Brandt,+James

James Brandt

 Experience: I debated policy four years in high school, coached/coordinated the Rhode Island Urban Debate League while in college, and spent last year coaching novice policy at Democracy Prep in Harlem. I am currently a PhD Candidate at Harvard and thus have only judged a handful of rounds on this topic, all of which have been about Afghanistan. Please spell out any nonobvious acronyms.

Delivery: please do not drag me through the valley of incomprehension known as JVCX. I need to be able to understand what you are saying. The single easiest way to gain my favor is to debate at a comprehensible speed. This will depend on your abilities, but I recommend in advance that you slow down your pace.

Topicality: I enjoy well developed topicality arguments. Affirmatives have rarely convinced me that T is not a voting issue, and I can't remember a time anyone convinced me T was a reverse voting issue.

Disad/CPs: My favorite rounds to judge usually involve CP/Disad arguments. I think link stories are often under-debated and too much importance is placed on uniqueness. Zero risks exists. I find that I tilt negative on most counterplan theory and strongly prefer to reject unsuccessful arguments rather than teams.

Ks: I enjoy Ks. I think affirmatives often put themselves in a losing position by failing to debate the consequences of the alternative.

Dropped arguments: If an argument is dropped on the flow but implicitly answered elsewhere, I will probably accept answers to enter in later rebuttals. Don't be afraid to win by having the best arguments.

Everything above is only provisional and subject to your persuasive abilities. Have fun!