Hansen,+Brice

Brice Hansen 10/2016 About me: -I debated for 4 years at La Crosse Central High school in Wisconsin being bounced back and forth between PF and Policy. I am now on my second year of judging/assistant coaching there. I am a math education major and see an educational framework inherently implicit.

Paradigm as a Judge: -As a debater who was thrown around between PF and Policy, I would say I enter a round open to being told how I should judge the round. However if neither side argues the role of the judge or role of the ballot beyond the round, I will likely default to a policy maker mindset. Either way I still expect a full debate.

__Specifics__

__Arguments__ : I will listen to nearly any argument. Whether I personally agree with what you said or not will not affect my decision on the round. I love framework arguments and lensing arguments. As well I don’t hold a strict view on the role of the ballot or of the judge so I leave it to the debaters to shape that. I’ll listen to K’s, but I’m not very versed in all of the literature (as is a PF background). There are very few arguments I will not listen to, they are listed here (may grow): ********************************* Timecube Speed good/more educational *********************************

__Delivery__ : I am opposed to speed in a debate round. If your strategy to win depends on the quantity of arguments you get out as opposed to the quality of your arguments, your round is likely not to be very educational in the real world. Additionally I may not have heard your argument before so by not speeding through everything there will be fewer misunderstandings in the round so we all might actually something and it will make it on my flow.

__Different Cases__ : I’ll listen to non-traditional affs and kritikal affs and kritiks from the neg. I’m not super-versed on kritik literature as of my partial PF background so explain it in a way we can all understand.

__Theory__ : I like good theory debates, but I need to know how it is relevant for me to care about it.

__DAs__ : If the disad’s uniqueness, link, and/or impact has been defeated or torn apart I’m not likely to weigh any of the DA in my decision.

__CPs__ : If you run a counterplan I will listen to it, however I will not listen to arguments about negation theory if you do. I disagree with conditionality but I will listen to it. I tend to lean aff if the neg runs a conditional counterplan as I feel it wastes precious time in round that could've been better spent responding to arguments that will last the round. Fiat and competitiveness are fair-ground though for me and I will listen to them.

My favorite techniques and practices in a round are explaining arguments and weighing the round in common terms so that there is no confusion. It makes my job easier and lets everyone do a better job in round of both learning the topic and arguing their side.

When deciding on a winner I look at what points were emphasized in the rebuttals and then the net impacts on the flow. I’ll look at it through whatever frames I’m asked to look at it through otherwise I’ll decide on which side presents the best policy in the round.