Paxman,+Brittany

Brittany Paxman

I debated for Stony Point High School in Round Rock, TX (just outside of Austin) for three years in high school. I currently attend the University of Texas and I am the assistant LD coach for SFA-Austin.

As a judge I try really hard to judge the round that is given to me. By that I mean that I will use whatever calculus I am given and evaluate the round. This being said, I am left in a very hard position if the debaters don’t give me a calculus or don’t compare their standards or methods of evaluation. I do believe there is a certain way that is best to debate, however; I try not to judge the round based on that, if you would like to know how I think debate should be done, then please ask me, but I don’t think it is my place to dogmatically impose my view of debate on the round.

A few tips: I am fine with whatever you want to run, but please make sure that your advocacy is clear. It might not be a good idea to spread really dense literature and if you don’t explain or impact it well. I did not run very critical positions so I am less familiar with them. I am open to anything you want to run but please make it clear how it functions and why I should vote for it.

I also feel that you are bound by what you say in CX. What I mean is that if you lie or mislead your opponent in CX about your advocacy, I will hold you to that advocacy. Basically what this means is that you shouldn’t lie in CX to try and trick your opponent.

I do have a default in the event that the debaters don’t give me a clear decision calculus. If there is no offense extended by either side, then I default neg. If there is unweighed offense, then I default aff.

Also, please don’t be rude.

If you have any other questions feel free to ask.