Bramble,+Victor

I debated for 5 years at Newburgh Free Academy, primarily in circuit LD with some policy and pf experience. Nothing to write home about. Currently as a second-year Brown student I coach policy debate for Debate Rhode Island.

General preferences: Don’t be a horrible bigot. Even if you aren’t a horrible bigot, which most people aren’t nowadays, you can still be a casual bigot who says offensive things. So if you do say offensive things in round then you will lose speaker points. That’s it. I don’t think I should vote you down for being a bad person, that has nothing to do with your actual skills. I think I should be able to reduce speaker points since those have to do with quality of speaking. I haven’t judged spreading in a while so I’ll say clear or speed if I can’t understand what you’re saying. Naturally if I can’t hear what you’re saying, I can’t flow what you’re saying, and I can’t factor those arguments into my decision. Dig?

LD preferences: I don’t have much background knowledge about this current topic. Then again I shouldn’t have to know anything about the topic for you to debate well. Theory is annoying I’ll vote on it. Kritiks are fun I’ll vote on them. Topicality is horrible I’ll vote on it. Regular cases are fine I’ll still vote on them. What I’m getting at is that there are arguments I despise. I will still vote on whatever. If the debate is unresolvable then I will default neg in most cases. Though obviously if you win by creating an impossible to resolve debate then your speaker points will suffer. Dig?

Policy Preferences: I didn’t debate policy very much in high school so don’t assume I know all of the jargon you might try to use. I’ll vote on whatever argument you want to make. T and Theory are my least favorite arguments. K’s and critical Affs are my most favorite. I agree with Myles: “ I enjoy Ks and critical affs. If you're going to run one, be clear about what you're saying, and how it relates to the other team. Define/explain jargon. The best debaters can explain complex arguments in (relatively) simple, clear, concise, and concrete terms. Think critically about what your alt is. Lenses that show why the plan is wrong/bad are awesome. 'Create a fracture in capitalism with our discourse' is fuzzy and you probably need framework re: fiat.”

PF preferences: Yeah do what you want. Try and do argument comparison. Thanks.