Turner,+Brandon

I have been with the activity since 1996, debating for Edina High School (MN) and coaching since 2001 for Hopkins, Bloomington, North St. Paul, and currently Edina.

I primarily see debate as an educational and social activity for EVERYONE involved, including the participants, judge, coaches, and audiences; therefore, I prefer spirited, witty, and friendly debates. The primary focus of each debate for me is for each participant to grow as a debater and citizen. To this end, I tend to reward debaters who are clear, create innovative arguments and strategy, and are clearly knowledgeable about the topic. I see the activity as a showcase of the work each participant has been doing prior to the tournament, therefore I react negatively to sloppiness with paperless debate, unclear or inaudible speaking, stealing prep time, and especially stale, unfriendly debate for an hour and forty minutes. I see myself constrained by the rules of the activity and as such stick to the arguments and warrants articulated and captured on my flow and evaluate them as a policy maker first--if you would like me to evaluate arguments as more important than others to the round, then tell me to do so--if arguments are dropped, then I will consider them effectively conceded--if you would like me to evaluate the round in any other way than a strict policy-maker, know upfront that you will have an uphill battle, not because I do not prefer such arguments, but because I have significantly less experience and context to draw from. Lastly, do not speed read through overviews or complex argumentation--your pace and clarity will determine for me the importance you are placing on each argument.

Topicality: I consider topicality a good argument in any round. I can evaluate topicality in a strict jurisdictional sense, but prefer clearly articulated and exemplified instances of in-round abuse. A team that wins topicality in front of me typically provides a clear story of abuse, with clear and numerous examples, and articulates why and under what conditions I should vote.

Critical arguments: I have a B.A. in philosophy and my graduate work centered on philosophies of education and racial identity, therefore I have a background on typical critical arguments I hear. But I struggle with understanding these arguments outside of their historic and intended context and commodified to win a debate round. A critical argument must APPLY the author's text to the debate round and make clear the warrants of the application and its implications. Without a clear understanding of how the philosophy is being contextualize in-round, I see each text as a disjointed excerpt of various authors who may or may not be relying on similar assumptions--I see this as antithetical to the integrity of philosophy and debate itself. Please give me a clear argument of why your argument should be evaluated in the debate context and of how my ballot functions beyond "reject." If the critical argument has policy-making consequences or reasons to vote, it will be easier for me to understand how to evaluate it.

I do not shy away from conplex RFDs, and usually prefer them, but am happy with them only when teams let me know with what method they want me to vote, what to focus on and in what order, which comparisons are the most important, and what pitfalls and arguments of their opponent I should avoid. If none of these happen by the end of the round, I will inevitably decide how I see the round, not how the debaters wanted me to see it--and frankly, that is not educational or entertaining for anyone in the round.