Brzny,Timothy

Maine East High School, Debated 09-12, Judging/Coaching 12-14


 * Most important thing, debate is a game, have fun and try your best. I am open to any type of arguments in the debate sphere. The ideas bellow are not concrete. They should not deter you from going for an argument.**

Some key things:
 * I am a calm judge and will look for the easiest way out when signing by ballot.
 * I am fine with whatever you want be to be in the round, will default to policymaker.
 * Tag team is fine with me as long as the other team is ok with it.
 * Drop arguments are not 100% true. I will give zero risk of an advantage, disad, etc. if you don’t explain it or there are major gaps in your logic, even if the other side drops it.
 * All arguments can be beaten without evidence when possible.


 * Paperless debate** - Flashing does not count as prep time as long as it is reasonable; send it all in one doc, you should have a viewing laptop. Have cites available after the round.


 * Speaker points** – I mostly give between a 27.5-28.5. I rarely give a 29 or 30, does not mean that I won’t. Want to up your speaker points with me, make good tactical choices and know your arguments, be clear (do not sacrifice clarity for speed), road mapping / sign posting helps, line by line, also doing a good job with impact clac, comparing warrants/qualifications. Also reading the other teams cards and pointing out inconsistency will also help you. Overtaking your partner’s cross-x can result in lower speaker points. I will vote your speaker points down for rudeness and/or racial slurs and racism good args (any other offensive type argument).


 * Topicality**– The most important thing that I look for is abuse (in round and potential), clear definition (bright line, case list, clear volition), and standards. Reasonability, clash/lit checks, race to bottom, etc. are voters if explained. Neg has the burden and will default to competing interpretations.


 * Disads** –Key things that I look for is impact clac, turns case args, and a clear link. For the aff, straight turning is a good option.


 * Cp** - Text should be written down. Show solvency deficits, use overviews, like to see a clear net benefit to the cp. In my mind agent, international, 50 states, conditions, consult, pics should be in the literature of the topic. Multi-plank cps are ok, as long as they have a reasonable number of (1 - 3 planks (that’s debatable). Others like cps; advantage, delays, process, and word pics are fine to.


 * K** – EXPLAIN. Have a general idea on the basic ks, not a k hack, still you can run them and I encourage you to do, find that they encourage a lot more thinking then normal rounds. Do not automatically accept that I know all of the buzz words. Overviews help. Show how the alt solves, what the world of the alt look likes, clear link to the plan. Aff should always question the alt.

Will default to reject the argument, if you want me to reject the team, explain to me why.
 * Theory** – Most importantly, explain. Show abuse in the round, impact it, and don’t just reread your blocks. Condo for me is good, unless they do something abusive (aff burden to show).


 * Kirtikal aff** - use the aff, by that I mean K the negative positions through the lens of the aff. I enjoy these types of affs over the regular policy affs especially when both teams are intellectually engaged in the debate. Show a clear role of ballot.


 * Non- traditional/Performance aff-** same as the k affs. Totally fine with looking at images, listening to music, narratives, stories and other things. Fine that these affs get boiled down to generic things.