Brown,+Darcell

(Updated for Glenbrooks 11-13-17)

I’m currently an Assistant Coach for Detroit Country Day High School and University High School (Southfield, MI). Previously, I debated in the Detroit Urban Debate League for Plymouth Preparatory High School (which no longer exists). I mostly debated traditional policy all of my debate career and somewhat ran K's in high school (mostly Ivory Tower Ks). In college I debated for Michigan State University for two and a half years. While competing, I ran mostly policy (because that's what they mainly produce) but I did my own thing and read narratives in debates and read some K stuff on the aff and neg. As stated, most of my competitive history was policy oriented but I'm completely open to any arguments you choose to present in the round. The form in which you present doesn't matter to me either (whether it's traditional style, a performance aff, a rap, a poem, a story, spoken word, etc.,). I ultimately am comfortable with any form that you are comfortable presenting to me. With that being said, you have to give me a reason to vote for you. Impact it. Say why it is a winning argument. Don't expect me to vote for something because it sounds good. Even if an arg is super generic, you still have the burden of analysis. I'm pretty much good in any spot (not going to lie, Death Good is always going to be a hard sell for me, mainly because I haven't heard a compelling argument as to why Death Good is a winning argument) regardless of having a strong policy background. I personally feel like my main role as a judge is to make sure no one feels like they have to conform, assimilate or change the way they do things to meet my personal interests. I think instead, you should do what you know best and simply execute. If you're trying to figure out what I can and can’t follow, I’ll get more particular below. But as far as keeping up with the speed, tech or any fundamental components of the debate goes, you won’t have an issue with me in the back.

For Policy Oriented Teams —�

I have found myself very reluctant to vote for Framework this year against K teams mainly because the topic is so vague. Since the center of the topic is education, I find it hard to see why social issues that impact a student's ability to learn as well as their interactions in educational spaces not be an important part of this topic and should therefore be excluded. For me, finding a specific component of their pedagogy or epistemology problematic rather than generally issues of race, gender, class, etc., is a more compelling argument for me. In a impact framing debate, I can for sure vote on an argument that has an impact to extinction over an impact to structural violence, but please don’t have some random and crappy internal link to warming, econ decline or nuke war and expect me to buy it. This has been the bane of my experience on this topic. Nonetheless, I'm still decently centered on judging between policy and K oriented teams.

For K Oriented Teams—�—

In terms of judging, this year I’ve voted for K teams very slightly more than policy teams. I admittedly am not deep into a lot of literature but I am knowledgeable of common themes and authors that are introduced into debate rounds. In terms of my personal investment into reading, the following authors are probably the best to read in front of me for quick comprehension of your strategy (Wilderson, Fanon, Foucault, Sexton, Bell Hooks, Edward Said and even though people don’t read much evidence from him, James Baldwin). So you can probably infer from this that I best understand critical race theory and identity arguments centered around race. Again this shouldn’t discourage you from your strategy, but other authors (especially ones that will require high theory analysis) will need to be fleshed out thoroughly. I am NOT your guy/gal/person for high theory debates. I can follow it but when it gets very dense, people tend to lose me on the ethos level (Baudrillard, Zizek, Agamben, etc.,).

Voting This Year —

Aff - 13 Neg - 15

Speaker Points ---

- Some judges start from 30 and decrease based on mistakes made during the debate. I do not. With me you start at 0 and work your way up. Here are a few do's and dont's for attempting to get a 30 in front of me (I've never given one): -Properly extending evidence needed to win particular arguments you're going for. **STOP GIVING TAGLINE EXTENSIONS AND EXPECTING ME TO VOTE FOR IT!** - Act like you read my paradigm. DON’T ask me “Judge what’s your paradigm?” For me to tell you or direct you to my Wiki for you to NOT inject ANYTHING I mentioned into your speech or strat (you’ll probably end up losing speaks on that note). -**Eye contact is important to me**. I decide who loses and who wins so I have no idea why debaters talk to their opponents during cross x and their speeches. Also with me being black, acknowledgement is important to me.I really can't stand when a random 15 year old doesn't have the decency to at least look me in the face during their speech or the RFD. -If you're aff, all of the speeches should be somewhat synonymous (at least this is true for the case debate). Make sure that the speeches are consistent with one another. The 2AR should be well set up and go for something that was in the 1AR. Don't stick me to voting on an impact on an advantage that y'all never extended or did any work on because you focused on the other advantage or your losing that advantage late in the debate. -Properly split the block. -Utilize cross-x threads in future speeches. Garnering links from really good cross examinations is becoming a lost art. -Make the debate simple. I feel like a lot of times, debaters attempt too hard to confuse the opposing team that they never think about how to properly articulate their claims to the judge. You're more likely to persuade me using simple logic than over explaining what the thesis of your K is. -Make my flow as clean as possible. -Don't give me an order and you don't follow it. -I’m a sucker for jokes but this is a risk. If it’s not funny it can get awkward and I don’t want to laugh at any debaters.... But I will.

Ethical Challenges in the Round —

If proven, I will vote against a team for clipping. I luckily have never been put in this position before but if a team calls another out, I will review any necessary material in order to make a decision. The challenging team however must be aware that an incorrect call with me in the back of the round can in turn cost you the round as well. I take claims of cheating just as serious as false claims. In terms of personal interactions that occur in the round, depending on my judgement for what occurred and how it can or may impact the effect debaters in the round can cost you the debate as well (refer to my last section on the bottom.) By this I mean if you call another debater out of their name, acknowledge them as something they have not mentioned is alright with them or purposefully done something to cause trauma, aggression or fear in a debater, you WILL lose the round. I have a very low threshold for ignorance when it comes to individual‘s subject positions. So responses such as “I didn’t know..“ or “I didn’t mean to..” or even “Me and my friends..” will never be permitted in front of me because it’s no way students of this age can introduce Kritikal literature and scholarly articles into a debate, but not know how certain words and the way you acknowledge someone can be harmful to their subject position.


 * MY SINGLE REQUEST**

Only thing I ask, is that you check your preconceived biases at the door, and treat everyone in the round with equal respect ( <-- THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT IN ROUNDS WITH ME IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM)

Anything specific I didn't include, don’t hesitate to ask before the round.