Brannen,+Christopher

__Christopher Brannen: Judge Paradigm (Policy) __

Debate Coach at Barbers Hill High School, TX

Christopher Brannen: Judge Paradigm (Policy)

Hello! I’ve been an educator for 9 years and coaching Debate now for 4 years. I hold a Masters in Education and a Masters in Communication.

My first rule of CX is, have fun with it! That said, here are some things you likely would want to know if I'm judging your round: I am a judge that cares most about the big picture. What is the impact if we do/don’t pass the plan/CP? Does it impact real people in real ways? What is the practical outcome of what we are doing in the round? RP a bit if you have to, but that is where you will convince me. Put the word “reasonable” in your head.


 * On Framework: If you give me a framework, and win the framing debate, I will view the round through your framework. However, framework is not an auto-win on the flow. You still have to impact the debate and win down the flow. If your framework is morally repugnant I will reject it. (Racism good etc.) In the absence of framework debate, I default policymaker.
 * On Topicality: The plan is what makes you topical. I will view the round through the lens of competing interpretations unless tell me to do otherwise. I don’t think affs need to specify their agent.
 * On Communication: First, I'm a little deaf, be loud and clear. As a result of being a little deaf, speed is tough if you can't speed and speak clearly. Debate to me is as much about communication as about the arguments you are making. Spreading would not benefit you with me anyway because I’m looking at, in the end, on the key issues in the debate. Plus, it’s bad for competition and accessibility. (If your opponents spread anyway, I’ll buy an ableism K on the matter) Please signpost clearly and slow down for tags.
 * On Theory I like condo and disclosure. I think they tend to even the playing field in an activity that can get rather elitist. That said, I do not vote on T all that often. I generally judge T based on the reasonability of the arguments and who was more effective in their presentation. I'm not that technical on theory. Defending yourself against the abuse claim or talking about the reasonability of the theory argument, or “drop the argument, not the debater,” will probably be enough to convince me to not vote on theory. I default to reasonability.
 * On Counter-plans: I prefer single actor counter-plans to multilateral actor counter-plans. I generally believe that if the US already belongs to that organization then likely the counter-plan is plan plus or the net benefit doesn’t have a link. Absent debate, I think PICS are good and dispositionality or unconditionality makes for good debate.
 * On Kritiks: Politically I am socially libertarian minded, fiscally an ardent regulatory capitalist. I won’t discount your argument just because I may disagree with it, but there is no such thing as a tabula rasa judge. I do my best to see past my bias, but you should know so you can decide if it is a risk you want to take. If you run a K, I will not vote for it without a clear alternative.
 * On “Performance” Affirmatives: Don’t do it.
 * On DAs: Make sure that you do good impact comparison. In the end of the round, I need something to weigh. The link controls the direction of uniqueness/the DA, not the other way around. Arguments like this can be helpful to you
 * On Decorum: I award speaker points based on my preferences. I like polite debaters who appear to enjoy the activity and I reward that. I like debaters to stand during their speeches and during cross examination. I find objectionable language unacceptable as it rarely provides a good warrant. It would always be better for you to default to over explaining (as I will let you know you can proceed) rather than under explaining.
 * On Evidence: If you want me to call for evidence, it must be red flagged in the 2NR or 2AR. I generally find quality round overviews in the last rebuttal to be helpful for me to understand why you think you have won the debate.
 * If you have questions about anything, feel free to come talk to me at any tournament. I’ll do my best to answer your questions.

Christopher Brannen: Judge Paradigm (LD)

I’ve been an educator for 9 years and coaching Debate now for 4 years. I hold a Masters in Education and a Masters in Communication.

<span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">My first rule of LD is, have fun with it! That said, here are some things you likely would want to know if I'm judging your round:


 * On Communication: First, I'm a little deaf, be loud and clear. As a result of being a little deaf, speed is tough if you can't speed and speak clearly. Debate to me is as much about communication as about the arguments you are making. Spreading would not benefit you with me anyway because I’m looking at, in the end, on the key issues in the debate. Plus, it’s bad for competition and accessibility. (If your opponents spread anyway, I’ll buy an ableism K on the matter) Please signpost clearly and slow down for tags.
 * On Kritiks: LD is one big Kritik. Go for it. Politically I am socially libertarian minded, fiscally an ardent regulatory capitalist. I won’t discount your argument just because I may disagree with it, but there is no such thing as a tabula rasa judge.
 * On Framework: If you don't provide a scale in the round to judge by, I will (likely) fall back on who argued their Value/Criteria framework the best.
 * On Theory I don't like to vote on theory. If you both go theory, I'll judge based on the reasonability of the arguments and who was more effective in their presentation. I'm not that technical on theory. Defending yourself against the abuse claim or talking about the reasonability of the theory argument, or “drop the argument, not the debater,” will probably be enough to convince me to not vote on theory. I default to reasonability.
 * On Plans in LD: Do not do it. I do not like it. If you do, you are signaling to me that you do not want my ballot. Keep the debate focused on values.
 * On Clarity: Use conditional statements and make your logic clear for me. Don't make me guess. I want to hear your reasoning. Don’t make assertions without backing those assertions. (Warrants? Impacts?)
 * On Signposting: Signpost clearly. I don't get to look at your case, so make sure you remind me where we are and what the order of the arguments are. Repetition is a skill in speeches. It isn’t bad unless you overdo it.
 * On Rebuttals: In your rebuttal, crystalize for me. Give me voting issues. Use debate jargon, I’m good with it. I’m looking for who wins the key issues of the debate. Tell me what you think those are and why you think you won them. (Or why you think your opponent lost it.)
 * On Decorum: There are lines of decency one should not cross. If you come and debate racism/death good or something like to that, I’ll vote down the debater with impunity. LD is about values. I have no problem imposing a base-level of my own values to the round. I award a wide range of points in debate based on my preferences. I like LD debaters who appear to enjoy the activity and I reward that. I like debaters to stand during their speeches and during cross examination. I find objectionable language unacceptable as it rarely provides a good warrant. It would always be better for you to default to over explaining (as I will let you know you can proceed) rather than under explaining.

<span style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 14px;"><span style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 13px;">If you have questions about anything, feel free to come talk to me at any tournament. I’ll do my best to answer your questions. <span style="display: block; height: 1px; left: 0px; overflow: hidden; position: absolute; top: 1200px; width: 1px;"> <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">I am a judge that cares most about the big picture. What is the impact if we do/don’t pass the plan/CP? How does it affect Hu in Beijing and Alice in San Francisco? What is the practical outcome of what we are doing in the round? RP a bit if you have to, but that is where you will convince me. Put the word “reasonable” in your head. <span style="font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; line-height: 115%;">*On Theory I don't like to vote on theory. If you both go theory, I'll judge based on the reasonability of the arguments.
 * On Kritiks: Politically I am a libertarian minded conservative, that said I find kritiks to be great fun. I won’t discount your argument just because I may disagree with it. I want your opponent to clash with it!
 * On Topicality: The plan is what makes you topical. I will view the round through the lens of competing interpretations unless tell me to do otherwise. I don’t think affs need to specify their agent. If you don’t ask in CX, you can’t win ASPEC.
 * On DAs: Make sure that you do good impact comparison. In the end of the round, I need something to weigh. The link controls the direction of uniqueness/the DA, not the other way around. Arguments like this can be helpful.
 * On Counterplans: I would always prefer a debate about substance rather than theory. Absent the specific debate, I “prefer” single actor counterplans to multilateral actor. Absent debate, I think PICS are good and dispositionality or unconditionality makes for good debate.
 * On Evidence: Evidence for review must be red flagged in the 2NR or 2AR. I find quality round overviews in the last rebuttal to be helpful for me to understand why you think you have won the debate.