Brock,James

Updated: 2/26/14 Affiliation: I was a high school for 3 years, and college debater for 1 year. I am currently in my sixth year as the policy debate coach at Houston County High School, a Georgia public school about 2 hours south of Atlanta Georgia.

Policy Debate:

PREP ENDS WHEN THE DRIVE LEAVES THE SPEAKERS COMPUTER.

Rounds on Latin America topic: 15

This number is low for 2 reasons. 1) I have tabbed at 7 tournaments this year. 2) My wife had our first son on 9/3/13. I have judged 20+ practice rounds this year, and have judged and average of 80 rounds each of the past 5 years.

Stats: Aff: 7 ballots Neg: 8 ballots

Average speaker points this year: rank 1: 28.40 High (29.5) rank 2: 27.81 rank 3: 27.22 rank 4: 26.76 Low (26.0) Average: 27.55

Procedural: I dislike reading cards after the round. I reserve the right to dock speaker points for arguing after the round. I have few problems with speed. If you are unclear, I will say clear or loud once and then put my pen down or close my laptop. I love 1NC's and 2ACs that number their arguments. I want the debaters to make my decision as easy as possible. My RFD should be very very similar to the first 3 sentences of the 2AR or 2NR. After a harm is established, I presume it is better to do something rather than nothing. So in a round devoid of offence, I vote affirmative.

The K: As I've grown as a coach I've started to understand the educational benefits for high school students reading advanced philosophy. I've read more critical literature in the past month than I have in the past 4 years. That being said, In order to vote negative on the kritik, I need a very, very, clear link, and reason to reject the aff. I dislike one-off-K, and standard Ks masked with a new name. I do, however, enjoy listening to critical affirmatives related to the topic. I am often persuaded by PIK's, and vague alts bad theory. Don't assume that I have read the literature. I have not.

The project: We are a small and very diverse squad, and I (to some extent) understand that struggle. One of my top teams runs a non-topical aff. I still enjoy policy debate, and I think the topic is good, but will listen.

Favorite 2NRs: 1) Case turns, 2) T, 3) DA/Case, 4) Politics.

Theory: I have recently reevaluated my stance on theory. I enjoy good theory debates. I have come to the conclusion that they are exceptionally educational. I think cheaty CPs are bad for debate, and enjoy voting on ridiculous CP is ridiculous theory. I still need some good I/L to Education to reject the team. I presume that 1 conditional K and 1 conditional CP is the limit, but I have been persuaded otherwise. It makes me happy to vote on T or good theoretical objections.

LD: I judge LD rounds very similarly to policy rounds. I enjoy fast LD rounds more than slow ones. Most LD rounds I judge come down to definitions.

PF: I may be doing it wrong, but I like logic when judging a PF round. I don't think you have time to develop CPs, DAs, or Ks, but have no other objection to their existence. Even more than LD the team who defines the topic in the way most advantageous for their side, almost always wins.

Parliamentary debate: I enjoy this format. I will adopt a policy maker F/W unless otherwise instructed.