Brovero,+Adrienne

**Adrienne Brovero, Director of Debate, University of Mary Washington, 20 years coaching **

** Updated Summer 2015 **

**MACRO-ISSUES ** __Communication:__ I like it. I appreciate teams that recognize communication failures and try to correct them. If I am not flowing, it usually means communication is breaking down. If I am confused or have missed an argument, I will frequently look up and give you a confused look – you should read this as an indication that the argument, at minimum, needs to be repeated, and may need to be re-explained. I am more than willing to discount a team’s arguments if I didn’t understand or get their arguments on my flow.

__Speaker points:__ Points are influenced by a variety of factors, including, but not limited to: Communication skills, speaking clarity, road-mapping, obnoxiousness, disrespectfulness, theft of prep time, quality of and sufficient participation in 2 cross-examinations and 2 speeches, the quality of the debate, the clarity of your arguments, the sophistication of your strategy, and your execution. I have grown uncomfortable with the amount of profanity used during debates – do not expect high points if you use profanity.

__Paperless/Prep Time:__ Most tournaments have a strict decision time clock, and your paperless time cuts into decision time. Most of you would generally prefer the judges has the optimal amount of time to decide. Please be efficient. Prep runs until you are pulling the jump drive out of your computer or the email is sent. I will be understanding of tech fails, but not as much negligence or incompetence. Dealing with your laptop’s issues, finding your flows, looking for evidence, figuring out how to operate a timer, setting up stands, etc. – i.e. preparation – all come out of prep time. In terms of viewing your evidence myself, I prefer email over flashing - my email address is adri.debate@gmail.com, so please include me on speech doc emails.

**__Flowing:__ ** • I flow.

• Unless both teams instruct me otherwise, I will flow both teams.

• I evaluate the debate based primarily on what I have flowed.

• I frequently flow CX. I try to carefully check the 2AR for new arguments, and will not hold the 2NR accountable for unpredictable explanations or cross applications.

• I try to get down some form of tag/cite/text for each card. This doesn’t mean I always do. I make more effort to get the arg than I do the cite or date, so do not expect me to always know what you’re talking about when you solely refer to your “Henry 4” evidence.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">• I reward those who make flowing easier by reading in a flowable fashion (road-mapping & signposting, direct refutation/clash, clarity, reasonable pace, emphasis of key words, reading for meaning, no distractions like tapping on the tubs, etc.). If you are fond of saying things like "Now the link debate" or "Group the perm debate" during the constructives, and you do not very transparently embed the clash that follows, do not expect me to follow your arguments or connect dots for you. Nor should you expect spectacular points.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">**<span style="font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">__Evidence:__ ** <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">• I appreciate efforts to evaluate and compare claims and evidence in the debate.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">• I pay attention to quals and prefer they are actually read in the debate. I am extremely dismayed by the decline in quality of evidence (thank you, Internets) and the lack of teams’ capitalization on questionable sources.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">• I don’t like to read evidence if I don’t feel the argument it makes has been communicated to me (e.g. the card was mumbled in the 2AC, or only extended by cite, or accompanied by a warrantless explanation, etc.).

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">• I also don’t like reading the un-highlighted portions of evidence unless they are specifically challenged by the opposing team.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">• I should not have to read the un-highlighted parts to understand your argument – the highlighted portion should be a complete argument and a coherent thought. If you only read a claim, you only have a claim – you don’t get credit for portions of the evidence you don’t reference or read. If you only read a non-grammatical fragment, you are running the risk of me deciding I can’t coherently interpret that as an arg.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">• I don’t like anonymous pronouns or referents in evidence like “she says” without an identification of who “she” is – identify “she” in your speech or “she” won’t get much weight in my decision.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">• If you hand me evidence to read, please make clear which portions were actually read.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">**<span style="font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">__Decision calculus__ **<span style="font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">**:** <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">Procedural determinations usually precede substantive determinations. First, I evaluate fairness questions to determine if actions by either team fundamentally alter the playing field in favor of the aff or neg. Then, I evaluate substantive questions. Typically, the aff must prove their plan is net beneficial over the status quo and/or a counterplan in order to win.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">**<span style="font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">MICRO-ISSUES **

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">**<span style="font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">__Topicality & plan-related issues:__ **

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">• The aff needs to have a written plan text.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">• It should be topical.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">• T is a voter. “Kritiks” of T are RVIs in sheep’s clothing.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">• Anti-topical actions are neg ground.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">• Have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation of how “projects” or “demands” are meaningfully different from “plans”, other than they are usually either vague and/or non-topical.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">• On a related note, I don’t get why calling one’s advocacy a “project” or “demand” renders a team immune from being held responsible for the consequences of their advocacy.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">• In relation to plans and permutations, I value specificity over vagueness – specificity is necessary for meaningful debate about policies. However, please do not consider this an invitation to run dumb spec arguments as voting issues – absent a glaring evasiveness/lack of specificity, these are typically more strategic as solvency args.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">**<span style="font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">__Kritiks/Performance:__ ** <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">Most of these debates take place at a level of abstraction beyond my comprehension. If you have a habit of referring to your arguments by the author’s name (e.g. “Next off – Lacan”), I am not a very good judge for you. I don’t read advanced political philosophy or performance studies. This means, most of the time, I don’t know what the terms used in these debates mean. I am much more the applied politics type, and tend to think pragmatically. This means if you want to go for a kritikal or performance argument in front of me, you need to explain your arguments in lay-speak, relying less on jargon and author names, and more on warrants, analogies, empirical examples, and specifics in relation to the policy you are kritiking/performing for/against – i.e. persuade me. It also helps to slow it down a notch. Ask yourself how quickly you could flow advanced nuclear physics – not so easy if you aren’t terribly familiar with the field, eh? Well, that’s me in relation to these arguments. Flowing them at a rapid rate hinders my ability to process the arguments. Additionally, make an effort to explain your evidence as I am not nearly as familiar with this literature as you are. Lastly, specifically explain the link and impact in relation to the specific aff you are debating or the status quo policy you are criticizing. Statements like "the kritik turns the case” don't help me. As Russ Hubbard put it, in the context of defending his demining aff years ago, “How does our plan result in more landmines in the ground? Why does the K turn the case?” I need to know why the kritik means the plan’s solvency goes awry – in words that link the kritik to the actions of the plan. For example: Which part of the harms does the kritik indict, with what impact on these harms claims? What would the plan end up doing if the kritik turns its solvency? In addition, I find it difficult to resolve philosophical questions and/or make definitive determinations about a team’s motives or intentions in the course of a couple of hours.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">I strongly urge you to re-read my thoughts above on “Communication” before debating these arguments in front of me.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">**<span style="font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">__Counterplans:__ ** <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">I generally lean negative on CP theory: topical, plan-inclusive, exclusion, conditional/dispositional, international fiat, agent, etc. Aff teams should take more advantage of situations where the counterplan run is abusive at multiple levels – if the negative has to fend off multiple reasons the CP is abusive, their theory blocks may start to contradict. Both counterplan and permutation texts should be written out. “Do both” is typically meaningless to me – specify how. Absent clarification, the status quo remains a logical negative option at the end of the debate. Additionally, another shout-out for communication - many theory debates are shallow and blippy - don't be that team. I like theory, but those type of debates give theory a bad name.

<span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; vertical-align: baseline;">**<span style="font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">__Other:__ ** <span style="background-color: #fefefe; font-family: 'times new roman',times; vertical-align: baseline;">I like DAs. I’m willing to vote on stock issue arguments like inherency or “zero risk of solvency”.