Brundage,+Rick

Apple Valley, MN
Most recent update: 4/24/17

I debated LD in the late 90s/early 00s in Minnesota and the National Circuit. I'm currently the Director of Debate at Apple Valley.

I’m probably a more traditional judge. I prefer a faster than conversational pace, but out right spreading with no vocal variety is just too hard to understand. I will vote for who I think has won the argument that best links back to the standard. This, however, does not excuse your other argument choices or your public speaking habits, and I reserve the right to show my displeasure of your arguments in your points. I’m pretty expressive and it should be obvious as to what I like and don’t like.

Initial argument selection issues: If you are going to not be directly topical, I’m probably not a great judge for you. If you are a generic k debater, I am probably not a good judge for you (for example, if your best link is "you use the state, state bad", this would fall under the bad category). If you have a bunch of really great link and solvency evidence for a kritik, that would be good, but I can count these performances on one hand. When in doubt, probably err more stock. Topical plans with a solvency advocate, counterplans, and disadvantages are probably acceptable. Same standard for evidence to the K applies here, too. Please don’t engage in theory for its own sake. I tend to think poorly of strategies that rely on tricks, whacky interps, multiple a prioris, skep/skep triggers, or presumption going to one side or the other. For substantive theory debates, competing interps probably makes more sense to me. Against shenanigany theory, more minimal work is probably sufficient.

I hate prep stealing, so make sure you are actually ready to go when you stop prep. Restarting the timer after you have another 10 seconds to gather your thoughts seems illegitimate. Also, I'm willing to be reasonable on transferring stuff - I hate wasted time here, too, though. Remember, rounds have a running clock on them for TOC. If you waste too much time, the round gets decided by the computer if I dont have enough time to think.

Cross examination should generally focus on clarifying positions, asking to check before you run theory, and to find specific flaws in evidence and arguments. Please use it strategically, and don’t be a jerk to your opponent.

Empirical claims require empirical evidence.

Whatever you drop, you’re accountable for, but my standard for what constitutes a valid response depends on the quality of the initial argument (for example, against a slew of unwarranted arguments, I’d accept a grouping of those with “Group these arguments, they have no warrant.”) In terms of explaining voters and impacts 1) make sure you have extended the warrant of your argument, not just the claim and the impact 2) your extension is clean (make sure you answer the arguments your opponent has made) and 3) be specific with your weighing outside of using debate buzzwords that do not give me a relative prioritization of those weighing tools over others if you insist on using them. When distilling the important arguments in the round, you definitely want to use the phrase “Even if I am losing argument X, I still win the round because Y…” You should be able to explain why I am voting on some arguments before others, and not operate on the assumption that you are winning every argument in the debate.

Things I like: Using good word economy. The use of strategic and effective layering. The use of humor (don’t feel like you have to be funny to get good points - I know it’s not for everyone, and if you use it, don’t be a jerk). Speaking in full sentences. Having analytics before and after cards that give the argument a sense of completeness. Vocal variety and emphasis.