Drake,+Brian

Brian Drake

Affiliation: Monticello High School

2015-2016 Judge Philosophy I've been in the policy debate activity since 1992. I debated for T.A. Edison High School (1996) and Mercer University (2000). I used to coach several college teams, but have been inactive for about ten years.

I will disclose the decision at the end of the debate. I encourage and welcome comments and questions about my decision after the round. That being said, I will not tolerate rudeness when we discuss the decision/round.
 * Etiquette:** You will quickly discover that I am very easy going about how a debate goes down. I prefer a relaxed competitive environment as opposed to having a cutthroat animosity toward one another. If you address any of the participants in a disrespectful manner, then I will not hesitate to amend your speaker points.


 * General Stuff:** I will vote on the arguments as they are articulated in the round. I believe developed and well-explained arguments make for better debates. Teams that follow this principle are more often awarded the “W” in front of me. Sometimes I will read cards after the debate to clarify and resolve arguments for an informed decision. I will also read cards if attention is drawn to particular pieces of evidence during the speeches.


 * Theory Issues:** I have been known to vote on Topicality from time to time. With regard to Topicality I am more persuaded by provable abuse rather than potential abuse. I believe presumption shifts to the Affirmative if a counterplan is run. I have no other predispositions.

I will also listen to and vote on philosophical positions. Same rules apply: They need to be explained in the context of the debate. Clear links to the opposition are important and a clear reason why I should "reject" their position.
 * Performance/Personal Position/Philosophical Positions:** I will vote for a personal position/advocacy argument if the performance is compelling. That said, my bar for voting on this issue is set pretty high. The advocating team must clear articulate the harm to them, the world, or the activity. They must clearly explain the links and “implications” for the debate. You must answer the question, "Why should *I* vote for this issue?" It's important to explain what role a white, heterosexual, male (me) has in this dialogue.


 * Political Disads:** I am not a big fan of political disads. I will listen to them and I have been known to vote for them. The problem I have is that the evidence rarely supports the story being told. I have a difficult time resolving conflicts in evidence where it is clear that no one in the news media or other sources fully understands what is going on and must rely upon conjecture and rumor. In short, go for these positions if you are certain that your story AND evidence is superior to the other team’s.