Brown,+Adam

//Updated 9/28/17 for Presentation; important updates in italics// Please start an email chain before the round - my email is brown.k.adam@gmail.com =__**Overview**__=
 * About Me -** Hi, my name is Adam Brown. I debated for Episcopal High School in Houston, Texas for three years and graduated in 2016. I was privately coached by Jacob Koshak (career) and Dylan Cavanaugh (addition my senior year). I qualified to the TOC and Nationals as a senior and to TFA State as a junior and senior. I'm currently a sophomore at Kenyon College studying Sociology with a focus on African Diaspora Studies. I've taught at TDC, NSD Flagship, NSD Texas, and Apex. I previously coached/significantly worked with students from Earl Warren, North Crowley, Montgomery, and Klein Oak and am currently coach/work with students from Bowie, Stony Point, Fort Lauderdale, Kamiak, Edmond North, and Klein Oak.


 * TL;DR -** [|I care a lot about debate as an educational space for exploration and learning.] __Do whatever you're passionate about and have fun.__ While I feel confident in my ability to properly evaluate most any flow, i feel most confident with the K flow, followed by phil, then T and theory, then tricks, then the LARP. This isn't an indicator of what I like or want to vote on, but a clarification of what i think my strengths are in terms of understanding type-specific arguments and their interactions. I'm willing to vote on anything as well as it's clearly explained and warranted. Weighing and clear ballot stories attached to framing are __hugely__ important. //I will not vote on an argument that I// //cannot reasonably explain in the RFD.// Pre-round questions should be more specific than "what's your paradigm" or "speed?".


 * Fundamentals**
 * 1) Every debate round belongs to the two debaters. My job as a judge is to determine the winner of the round through the evaluative tools that you give me (until told otherwise). This means that i'm willing to vote for // nearly // any argument presented in front of me, insofar as it has the necessary warrants and framework to make it relevant to the decision. The biases and defaults in this paradigm serve to clarify some predispositions i feel that i have when judging.
 * 2) That being said, i believe that every round must have some parameters imposed on it by the judge so as to keep the space safe for all participants. These include things like voting down debaters who use intentionally exclusive and/or unsafe rhetoric, intervening if a participant is unable to continue the round for physical/emotional/etc reasons, or anything else of this sort. Please don't hesitate to ask me anything concerning this point before the round.
 * 3) There are branches of debate, study, and literature that i found/still find immense joy in researching, debating, and learning about. This, however, does not translate to a pass to skimp on explanation of those ideas. At the very least, i hope to hold debaters to the same expectation as any other position.
 * 4) Don't feel like you need to read something that you think i'll love personally. I'd much rather watch a well done must spec debate than a badly done, hurriedly prepared Deleuze vs Wilderson round.

=__**Specific Feelings About Debate**__=
 * Argumentative Preferences and Defaults**
 * 1) I believe that there is always a role of the judge/ballot. By default, this is to determine the truth or falsity of the resolution through arguments and frameworks given by both debaters with importance concerning the aforementioned 2 point under "fundamentals". Theory voters, role of the ballot and role of the judge arguments, and other commentaries on what the judge should or should not do all edit my obligation as a judge and how i ought to view/use the ballot when making my decision. I __nearly always__ look to this framing first to determine who wins the round, so be sure to emphasize exactly how you want me to act when debating in front of me.
 * 2) My threshold for presuming/granting things is relatively high with the notable exception of cross applications and extensions of conceded arguments. Basically, i don't want to be doing work for you to make up for argumentative inadequacies.
 * 3) I often struggle with voting on arguments that are articulated one way but are presented in the evidence or in the literature base in another way. If this occurs, i'll almost certainly vote on the articulation absent any call out by the opponent but drop the articulator's speaker points proportionally to the degree of the misarticulation, not going beyond a point drop from the pre-dropped total. If there is a call out, i'll generally give a lot of credence to it.


 * Speaker Points**
 * 1) I primarily base speaker points on strategy. After that, i look to variety of things like CX, unique decision-making, and overall performance. Humor/sass are dope but shouldn't be forced. Chances are, the more relaxed you feel in a round, the more enjoyable it will be for everyone and the higher speaks you'll get.
 * 2) Some secondary factors for speaker points include word efficiency and confidence. Vocal clarity will never be a factor.


 * Post-Round**
 * 1) I probably will take longer that you think i need to when making my decision. I only do so so that i can be sure that i'm confident in my decision and have reviewed all paths to the ballot. I often have trouble working and thinking with noise around me, so if i put headphones in just know that i need a little time with my own thoughts.
 * 2) I think that post-round discussion is extremely valuable. That being said, if your opponent is asking me questions, please don't take that as an opportunity to jump in and insert your own views on the issue.
 * 3) If questioning is taking too long (usually in the cases of late flight A rounds), i will ask that you come see me later during the tournament. Please please please don't take this as a nicely phrased "i don't want to talk about this anymore." I will try to come find you at some point in the tournament and encourage you to message me on Facebook or do whatever you can so that we can talk about the round further.

If you have any other question, please don't hesitate to contact me in person, on Facebook, or over email (brown.k.adam@gmail.com).

Here are a list of people (in addition to my coaches) who i strongly admire/strive to be like/agree with in terms of debate:

Ben Koh Jenn Melin Tim Alderete Kris Wright Arun Sharma