Braunstein,+Phred

I debated for six years at Pace Academy. I have not debated since. I am currently a law student at the University of Michigan. I judge very infrequently.

On this year's social services topic, I've judged one tournament (Michigan).

As a result, assume I have no topic specific knowledge. The implications of this are potentially - although not limited to - the following: 1) **I don't know what the topic specific acronym you keep using means unless you explain it (several times).** Don't start by telling me your plan establishes MPAs in the pacific ocean. I need to hear "marine protected areas" first. 2) **I don't know what the core of the topic is**. An argument that either their T violation "unfairly limits out the core of the topic" or that "this case is predictable" won't be particularly persuasive to me without further explanation. 3) **I've never heard your argument before.** I need you to be very clear on explaining things to me, even if your aff or your disad is run almost every round. I probably haven't heard it before. 4) **If you are unclear, not only will your speakers points be lower, but there is a substantial chance that I literally have no idea what you are talking about.** I've judged rounds where I had no idea what the plan was because the plan text was mumbled. I've had rounds where I didn't know what the T violation was because the neg was so unclear during the 1NC. If you want me to understand you must speak clearly. Note: this isn't a comment on speed. I'd prefer you to be fast and clear over slow and mumbled.

I don't have lots of detailed reflections on types of arguments. In high school I mostly ran abusive counterplans (con con, world government, consult japan), politics, and topicality. This doesn't mean that I won't vote for your criticism -- however, you will want to take some time explaining to me how your K functions in the round... otherwise, it tends to sound like a nonunique disad. I also have no problem voting on theory: multiple conditional arguments doesn't seem very fair to me.

Finally, attitude matters. There is no reason to be mean and/or rude* towards the other team and/or your partner. I also an extremely troubled when you talk loudly during another persons' speech. The best advice I've ever heard (both for debate and for life) was from Melissa Wade when she said to "kill with kindness."


 * I recognize that there is a fine line between assertiveness and rudeness, particularly for female debaters. I have no problem with speakers who are aggressive or assertive during the round. However, unhelpful comments like "we are crushing them" and body language (rolling eyes, sighs, pointing) are unnecessary.