Bruner,+Joe


 * Boring Pretentious Background You Probably Don't Care About**: I did both critical and traditional styles of LD debate as well as Congress and Extemp in high school. I was a member of the Oxford Union Debating Society (which does more Parli-Style debate) and a graduate of the University of Oxford's Final Honours Schools of Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, where many classes had a debate element. I have done graduate work in statistical analysis and econometrics. I was an assistant coach at East Chapel Hill High School from 2013-2015, coached debate events for Ardrey Kell High School in 2015-2016, and did some stuff here and there for some other programs. In Fall 2016 I began working on my JD at Columbia Law School. I still help out the AK team and attend a few circuits per year. I most recently did a fellowship with the Software Freedom Law Center focusing on issues of privacy and public access to information in the 21st century at the intersection of law, philosophy, and technology.


 * Actual Background You Probably Care About:** LDer years ago, did other kinds of debate in college, got obsessed with philosophy, economics, and law, have continued to coach LD, judge, and stay reasonably current. Still flow speed okayish, don't think my preferences are too out of the ordinary for nat circuit competition. If you have any really pressing questions eating you alive, usually Facebook messenger is the quickest way to reach me. I am also totally open to questions before round.

Updated February 2018

Note for plea bargaining topic: The US Justice system is unbelievably complicated, which partly serves as a structural way to discourage citizen critique of it. Consequently, I'm not going to intervene on you just because it's a legal topic and you or your authors may have views or interpretations of what the facts are that differ from what I have learned. I'm not that kind of judge.


 * LD Paradigm**


 * IF YOU'RE RUNNING TO ROUND IN 3 MINUTES JUST LOOK HERE**: I'm prepared to evaluate **any sort of coherent advocacy** **you want** to put forward. I also **defer pretty heavily to anything both debaters agree upon**. Likes a **good K**, **likes heavy phil done well**, **speed is cool but** **truth>tech, theory cool too but still truth>tech, will vote on your model minority narrative, will also vote on 4 minutes of Kant and Descartes, it's all good, do your thing.**

That said, there are some things you might want to be aware of:


 * Speed**: **You're probably fine.** I don't have an ideological objection to speed. I will happily use your flash drive or email chain to help me evaluate the round.I have a strong presumption against voting off of blippy or unwarranted arguments just because you made more of them than your opponent can cover. If an argument is dropped but was never clear or warranted I will usually try to look to something else to vote off of. If you use speed to make one huge well-developed case turn or link into the K, I will be much more hype to vote on it then if you make 11 blippy arguments that don't make sense. But I will evaluate them if they make sense.


 * Phil/Heavy FW:** **Yes, good.** I am excited that LD has been experiencing a shift back towards this stuff being competitive over the past several years, because LD made me fall in love with philosophy and the "style" of thinking used in these debates is something I employ all the time. I prefer a thoughtful, in-depth debate about a few major framework or philosophy-based justifications rather than reading a ton of independent fw justifications and just extending what gets dropped. I think rounds where AC phil is thoughtfully interacted with arguments from critical perspectives coming out of the NC are some of the best rounds from a judging, educational, and social perspective.


 * Broader FW issues/ROTB/Meta-Theory:** **Go for it, but give me some especially clear warranting/standards.** I come into the round with a default assumption that I am a critical educator whose responsibility is to ensure a fair, educational, and comprehensibly structured debate that gives the students the sort of critical education to both identify justice and injustice in the world and gain the ability to address it through advocacy. This is only a default presumption, and if you believe my role should be something different in your particular round, I am happy to evaluate both ROTB/ROTJ arguments about what role I should adopt and theoretical/meta-theoretical arguments about how I should evaluate arguments to achieve it. If you're running meta-theoretical argumentation, I would prefer some kind of cohesive purpose of debate to use as a standard to evaluate that argumentaion.


 * Theory**: **Sure, but make it meaningful.** I think the essence of theory sometimes gets forgotten in the wash of people reading their sick theory files at each other. which usually leads to a terrible round Theory works best as an honest dialogue about how we ought to debate and why we ought to debate that way, rather than blip wars. I am open to RVIs on bad theory shells, so if you go for theory, I suggest you focus harder on making a smaller number of arguments really meaningful in the NC or 1AR rather than making a mess, which is probably theoretically undesirable on grounds of education anyway.


 * Critical Philosophy/Dense Philosophy Blocks**: **I love this stuff, but** you need to be EXTREMELY CAREFUL about power tagging your phil cards in front of me. **If you use a piece of evidence or "card" from a philosopher as a "warrant" or reason a statement is true, you should hope that there is an actual argument for why your statement is true within that text**. JUST BECAUSE A PHILOSOPHER ASSERTS SOMETHING DOES NOT MAKE IT A WARRANT. FOUCAULT SAID "DEMOCRACY IS BAD" DOESN'T MAKE DEMOCRACY BAD. PHILOSOPHY DOES NOT WORK LIKE THAT. Re-explaining these arguments and defending them in interaction with other arguments in the round will really help you win the link-level debate in front of me.


 * Evidence: Be honest, be ethical, use good evidence practices.** My default presumption is that evidence should be of good quality, say what you claim it says, and you should generally disclose as well as flash/email each other your speeches. These presumptions are rebuttable and I won't intervene on you for violating them, but usually everyone rolls with it. I am familiar with the NSDA evidence rules and do take them seriously; If I catch something I consider a violation without the other debater pointing it out, I will typically throw out the offending evidence and look for somewhere else on the flow to vote.


 * Kritik**: **L****ove,** **but do it right.** Most LD rounds I judge involve this form of argumentation showing up somewhere. I end up voting for kritiks a lot. I also drop them a lot because they're often badly written and therefore easy to answer or poorly executed. Just because an argument isn't quite "offense impacted to the criterion" doesn't automatically make it a "Kritik" in my view. I consider any sort of critical or analytic philosophical argument towards a particular resolutional position perfectly traditional. But if you are running an actual Kritik (role of the ballot, link, impact, and alternative that does not take a position on the resolution itself), h**ave a well developed framework, link explanation, impact, and alternative**. I often find that the best kritiks in LD spend 5 minutes of the NC reading a single kritik and specific, clear links to the AC.

If you are more traditional and worried about hitting a Kritik in front of me: You can turn the link or the alt solvency. If the link is good, though, better to see if you can perm. Don't forget you can always try and perm the alt.

I won't intervene against Ks I don't like. I almost never find theory arguments that are strictly anti-K persuasive, but a lot of theory arguments about how to do a K right have persuaded me in the past (must have a well-developed alt is probably the most common one that comes up).

I've taught these. If you're topical, great. If you're not topical, that's not a death sentence by any means, just explain why you are choosing not to be topical. I will not intervene either way on this issue, just judge the debate how it falls. I have pulled the trigger on "topicality acts as a disad to the aff that outweighs K impacts under the K framework" Please do give me a clear framework for how I evaluate your opponent's advocacy - I worry that too many of these can't explain why the neg or switch-side debate even exists.
 * Kritikal Affs:** The K stuff applies.


 * Performance/Narrative/"Project"**: These actually have a good record of winning in front of me because people don't engage them on their substance well. I acknowledge that, debating as a white male, I benefited hugely from my privilege in the debate space. I recognize debaters, coaches, judges, etc., can be oppressive, and I have tried my best to fight back when that has harmed my debaters and others. I think fighting oppression and structural prejudice is always important. I think we all debate based on our own background, experiences, and perspectives, and it's good to recognize that. I am willing to hear out whatever you have to say. Please articulate a clear role of the ballot and a clear vision of what you would like debate to be like; I also consider it important that you have some space carved out for your opponent to debate against you without them necessarily being oppressive; I don't think it's reasonable to put people in a double-bind like that. That said, I'm still open to and have decided rounds based on methodological criticisms of these.

Please clearly articulate the pre-fiat impact of your performance. I have picked up for cases that treat the case (like, the cp or plan) as a performance which also has pre-fiat impacts in the k framework (Satire/Irony, plan text justified by narrative, poetry/music as part of the plan, etc.)


 * Voting Issues**: A lot of debaters make a strategic mistake of doing too much line-by-line in these last speeches, especially the 2AR. **Please engage in smart impact calculus and explain the ROLE you want arguments to play in the round. Arguments are made and extended but it's never made clear what they DO amid the morass of arguments on my flow; This is the EASIEST way to get my ballot**- Does this argument come first? Does it preclude something else on my flow?


 * Speaker Points**: I consider Speaker Points pretty arbitrary, but I've been called a **points fairy**. You get more speaker points for explaining your arguments well, being **funny** and entertaining, and making interesting arguments. **Other judges seem to dock excessive points from aggressive women and minority debaters, and I am extremely hostile to this practice.** **I actively try to counteract this by encouraging** **people from marginalized backgrounds to debate zealously. Not rudely or personally, but zealously. Real advocacy is not as stilted as John Rawls's overrated book. I will give you additional speaker points for zealous advocacy showing your love for justice or your hate for injustice.** as long as you still remain polite and don't engage in personal attacks.


 * Policy**

I almost always judge LD these days, so I'm probably some kind of a sub if you have me for a policy round at a circuit tournament. Just do what you do best and be prepared to tell me why it's meaningful.

I'm prepared to evaluate any sort of coherent advocacy you want to put forward. I also defer pretty heavily to anything both debaters agree upon. Speed is ok, larping/policymaking I like even more and more the older I get, but I still like a **good** K, more truth than technical, points fairy. **I hate some of the really low evidence quality that flies in policy nowadays.** I am not totally sure where I stand on a lot of the narrative/performative stuff any more - I have voted for it many times but I've become more skeptical of it and more open to claims that policy-making debates have unique benefits. But I approach it neutrally and will vote for whoever wins the argument about **what we should do in the round.** I actively enjoy thoughtful clash-of-civilizations debates a lot, but 66% of the time, it's teams extending evidence past each other and not actually engaging one another.

Slow down on tags and author names. I am usually good with speed and have no ideological objection to it, but I am not as practiced as I once was.

I don't have any presumption either way on most framework and theory issues (though I probably lean more towards condo bad than average). I'm familiar with the topic area, but haven't judged many rounds of policy this year, so don't assume I know all the specific acronyms and such relative to your argument. If it gets defined early on, though, I'm fine with the acronyms later.

Overall, I will do my best to listen and be objective. Please WEIGH and do smart impact calculus, not just timeframe/magnitude/probability. I am a big fan of critical or policymaking arguments with small/non-quantitative impacts but really high probability of occurring and potential long-term payoffs.