Beck,+Brian

I coach at Taft HS in Chicago. I did policy for two years in high school, and judged sporadically afterwards; this is my fourth year coaching.

IMPORTANT: If you put me on an email chain so I have your evidence ahead of time, I will follow along while you read your cards to see if you read the entire card. If you cut cards short, YOU MUST MARK WHERE YOU STOPPED. If you're frequently cutting cards short, I will pick a random card in your speech and ask you to tell me where you stopped; if you are wrong, I will deduct two speaker points.

Bio: I'm a practicing lawyer in IP litigation, not a college student or full time teacher. Ideally, I want to see sophisticated analysis of real world situations, and extreme claims require extreme proof. I'm comfortable with most debate jargon and almost all topic jargon, but that doesn't excuse you from explaining your position in plain English. Reading big words doesn't impress me; explaining what they mean at a level that any educated college student should be able to understand does.

Judging paradigm: I default to what I call "open minded policymaker" At the end of the round, the core question is "should we pass the plan or keep the SQ? (or the CP or the perm, if those are in the round?)" That includes moral and critical reasons for supporting or opposing a policy; morality is important in real-world policymaking. The way you figure out how to answer that question varies round to round, so you have to argue impact calculus at the end of the round. That's just my default, though; if you argue for and defend another method for judging, I'll use it.

Contradictory Negs: I'm adding this section after a few ugly rounds I've seen this year; I dislike perfcons and I really dislike the use of directly contradictory Neg positions that force an Aff to argue against itself. If you run a Neolib K and an agent CP where the net benefit is a "corporate economic growth good" politics scenario, I'm not going to be happy, and I'll probably be more inclined to look for ways to justify an Aff ballot. Consistent Neg positions are good for your credibility.

Performative and critical Affs: I'm becoming more accepting on these, but I do generally think you should try to at least have something to do with the topic. If I have to hear one of these on the education topic, I'd rather hear something specific to education rather than something completely unconnected to education. I also expect you to at least defend something and defend some form of solvency, even if it's just that your advocacy solves. I don't usually find high theory or heavily racialized arguments compelling, but I will vote on them.

CPs: Plan specific CPs are my favorite type of argument in debate. I generally view CPs as an opportunity cost issue--the CP is a reason to reject the Aff because it prevents us from doing this other, better thing. To that extent, I think agent CPs are a bit abusive if the agent wouldn't actually do the plan. Using a CP to attack implementation is fine, but I want to see competition.

Kritiks: I love well run, clearly explained Ks--it's too bad I almost never hear them. I'll listen to and vote on pre-fiat impacts if they're run well, but they're rarely run well. If you run a pure reject alt, I expect to hear some explanation of how that solves for your K or at least how rejection in favor of the SQ is better than the plan. Note: If you advocate mass death or genocide as an alt, I will probably dock you speaker points, and if that is a general strategy of yours, you should strike me.

Topicality and theory: If you're arguing some form of abuse type argument, give specific explanations of what the abuse was and why I should vote on it.

Speed and clarity: Speed is fine, but slow down and speak clearly for tag lines and analyticals.

Cross-X: This event is called CX debate, so why do we turn CX into a non-event that judges sleep through? I like combative CX (but not rude, don't interrupt each other too much), and I consider CX a chance for you to show off your skills without a crutch to read from. I allow tag team CX because that's the dominant culture in debate, but if you abuse the privilege, it will affect your speaker points.

Dropped arguments: After watching a lot of bad spread debating, I will clarify that I think the trend towards "pure tab" judging is harmful to debate. In a courtroom, if the defendant doesn't show up, the plaintiff doesn't automatically win--the judge still has to analyze what the plaintiff presents and determine if there's a claim. Debate should be similar. The fact that your opponent dropped point 7 on harms scenario B of your third advantage does not mean you automatically get a 100% risk of your extinction level impact. You have to explain how any of this stuff makes sense and matters. Don't just tell me, "they dropped it, so we automatically win."

If you run troll arguments (like the "the" PIC) and don't make them crystal clear, you will get very low speaker points from me.

If you run evidence from random crackpot internet sites, and your opponent calls you out on it, I will probably dock your speaker points and boost your opponents'.

After the 1NC, if you're just reading from cards without specifically responding to the other side's arguments, you're doing it wrong.

I'm fairly expressive, or so my students tell me, so watch my facial expressions for some idea of what I'm thinking.

// Modification of the rules of debate - National Circuit Varsity only // Adopting this from a friend's judging philosophy - I am amenable to some ability for the debaters to agree to change the rules regarding structure, but the tournament and myself are also stakeholders. Changes which solve for perceived abuse issues and require only minor modifications to things like total time spent debating I will consider implementing if both teams agree. Preferably this discussion would happen during CX, and I will make a decision if asked at that time. My priorities are to keep the tournament roughly on schedule and defend the integrity of debate, so if the proposal is relatively neutral or beneficial to those goals, it will increase chances of acceptance. (For example, Aff+Neg agreeing to let Aff have +30s in the 1AR for a 30s 3NR after the 2AR just to point out new arguments in the aff's last speech only generates +1 minute of speaking time, and improves the intellectual integrity of debate - I'd probably allow it. I will not, otoh, ever agree to give all the debaters 30 speaks just because they agreed they should get them; that damages the integrity of the activity.)

One modification I would find interesting, but would only implement if all four debaters explicitly agree to it, would be to allow the judge to ask a few clarification questions in CX. Courtroom judges freely ask questions during oral argument, and I find it's helpful both as an advocate and as an educator for you to get some idea of where the judge is having trouble following your arguments. I will not mention this as a possible rule change in the round, but will accept it if the debaters read my judge philosophy and decide they want to adopt it.