Berggren,+Brian


 * Brian Berggren, USC (Damien High School)**

__**Overview**__ : (1) Years of High School Judging Experience: 4 (2) Rounds judged on the topic: 40+ (3) I will weigh all arguments in terms of a cost-benefit analysis. However, in the words of Shawn Powers, “the less clear that an argument and/or evidence is, the less likely I am to follow the precise logic or intuitive leaps required to award said argument significant credibility.” Especially in rebuttals, the best way to illustrate the strength and importance of your arguments is to explain the warrants provided in your evidence.

__**Theory & Topicality**__: (1) To win any theoretical arguments in front of me, you must be able to describe the ground you either gain or lose, and why it’s preferable to the ground provided by the opposing team’s interpretation. (2) I do not have a predisposition about whether a counterplan is conditional, dispositional or unconditional. I would say that I have no significant predispositions for or against either side of these more nuanced PIC arguments, but a general PICS bad debate is rarely a winning argument in front of me. (3) In terms of “cheap shots,” I rarely think these arguments are sufficient to become independent voting issues, but that doesn’t rule out situations in which these arguments are winnable. For example, if a team completely mishandles an argument and you can prove why that argument is important to my decision-making, I will vote for you.

__**Counterplans & Disads**__: (1) The most important thing is that the Negative must prove their Counterplan is competitive with the Affirmative plan. With that being said, I will not reward a team that writes their plan text intentionally vague in order to eliminate competition for a Counterplan. In those situations, I will give greater weight to the Negative’s arguments about how the Affirmative plan will be implemented and why their Counterplan is competitive

__**Critical Arguments**__: (1) I am more well-read in the policy literature, but I will vote on critical arguments. In order for me to not only understand these arguments, but to vote on these arguments, debaters must provide more explanations.