Dimmig,+Brenden

====**__Overview __**: A lot of times individuals will post their philosophies without giving an indication as to their debate background. I believe giving a background allows the debaters to gain a better understanding of who the judge actually is. So, the following is my background in terms of debate experience. I competed on the Austin UIL and TFA circuit throughout high school. ====

(2015-2017) I coached a variety of teams (Policy, PFD & LD) at SouthLake Carroll High School.
(2014-2016) I helped coach policy teams at Prosper High School

**__Who cares about me though, this round is about you. Forget about me, think of me as a warm body judging you. __**

 * __Argument Section/Personal preferences __**

====**First**, I flow all contentions on a separate sheet of paper. Whether I am in CX, LD, or PFD I will flow everything the same. So, if you're in LD, for example, and you flow the 1AC on one sheet and you see that I have about 4 or 5 different flows, I promise you there's no need to be alarmed. The reason why I do it this way is because A.) It's a better organizational way for me to keep track of what is happening in the round as well as B.) I have been trained to do things like this because of the people in policy debate. They're great people, I promise for you non CX'ers ;) ====

====**Second**, Impact extension is very important to me. For example, if the 1AC reads 8 minutes of offense and there's no discussion of it (such as in the 1AR), until the 2AR is says ohhhhh looky here we have a surprise...THE 1AC! Well I don't think there was a terminal impact extended in the 1AR. As a result I will not give the 2AR credit. I don't think teams are doing this properly anymore, which is causing me to discuss this at the end of the debate. If you do this, well, thank you. If the negative points this out to me, well, I will award them with speaker points. ====

====**Third**, do not say any sexist, homophobic, racist, or otherwise derogatory comments in round. You will get the lowest possible speaker point ratting possible. If it continues I will bring it up to tab. ====

====**Fourth**, do not cheat. See the section on clipping cards. If you contest clipping cards, and you loose the contestation, then you will loose the debate. If I cannot prove or disprove, that would be the only way that no one in the room will loose. ====

====**Fifth**, this is me answering the "what is your ideal strategy Brenden?" I like a policy oriented strategy, but that does not mean I don't prefer a engaging critical one. You do whatever feels right to you. I have done both. ====

====**Seventh**, I am not a very non-verbal person. What I mean by that is I am not very expressive with my gestures in the round with how I feel. ====


 * Eight, ** if you do not have a warrant to a claim then it is not an argument. This impact, for myself, to this is the following: I do not know A.) Why it is true and that B.) how it operates if there is no reason to it.

====I think reading 2320930129301238901283091283 off is interesting, but I would prefer a strategy that allows for depth on both sides. (That huge number is me being sarcastic). ====

**__Long Version __**
====<span style="color: #3a3e48; font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Overview: I think that the debate should come down to some type of comparison in offense/defense. I feel as if this is the best way to mechanize the debate in terms of my ballot. Going for straight defensive arguments, like the "STOCK" issues, is probably not going to be a justification to vote for you. However, if you're winning defensive arguments in conjunction with offensive arguments as listed below you'll probably warrant my ballot to vote for you. With that you need to be doing some type of impact calculus. I think this is really crucial because it sets up the comparison of the scenarios as to why I should vote for you. I flow the round on paper, but don't think that I am not listening. ====

====**__<span style="color: #3a3e48; font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Speaker Points __**<span style="color: #3a3e48; font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">:I start everyone off at a 28.5. This means that you were making arguments in the debate that were sufficient and indicate that you're a debater. 28 means that you still have some work to do. 27-27.9, you were a bit too rude in the debate. Anything below that means you said something terribly wrong, by means of making fun of someone, indicating something that is merit of needing to be talked to your coach about. 29 means that you were very good. 29.1-29.5 means you were very good and that I hope you're going far in the tournament. 30 means you're just demolishing the round or perfect: that's relative though. These speaker points will be adjusted depending on what kind of tournament I am at though: UIL, TFA, TOC qualifiers, ect. ====

**<span style="color: #3a3e48; font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Argument specific **
====**__<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Topicality __****<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">: **<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">From a 1 to a 10 I am probably about a 5, or as I would indicate middle line. I think that competing interpretations is where I lie though, but that's not to say reasonability claims aren't going to be listened to. I think that reasonability is in fact strategic. The impact level of T is very underutilized. What I mean by that is teams won't engage in the fairness and education debate. Ultimately I think that one side has a better internal link to fairness, and reciprocally the other has a better internal link to education. If one side is going for an education based impact while the other is going for a fairness based impact, I think outweighing here is crucial. When you are making claims that things like conditionality or some other type of theory/pre-fiat argument comes before Topicality, I think that's also strategic if you're loosing the T debate. My only inclination to the previous statements would be to warrant your arguments. If you don't tell me how to default I am going to default competing interpretations. ==== ====<span style="color: #3a3e48; font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">If you're going for some type of potential abuse story, that's great; there needs to be good warrants to why potential abuse should be evaluated, and or specifically in the context of the round. ====

====**__<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Framework __****<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">: **<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">I think ultimately I really do enjoy a good framework debate. I don't understand the functionality of reasonability in this debate, but if you make those claims then so be it; who am I to say otherwise. I'm not really sure what else to say here... ====

====**__<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Theory __****<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">: **<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Competing interpretations is pretty much where I lie on all other theory arguments. I think that the affirmative has to make a really good in round abuse story claim for me to vote on theory. I usually err on the side of the negative for CP theory for reasons implied as above. The only thing that I can really think that would be an exception would be condo. ====

====**__<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Condo __****<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">: **<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Do I think that the negative should be able to get the status quo and a policy option? Yes. Do I think that the negative should be able to get two different advocacy statements? Maybe. The thing I am getting to is contradicting conditional/dispositional worlds. I think that's not reciprocal, although I think that the negative getting a dispositional and conditional advocacy solves all of condos offense as well. If there is some other type of theory argument you want me to vote on, again by all means. Having a GOOD interpretation is key! Having a blanket statement interpretation that condo is just bad is probably a poor one, but that's for the debaters to decide. ====

====**__<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Disads __****<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">: **<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Yeah. Not a lot to say. I love politics. I like the "disad turns case" debate. If you ONLY go for a disad I think you need to be winning two of the four following arguments below; number one being one of the two obviously. ==== ====<span style="color: #3a3e48; font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">1. Disad outweighs the case 2. Disad turns the case 3. Disad has a better way of solving the 1AC advantages 4. Disad has a better internal link to the 1AC's residual solvency mechanism. ====

====**__<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Counterplans __****<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">: **<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Once again for sure; I think they're highly strategic. Functional competition is cool, but textual competition can also be sweet. PIC's are sweet. Delay counterplans are ehh, but that's up for you guys to decide. Agent counter plans are cool, consult counterplans are meeh; although I do see the strategic importance of consult on specific topics. Do NOT let my phrasing of particular counterplans deter you from running them; do what YOU do best and I will flow. I think for you to win the counterplan debate you need to be winning either the CP is just inherently mutually exclusive for the aff, or some type of net benefit the affirmative doesn't have access to. I think going for a internal net benefit for the counterplans will also warrant my ballot for you. ====

====**__<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Kritiks __****<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">: **<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">For sure. I read a particular author all the time my senior year of high school, and understand the strategic nature. I think that for you to win the K you either need to be winning a K outweighs the case, the aff doesn't have access to fiat and is not real, an role of the ballot argument, and/or K turns the case. I think that I need some type of overview for the criticism in case I am not familiar with the author you are reading. I think that the alt debate is one that is soley under warranted in this debate. I don't care what type of alt you have, but make sure you explain the function of it post ballot signing. Also some type of explanation as to how you solve your own linear disad. ====

====**__<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Link Turn/Straight Turn Debate __**__<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">: __<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">This requires you to go for a non-unique argument to the disad/counterplan, along with a Link turn. Too many teams are NOT doing this. If you're going for JUST a link turn, and nothing else, then I don't really know what to do with that. It's kind of like a lap dance: ehh. For you to make this "special", I need to go beyond the link turn and indicate the full functionality, which is to include a non-unique arg to the aff. Ex: A team is loosing the case, but winning one of the two disads on the straight turn debate. If in the 2AR you just spend five minutes on the link turn and no analysis as to the uniqueness portion of the debate, it's not offense in my eyes. You need to include all parts of the straight turn for it to be functional. ====

<span style="color: #3a3e48; font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">A. You need to include the uniqueness portion in the 2NR
====<span style="color: #3a3e48; font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">B. You probably need to include the impact calculus as to why this is a new advantage for the aff (i.e. Why this outweighs the neg) and or ====

====**__<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Permutations __****<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">: **<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">This is becoming very messy in a lot of different ways. Just saying "perm do both" doesn't do a whole lot for my ballot. What do those three words mean? What are you perming? What is it like in the world of the permutation? I think you need to win some type of net benefit for the permutation. Some judges require a perm text, some do not. I don't have a preference either way. What I will say is that if the permutation is constantly changing than I'm probably more inclined to not vote on it or evaluate it because of the changing nature of the permutation. ====

====**__<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Performance __****<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">: **<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">I don't have a lot of expertise dealing with this. Give me a role of the ballot and I'm good. You do you, and I'll flow and listen. ====

<span style="color: #3a3e48; font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">1st this debate is very underutilized.
====<span style="color: #3a3e48; font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">2nd, impact turns are functionally underutilized. I REALLY love for these debates to happen. I'm game for voting soley on you impact turning the aff, as long as it is impacted out. ==== ====<span style="color: #3a3e48; font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">3rd, comparative analysis on evidence will get you super far. If you need me to call for evidence, I sure will. If I feel like I need to reciprocally, I will. ====

<span style="color: #3a3e48; font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">4th, if you're going for a disadvantage you need to probably win some type of defense to the aff.
====<span style="color: #3a3e48; font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">5th spin and the actual text of the evidence are two different things. Please remember that, especially if I am going to call for the evidence at the end of the round. ====

**__<span style="color: #3a3e48; font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Stylistic things __**
====<span style="color: #3a3e48; font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">New in the 2: I really don't like it. On a scale of 1 to 10, I am a 7: 1 being do it where as 10 being don't do it. I will give 1AR lenience to answers against new in the 2, and am even willing to vote on sandbagging. Sandbagging is all based on what is actually inside the 2. If it's just straight case, I most likely will. I think reading now new in the 2 is cool, whether it be in the 1AC, 2AC, or 1AR. I know I made Tiffani (my high school partner) do it. If there is no reason as given in the debate as to why new in the 2 is not going to be allowed, then I guess new in the 2 it is! As with everything else, this is up to you four bright individuals to indicate or not to indicate. ====

====**__<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Clipping cards __**__<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">: __<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">This is defined as "intentionally skipping over the already underlined and or boded text you are reading from your card". If you DO NOT say "cut the card here" and just magically assume you read the whole card, I will vote you down and give you the lowest possible speaker points. This is cheating. You are making me assume you read the whole card. This is ESPECIALLY problematic when I call for the evidence, and I evaluate all of it, but you only read certain warrants. Preface: if none of your card(s) is highlighted/bolded/underlined and I call for it I'm voting in the opposite direction. I've stared indicating on a my flow where you have marked the card at, if you did. With that, if you GIVE ME A DOC WHERE THE CARD IS NOT PROPERLY MARKED, I WILL GIVE IT BACK. THAT IS ON YOU. I'm not going to vote you down for "clipping cards per say", I'm just going to reject that piece of evidence due to you failing to do your job. If that results in you loosing the debate, well, mark the cards properly. It becomes very simple and requires just a couple of seconds of time. ====

====**__<span style="color: #3a3e48; font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Email Chain __**<span style="color: #3a3e48; font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">:As this is my 3rd year judging, I'm becoming more inclined to want an email chain. If you ask, I'll say yes. I usually have a computer on myself at all times, if not two: there's no reason for me to say no unless I'm being irresponsible and not bringing my computer(s) to tournaments. Other than that, I may occasionally ask for a email chain if I feel like I want to stop teams from clipping cards. This usually happens latter on in the tournament, especially if at the beginning I am seeing teams clip cards. ====

====**__<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Speed __****<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">: **<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">do whatever style you want. If you are not clear though, I will say "clear". Unless you are going about GT-AM545 words per minute, I don't think you will be a problem. ====

====**<span style="color: #3a3e48; font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">My Favorite quote: //__"Those who dare to fail greatly are those who dare to achieve greatly"__//. **<span style="color: #3a3e48; font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">I believe this 100 percent. I was a terrible debater for years. I am, at best, mediocre. Loosing is good. Winning is good. Don't think because you lost this is bad. As long as you learn, that's what matters. I am just one person, so take what I have to say post-round with a grain of salt. ====

***LD***
====**__<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Framework __****<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">: **<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">if you force me to vote in a framework debate, so be it. I think that for you to win this debate you need to be winning one of, or in terms of an even if claim, two arguments. 1-Why you're winning more offense in the debate by just looking at your framework. If going through your framework is just a better option, that's fine. I need be figuring our why your framework outweighs in some way your opponents framework. This requires you to filter through your sense of framework as a means of comparative analysis to your opponents framework. 2-Internal link turning your opponents framework. This requires analysis on gauging why your standard/criterion is the option by which better resolves or gets to your opponents value in a better way. ====

====**__<span style="color: #3a3e48; font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Value/Criterion (general) __****<span style="color: #3a3e48; font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">: **<span style="color: #3a3e48; font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">I don't have a predisposition as to what values are "pertinent" or "tangental" to the resolution, or think that some are worse or better over others. That reciprocally applies to the standard/criterion debate. ====

====**__<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Observations __****<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">: **<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Not a lot to say here besides cool. ====

====**__<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Theory __****<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">: **<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Cool, see above in the policy section. In LD specifically, I find that too many times people are putting in these large theory shells in the 1AC/1NC as a means to pre-empt some type offense that might be coming later. I think there needs to be an explanation for how this functions really. ====

====**__<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Contention Level __****<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">: **<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">I frame these, inside of my mind, as analogous to advantages in policy debate. This is where I would like the debate to come down to. Granted, I understand that this cannot happen without a discussion of the framework debate. So, if you can tie this into the framework debate that would be awesome. If not, that's fair. If it's just an all out contention level debate, well, I can dig it. ====

====**__<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;">Meta-Level Debate: __****<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;;"> I feel as if this is where my greatest weakness lies in terms of judging this particular forum of debate. I find that too many individual's are going for these types of arguments and going so fast without a means to allow me a little "pen time" if you will to catch everything you heart wants me to catch (aaaahhhhhh, get it-punnever mind). Also, I probably am not versed in the particular engaging strategy in which entails a deep meta-level analysis of the resolution in some way due it being, probably, pretty contextual to the resolution. Explanations here are key. If you go for this that's awesome, just allow me to have some pen time as well as some type of functional overview that really explains to me what you're indicating to myself. ====

=__<span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;,Times,serif;">PFD __= <span style="font-family: &#39;Times New Roman&#39;,Times,serif;">Look above to the LD debate as well as CX debate. Yes, I do know how to judge PFD. I have had the pleasure of coaching teams very close to TOC bid rounds. I have had the pleasure of judging TOC bid rounds. I don't think that it will be a problem.

= =