Bruck,+Michelle

__Background __

Former Competitor (LD, Congress, Extemp), 2000-2004 Judge (LD, Congress, PFD, IE), 2004-present

__Judging Preferences (LD) __


 * Speed **: I don’t like speed. I can handle it but I find that most debaters can’t. It tends to detract from the quality of the debate due to loss of articulation, volume issues, stumbling over words, that horrific double-gasping noise, etc. If I can’t hear or understand an argument, it isn’t going on the flow and you’re not going to win on it.


 * Jargon **: I’m fine with it to a point. Keep in mind that with most topics, you as a student are better versed in the subject matter than your judge due to your research. Using abbreviations, acronyms and specific names might mean something to both competitors but you risk losing your judge if those terms aren’t well known.


 * Argumentation **: I prefer a values-based debate. Usually this will involve a discussion of a particular philosophy, but it doesn’t necessarily have to. I’m familiar with the common political philosophies that arise in debate. If you want to run a philosophy that is uncommon or off the wall, that’s great but make sure you explain it well. Define your value clearly and then justify your value in terms of both the resolution and the bigger picture. I think the most important part of an LD case and an LD round is the value criterion/standard. Tell me why your VC is the best way to evaluate the achievement of your value. For contentions, I want to hear an argument, evidence that supports it (if appropriate) and an impact back to the VC/standard in each contention and/or sub-point. Lately I’ve seen a lot of rounds where the framework debate and the contention level debate were treated as if they were completely separate throughout the round. In every speech of the debate, everything should be impacted to the VC/standard.

Cards are great if used correctly. Cards are not arguments. Cards are evidence that supports an argument. I should never hear a contention tagline and a string of cards. That’s not sufficient and you won’t win on that contention. Also, I flow arguments (not card names) so if you go back in rebuttal and tell me to cross apply Smith but don’t mention what Smith’s point was, that doesn’t mean anything to me.

I also don’t believe in the new trend of asking questions, trading cases and trading cards during prep time. LD is a communication event. If it wasn’t spoken in the round, it didn’t happen. If you need clarification on anything your opponent said, that’s what your CX time is for. If you think your opponent made something up or is misquoting someone, say so in your next speech. I reserve the right to call for your case or cards if I believe there has been academic dishonesty. I have never done this in the past, but I will if I think it’s warranted.


 * Plans/Counterplans/Disads **: I don’t like anything that resembles Policy. I should never hear a plan or (more likely) a plan disguised as an LD case. A good way to tell if your LD case is really a Policy case is if every contention and subpoint is centered on one particular real-world issue. An example of this would be an Aff case on the present topic that is based exclusively on Global Warming and why it’s currently a problem (inherency), why that’s bad (harms) and how environmental protection fixes it (solvency). That would be a policy case and throwing a value at the top doesn’t turn it into an LD case. Words like “solvency” and “inherency” don’t belong in an LD round. Topicality may be a legitimate issue in a round, but that’s rare. Harms are fair game as long as they relate to affirming or negating the resolution and not a particular plan.


 * Kritiks **: Kritiks don’t have a place in LD. Both debaters are bound by the wording of the resolution and all arguments should relate to that resolution. For most topics, a straight-refutation Neg would be okay.