Brantley,+Brian

I debated 3 years in high school in Utah (2004-2007), and 4 years at Idaho State University (2007-2011). This year I am an Assistant Coach at Juan Diego Catholic High School. My preference is to see the best debate possible. To that end you should do what you are most comfortable with and I’ll follow wherever you want to take the debate. Most good 2AR/NRs will write my ballot for me, specifically highlighting the most important arguments in the debate and explaining why you are winning those arguments and why the consequence of that is that you should win. This process can come in many forms which would include impact calculus in a DA/CP vs Aff debate and a well-developed Role of the Ballot for arguments with a non-traditional impact structure. While I do my best to evaluate debates without involving my personal preferences, it is probably impossible for them to not subconsciously influence me so it’s only fair that I share those.

T: Well developed T debates are awesome, I love listening to them. Unfortunately most T arguments either are not committed to or are not “true” enough to ever reach that standard.

CP: Allowing multiple worlds probably improves the quality of debates. As the number of worlds increases past two I become significantly more likely to buy that it is abusive to the Aff. Process/Consult counterplans should have evidence specific of the Aff or I’ll probably be more sympathetic to solvency deficits to the CP.

DA: I want to know the “story” of the DA. Rebuttals should walk me through that story not just extend the impact.

K/Performance: This is the part of debate I am most comfortable with. I’ve found that that actually means that I have a higher standard for these debates and often vote for the “straight up” team because they execute simple arguments that undercut fundamental assumptions made by the other team.

Framework: I love that debate has no set rules. The consequence of that is that your interpretation should frame what should be allowed in the debate and/or provide a role of the ballot guiding what should be considered when I decide the round. Your justifications for your interpretation will probably center around what creates the best debates.

Theory: Dropped arguments are not necessarily true, they are uncontested. They still need to make logical sense and be properly impacted. Most theory is probably a reason to reject the argument not the team absent demonstrating significant in-round abuse.

The most important thing to remember is to have fun. If you are enjoying your time in the debate I will enjoy watching you debate.