Brown,+Adriane

Note from fall 2016: I don't really judge or coach anymore, so this hasn't been updated in a couple of years. If I do ever return to coaching/judging, I'll update with any thoughts that might be helpful to you.


 * General:** I'm the faculty director of the new policy team at Augsburg College. I have a PhD in Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies and research/teach in that field.

I tend to like evaluating critical debates and am probably a good judge for you if you like engaging in those debates. I also really love clever counterplans with policy-ish net benefits, though. Really, I just like to feel intellectually engaged in rounds and would be happiest hearing you run the arguments you love most and are best at.


 * Theory/Topicality**: Theory is fine, but I tend to see it as more of a check on ground than as a strategic choice. I’m generally pretty persuaded by the “reject the argument, not the team” school of thought, though I will vote on theory if there are warranted reasons to do so. I really don't like condo unless they're running more than 2 conditional advocacies and I will probably drop your speaks if it's in the 2AR when it shouldn't be--it usually looks desperate unless a neg team really is being abusive. I don't think that many people go for T enough to get really good at it, but an intricate, well-executed T debate can be a lot of fun.


 * Non-traditional affs**: I am generally fine with affs that are critical/planless (though a neg team could persuade me that I shouldn't within a particular round), but I think that you probably need to defend the idea of the resolution in some way if you're aff (though again, this isn't a hard-and-fast rule for me) and I think that you should probably have a stable advocacy of some kind, whether it's an advocacy statement or the entirety of the 1AC. You could persuade me that I'm wrong about any of these things within the context of a specific round.

Old-school framework is not my favorite thing--I think that debate shifting and becoming more inclusive to a variety of argument styles is a good thing, so I'm not really persuaded by the notion that we need to rebuild those walls in rigid ways. I think that framework can be run in a way that's not about excluding certain styles of debate, though. If you want to run framework on a critical/"performance" (which is a dumb term because all debate is a performance but you know what I mean when I say it so I'm using it here) team, be smart about it. This kind of argumentation has been around for a while now, so I feel like you can probably come up with more insightful reasons to vote a team down besides "roleplaying good."

I tend to think that competition, perms, etc. have to function differently in the absence of a plan text, so you definitely need to be really clear about how you're framing these issues within the context of a specific round.


 * Speaks**: The best way to get high speaks from me is to make smart arguments—demonstrate that you understand more than just the tags, explain and extend warrants, and clearly articulate interactions among arguments across different flows. In rebuttals, I think it’s really important to crystallize the entirety of the round in addition to covering the line-by-line, especially in the 2AR/2NR. I want to hear how everything fits together. A dropped argument is not in itself a reason to win or lose, so you should take the time to explain how the dropped argument fits into the entirety of the round.


 * Calling cards**: Generally, I don’t like reading a ton of evidence. I tend to think that reading evidence increases the chance of judge intervention, which I super don't like. I’ll read cards if I have to, but I think that part of debating well involves effectively explaining and utilizing your evidence.

--Please set up an expedient procedure for jumping files at the beginning of the round. Emailing is ideal whenever possible.
 * Some general pointers: **

I'm doing a research study (sponsored by Augsburg College) about (intersectional) gender in high school debate. If you want to do an interview with me about your opinions and experiences as a debater, coach, or judge, let me know.
 * Also:**