Johnson,+Brooks

I debated two years at Flower Mound High School in Texas. I debated at Baylor University for 4 years and went to the NDT. I am now the Assistant Director of Debate of Western Kentucky University.

Do what you do best, and I will do my best to remain neutral. Play the debate game however you wish. If you have any specific questions, I am more than willing to answer questions before the round.

That said...

I have judged over 100 rounds on the Africa topic. I am very familiar with the literature. I prefer the debate to be one about the desirability of the plan versus a competitive policy option, alternative, or the status quo. I will pretty much default to this framework if another one is not introduced in the debate. Plan focus is important. Links and impacts to positions should be a reason to reject the plan, not just one warrant the Aff used to support the plan. However, if you have an alternative framework, or if you are an Aff that doesn't have a plan, I am willing to vote for your argument (given you win the debate of course).

Topicality: These are not my favorite debates, but a really smart T violation can be interesting to judge. I don't think "in round abuse" needs to be proven; competing interpretations is a persuasive framework to me, especially when the Neg provides examples of what the AFF would justify. HOWEVER, I am very sympathetic to reasonability and if the debate is very close or the T violation is contrived, I am likely to default AFF.

A good k debate for me involves specific links, some impacts, and an alternative. Alternatives are best if you articulate what my role as a judge is and how that role relates to the ballot. They’re even better if you can solve the case.

Speed? As long as you are clear, you can go as fast as you want. Blitzing through a T violation or a theory shell will only hurt you.

Speaker points? I try and keep myself close to the mainstream on these. I shouldn't go below a 25 unless you cheat, and if you want a 29.5-30 you better be amazing.