Brown,+Dan

I have been the coach at the Maggie L. Walker Governor's School since 2000. My involvement in debate has mainly been with Lincoln-Douglas although more recently I have started a Student Congress program and have become involved with Public Forum. My judging philosophy regarding Lincoln-Douglas Debate is as follows:

very hard to keep speed out of L-D debate so this is what I am used to and what I prefer. Obviously, I have had to adjust to this in some of the out of state tournaments that I have judged. My main problems regarding speed are that 1) so few individuals are capable of doing it well 2) it tends to replace actual argumentation skills with simply trying to spread the opponent and 3) despite advance warnings to debaters that I will provide signs on whether I am able to follow them or not, no debaters who speed tend to pick up on this.
 * Speed:** not a fan of it. The Virginia Catholic Forensic League which we compete in has worked

the usage of empirical evidence in the round, but generally feel that I can pick up on whether or not the evidence is genuine on my own. Countering with cards or using solely empirical evidence won't sway my opinion in your favor. The arguments should show a mixture of pathos and logos.
 * Evidence**: I am old school regarding Lincoln-Douglas debate. I don't ask for cards. I don't mind

on value debates. The contentions and how they connect into the value is most important.I do accept Balance Cases for the neg. I have run across a few cases where some very good debaters have tried to place the burden of proof on the negative-sorry, it won't work.
 * Value Debate**: I do prefer discussions that center around value debate. However, I rarely vote just

are in the round.
 * Crystallization**: please crystallize the round for me in 1 NR or 2AR. Provide me with what you think the voting issues

that a fair, level playing field is established. Set the standard for the round.
 * Definitions/observations**: sometimes these can be a waste in the round, but on some resolutions it is crucial

should always claim that your opponent dropped everyone of your arguments (when in fact they didn't) or those who insist on cx in refuting even the most basic questions of their opponent.
 * Speaker Points**: I will deduct speaker points for those debaters who seem to believe that you