Bryan,+Chris

Bryan, Chris Asst. Debate Coach at Aspen High School Litigation Attorney in Aspen, Colorado Education: Caddo Magnet High School; B.A., Baylor University; J.D., University of Chicago Law School

I generally tend to favor debate practices that enrich and improve and sustain the activity; that's the default mode for my judging philosophy.

__Substance__ Evidence -- Attack and debate the interpretation, meaning, and quality of evidence. Too many debaters don't develop this skill, which is among the best that this activity has to offer. Reading duelling-expert cards is part of it, but analytics go a long way here, so debunk faulty premises, weak or far-fetched assumptions, and unsubstantiated warrants.

Case -- I love good case debates, so bring it, and make sure your taglines match what the evidence says or else it won't help you at all. I want solvency and advantages to be fleshed out, especially internal links between the plan and advantages, so give me what I want.

Advantages -- Negative teams should test the causal links of the plan and claimed advantages more often, as there is often an amazing disconnect between the two. I like case debates, so don't be scared to press these. Sometimes weakening the supposed advantages of an Affirmative plan and showing a higher plausibility of DAs is just what tips the scales in my judging. Once you do this, make sure to do the impact calcs and weigh the issues in the round for me.

DAs -- I don't usually fall for DAs that have weak internal links because I tend to be sympathetic to impact calculus and risk analysis that shows a very low likelihood of the impact happening unless the internal links are pretty solid. So don't think that telling me X leads to Genocide or Thermo-Nuclear Destruction of the Planet or other apocalyptic impacts is going to automatically win you the ballot. And when you're Affirmative, give me some link turns or impact turns.

CPs -- I am skeptical but not unwelcoming of PICs, including consult and delay CPs, so you better focus on the competitiveness and net benefits to persuade me to vote dispositively on a CP you run. I have always been a fan of coupling DAs that are unique and that link to the plan with a shrewd CP that avoids the DAs. Sounds simple, right? Then why aren't more of you doing it? And I'm surprised that more Affirmative teams don't run their own DAs against CPs or use the 1AC's advantages as hedges to the CP. Those are the policy debates I like because there are lots of weighty issues in the round and lots for you to argue.

Kritiks -- Please don't run K's unless you know what you're doing. I really like good kritiks that are run properly, but sadly those are few and far between, as too many debaters on the high school level have gotten into the terrible habit of reading K's they don't understand and using them as a generic crutch when they have nothing else to argue. If your K is based on a philosophical text or writer, please at least be a convincing enough faker to fool me into plausibly believing you've actually read the philosopher whose work you're relying on in the round. Please understand what you're talking about. For those of you who run the K right, here's some good advice: offer up some explanations for the impact and alternative. The alternative needs to be in writing so I can see it after the round if necessary. Paint a picture for me and tell me what the world looks like post-kritik. Can the claims set forth in the alternative be achieved by rejecting the proposed policy? And please don't expect me to know the inside lingo that you're probably using in your K -- explain it to me, because if you don't, I'll ultimately assume you can't, and that will not bode well for you. Oh yeah, I have some vague philosophical objections to "dirty word" kritiks but they are not insurmountable, so if you want to argue these in front of me you better pull it off right.

Theory -- Everything is up for debate, but you better know your p's and q's in this realm or else I'll smolder with resentment. Plus, you really need to speak more slowly during theory debates because otherwise stuff gets lost in the ether and it's like you never said it. It's cliche to say that a winning theory argument means rejecting the argument, not the team, but cliches become cliches generally because they're true. There are, however, a few exceptions to the cliche -- for instance, conditionality, etc. I get easily bored by ASPEC, OSPEC, fiat, so go there at your own peril.On balance, I find most theory debates to be, um, well, not very good. Still, sometimes they are necessary; so it goes.

Topicality -- I find too many T debates to be mishandled, resulting in my having unspoken misgivings about your argumentative strategy and misuse of time unless you persuade me the Affirmative plan is clearly non-topical and therefore abusive. I understand that words are slippery terms are open for debate, but be reasonable please. If T is run as a time-suck, it will be pretty obvious, and I'll accord it commensurate respect. You will have your work cut out for you in establishing reasonability, ground, limits, etc. but I'll listen to you if you have a good argument (I'll listen to you even if you have a bad argument, but I prefer good arguments). Affirmatives beware, though: if your squirrely plan is too clever by half so as to not fall within the resolution, I will vote on T if the Negative makes a convincing argument. As for performance debate -- especially for Affirmatives who lack a plan, etc. -- I'm inclined to say that it seems gimmicky and that you're probably in the wrong forum and that you should check out some other speech, drama, or forensic events instead of being a policy debater.

__Style__ I like good policy debates that are interesting, thought-provoking, and strategically oriented. I want more debaters to offer real clash in a round and to analyze and weigh impacts in a meaningful way -- that's generally where I think more debates should be won and lost. If you don't weigh impacts and advantages etc. then you risk having me to intervene and make my own decision based on my take on the evidence, scenarios, etc. -- that's dangerous, so if you want me to refrain from doing so, please provide the metrics for the ballot throughout the rebuttal speeches. Your speaker points will reflect whether and how well you do this.

I like debates about evidentiary quality -- just because a card from some guy with a Ph.D. or someone who has a column in a polemical publication says something doesn't make it true ("it ain't necessarily so," as the aphorism goes). Attack qualifications and credentials and biases of your opponent's evidence -- this should be a no-brainer but too many of you on the circuit are becoming automatons instead of clear-eyed quick-thinking debaters. Debate is about rhetorical ability and tactics, but it's also about bread-and-butter concepts, such as thinking on your feet, adapting to circumstances, engaging in analytics without having to use shells and blocks as crutches, demolishing the value of an opponent's evidence by probing its premises, internal assumptions, and conclusions, and turning the other side's arguments through both small-bore micro-analysis as well as a persuasive view of the big-picture.

I'm not particularly fond of gimmicky debating tactics, but I do appreciate the well-conceived and clever argumentative strategy that is expertly executed. Don't try to enlist me for a political cause or some grand-sweeping Hegelian world-historical philosophical bent... I won't buy it. I will seldom use my ballot as a means of punishing abuse or ethical violations, but it happens, so consider yourself forewarned. Instead, aim to be a sharp debater who has the perfect balance of technical skill, intellectual heft, policy mastery, strategic eye, and rhetorical flourish.

I don't really have a paradigm except this: I'm for preserving, promoting, improving, and enriching the activity of competitive policy debate. I will almost always vote for the team that best embodies that principle. That means a lot of things, so let me try to unpack it:


 * I take seriously ethical lapses or rules violations; don't mischaracterize or falsify evidence; don't take selectively read cards to change the meaning of the author's point; don't read things out of context; don't hide the ball; don't use underhanded tricks; don't be evil. I think the Golden Rule works wonders when it comes to interpersonal relationships, including those with your opponents. I am loath to reward cheaters with my ballot. If those are the only methods by which you can win a debate, then please do everyone a favor and find something else to do with your free time. If you're a debater, you represent a community that cherishes fierce (but fair) intellectual battle and a group of people who want to defend the integrity of the exercise. Respect each other and act professionally. I rarely drop a team for being abusive or unethical, but it has happened a handful of times, so don't let it happen to you.


 * I prefer debaters who can execute -- i.e., answer the opposition's arguments cogently and efficiently. Flow the debate -- especially your opponents' speeches. Your failure to show me you can debate the line-by-line will almost always result in your losing the round. I will of course vote for arguments that I may not personally agree with as long as you win that part of the debate on the flow. I won't intervene except as necessary (i.e., when you don't do your job and then require me to step in). So even if you have the qualitatively better argument, you may lose if you fail to explain it or put it in context with the other issues in the round. That's why weighing the issues (think scales of justice) is so important. I want the the rebuttal speeches to start focusing the debate on the end-game, narrowing down the issues to the crux of what's at stake in the debate. Among the blizzard of cards and the short-hand abbreviations and private language that have become hallmarks of contemporary academic debate, I'm still a sucker for a good story. I want a narrative that pieces together all the strands of the round into a cohesive whole.


 * I like speakers who are clear and organized. Please roadmap, or signpost, for me at the top of your speech -- and stay true to that order. It should go without saying, but too often I have to ask for the order before you start your speech. And here's a little trick that will make you seem cooler than you are: when you cycle to a new argument (e.g., when you finish your first DA and are about to start your next one), pause for a second (silence is emphatic) and calmly say the name of the next argument so I can switch gears in my head and flip my flow. I like knowing the name of the argument instead of having to figure it out, so name it at the top. Also slow down for the tagline of the card and the author -- that's the most important thing for me to get on the flow so don't blitz through it. And number arguments with subpoints -- it makes the rest of the debate cleaner. Speed bumps are there for a reason.


 * As for speed, I can flow it, but I've noticed in recent years that too many debaters are trying to speak faster than they actually can, with the result being an appreciable loss of comprehensibility. That's not good for debate. Debate, after all, is a speech event. So speak clearly. It's that important. Having your audience (read: me) understand what you're saying is good for debate. So spew and spread all you want if you can speak intelligibly while doing it, but make sure you enunciate so your brilliant arguments make their way to my flow. Not only will you risk losing arguments that I don't catch, but your speaker points will suffer. Avoid the verbal clutter -- the best debaters are those who avoid the filler-speak and do not overly rely on blippy lingo; explain the argument instead of repeating the 2AC frontline tag. I'd prefer a speaker who is clear and a little on the slow side (relatively) who explains the gist of the argument than a micro-machines speed-reader who is not understandable and only talks in debater-speak. Practice speed drills at home before we spend the better part of an hour-and-a-half in an empty classroom together on a random Saturday night far from home.


 * Speaking of things to do before we meet, please be prepared. Ill-prepared debaters don't win rounds I'm judging. Preparation means more than having your files alphabetically organized and indexed and all pointing north. It means knowing your evidence very well and showing me that you've mapped out -- or at least thought about in a serious way -- strategy before the round. I think the best debaters are those who have thought about all these issues for countless hours and have developed a really intuitive sense of how everything fits together and what arguments pair with what. Preparation also means having your act together in-round. Scrambling for stuff looks sloppy so don't do it. If you're not speaking or in cross-x, then that's prep time, so use it wisely.


 * As for cross-x, some judges tune it out, but not me. I find cross-x to be one of the more interesting aspects of policy debate because it's a rare opportunity for a head-to-head interaction. You can score major points in cross-x, and while I don't necessarily flow cross-x exchanges, I do pay close attention. Cross-x questions and answers help me refine my assessment of the individual debaters and each team's argumentative positions. Plus I tend to hold people responsible for what they say in cross-x -- so don't treat it as a frivolous space-filler. Good teams will try to get the other side to form "contracts" of sorts in cross-x that, if properly done, will be for the most part binding and lock down some aspects of the debate. I typically don't like open cross-x and find it generally unnecessary so long as each debater carries his or her own weight. Cross-x matters for speaker point purposes and in that sense it is a type of "speech" -- would you interrupt your partner during his or her constructive or rebuttal speech? If one member of a team is dominating all aspects of the round for that team, it highlights weakness and incompatibility. Plus your teammate should probably be prepping for his or her next speech instead of stealing your thunder by tag-teaming in cross-x. Still, I do recognize the utility of open cross-x at the right time and place and will not be punitive about it so long as it appears to be necessary (e.g., clarifying a point for the rest of us).