debate is a game.
There is no tech vs. truth, there is only the truth which is produced by tech.
Technical debate is good debate, and if debate is not technical it is probably awful.
Strategic maneuvers, well placed theory arguments, etc. are integral to every style of debate.
I only adjudicate the round I am watching, please leave your personal qualms, along with things that have happened out of the round, out of the round. Each debate is a new, hypothetical world in which students test theories, methods, and strategy against one another
“Real World,” “Out of round spillover” claims are pretty ridiculous and nonetheless, counterproductive. That being said, as debate is a site of method testing- all impacts are illusory, and will be evaluated based on the level of impact comparison and warranted explanation done by the debaters. I am VERY sympathetic to the argument that believing debate directly influences actual real world policy = serial policy failure. I am also VERY sympathetic to the argument that believing K debate directly influences actual real world structures = ressentiment/reality denial/bad activism/delusional pseudo-intellectuals.
"Fiat" is the idea that __X__ happens when I vote for a certain argument, it is not intrinsically tied to role-playing, policymaking, etc. It is a mechanism that every style of debate relies on.
I believe that using personal experiences as evidence under the guise that debate is a “space for real world change,” is quite awful, and unnecessarily uncomfortable.
However, I believe that personal modes of communication (poetry, music, dance, etc.) can be effectively used for strategic benefit in the context of debate as a winnable game.
Debate is not a site for "subject formation," nor should it ever be. The belief that it is, in my opinion, is harmfully delusional.
For all K debaters - I believe that “armchair philosophers” such as Baudrillard/Bataille, can accurately explain instances of gendered/racialized/etc. violence. I am not a fan of view-from-nowhere-esque indicts/arguments.
---> Please don't make the "Non-Black people shouldn't read AfroPess" argument in front of me
---> There seems to be a trend in debate where people believe their identity allows them to bypass fair disclosure practice. If you aren't breaking a completely new aff, it needs to be open sourced. If not, you are cheating and you should lose.
For all Debaters: I feel that debate is lacking creativity - Whether you're reading a counterplan or a criticism, I think that creativity, paired with technical execution and good strategy is what separates good from great. The value of debate is found in technical execution, as well as spontaneous adaptation and strategical maneuvers that change over the course of a debate. I reward debaters who adapt.
****** Specifics for LD Debaters *******
Policy/Larp Stuff: Love it, always super proud of debaters who read Aff Scenarios, CP's, DA's etc. that are well-researched, creatively strategic, and recent. In Larp vs. Larp T debates you must win that the Aff justifies a world of debate that is bad for education/clash, otherwise I'm sympathetic to reasonability.
The K vs. Larp: I love the K, not the biggest fan of judging it. I have an extremely high threshold for voting for them and think they are rather useless if not executed with a heightened level of technical efficiency. Links must be to the 1AC, not the status quo. I think that debaters should be able to fiat the metaphysical impacts of a K/K aff, but only after meeting a VERY HIGH threshold of explanation. This also means, that if you don't meet that threshold, you will probably lose to extinction outweighs.
K Affs: Should be topical. Simply affirming the resolution and then reading random K cards that talk about a K thesis isn't being topical. I think Non-topical K Affs are bad for education and make K debate vacuous. If you try this, I'll be sympathetic to Neg teams reading Generic Disads to the topic and going for extinction outweighs, I will also have a low threshold for voting on T.
^^^ If there is no internal link between the substance of the topic and your K advantages/impacts, you should lose on presumption.
K v K debates: Love em
Underviews in LD: usually unflowable, usually useless
CREATIVITY gets you high speaks
Feel free to ask me anything, I love education, creativity, and a drive to become better.
Once again, remember to have fun!! Win or lose, life goes on and you will continue to be a bright individual. Stay calm, composed, and just be cool how you be cool.