Croft,+Bryan

Name: Bryan Croft Judge Affiliation: Cyprus High School (Magna, Utah)


 * Experience**:

I began what was called "team debate" in 1982, and was immersed in debate until I graduated from West Jordan High School in 1986. My senior year in high school my partner and I won the camp tournament at the University of Redlands (my partner in out-rounds was Jim Loevy of Glenbrook North) debate camp, among others. I have been active off and on since graduation, as a judge and volunteer assistant debate coach. I have attended coaches' clinics 2 of the past 3 years, and probably judged in excess of 50 rounds of policy and LD debate each of the past three years.


 * Judging Philosophy**:

While I certainly have favorite arguments, my emphasis is on letting the debaters in the round be creative and rigorous. I will vote for "stupid" arguments if they are not adequately addressed. I have voted for blatantly non-topical affs because the neg didn't run topicality or didn't run a real violation. I've voted for eminently stupid Kritiks because the aff couldn't respond adequately (e.g., "anthropomorphism is bad, so we need to kill off humanity," is a stupid argument; but if aff response is limited to "Kritiks bad" -- aff probably going to lose the K, although an anti-sophistry counter-Kritik as a general Kritik response would certainly work if done well, and if you can't think of "top of the food chain" arguments or similar things off the top of you head. Perhaps, "If the neg really believed this Kritik, they should demonstrate it by killing themselves" would work as well ::VBEG::).

Speed is fine, as long as it is enunciated clearly. My standard for speed is if you taped your speech with a dictaphone, then slowed it down to ~200 wpm, is it understandable? (BTW, this is a great training technique -- variable-speed dictaphones are standard in all law offices and available in most office-supply houses.) I try to flow evidence and tags, so mumbling through your evidence leaves your opponent to say anything they want about what your evidence says, and because I couldn't hear the evidence, I'll believe them. In other words, don't mumble. Remember I'm not receiving your blocks as you hand them to your opponents. I typically do NOT ask to see evidence after the round, unless there is a claim/counterclaim about a specific card which degenerates into he-said-she-said types of contradiction, as opposed to actual arguments about warrants.

Topicality is a voting issue, unless the aff wins that it's not. An appropriate aff response to topicality should include either an alternate interpretation of the neg's definition, or an alternate definition with a reason why it's better. I enjoy the occasional topicality standards debate, but recognize that most T arguments are timesucks and not to be taken seriously.

I love to see counterplans positing alternate worldviews, perhaps in conjunction with a K. (Why am I not seeing decentralized socialism K/c-plan combos?) And an appropriately structured counterplan/DA combination is a great strategy for dealing with uniqueness problems common to most disads. I don't particularly like agent-of-action counterplan/DAs, like Ex-O or Politics. I think they're both fiatable and under affirmative ground, but I'm sure any neg serious about their politics blocs will have great responses for these arguments, especially if the aff doesn't do a great job with the theory. In other words, I don't like them, but my ballot will come down to what happens in the round. Unless there is a major tactical error by either team, close rounds between comparable teams will typically be decided in final rebuttals.

I am most impressed by debaters getting their heads out of their briefs, and thinking ... spotting contradictions, inconsistencies, places to grant parts of arguments or cross-apply negative evidence, ways to take a warrant from one card and apply it somewhere unexpected-but-critical.

I typically give a short critique after a round, but am happy to work more extensively with students after ballots are in.


 * LD Judging Philosophy**:

I like traditional value/criteria debate in LD, with value/criteria determining which worldview I should use to evaluate the substantive arguments in the round. I recognize that "progressive" LD is in an upswing, and I will go with whatever the debaters in the round decide to go with. If an aff decides to run a plan text, I am strongly in favor of that plan being resolutional (e.g., on the recent "guarantee universal health care" topic, an aff to give scholarships to primary care physicians wouldn't be resolutional, because it doesn't meet "guarantee" or "universal" -- BTW, neg in that round didn't run any resolutionality arguments, and I ended up voting aff).

Comments on style and speed/intelligibility of evidence from my policy philosophy apply double here. Speed is fine, but mumbling is death. Word choice in LD debate is critical. I'm much more impressed with a simple formulation of a philosophical idea than with a gobbledygooky obfuscatory one. Stating complex ideas with clarity and simplicity is a huge indication, to me, that a debater knows what she's talking about.