Behrens,+Brady

First off let me say that I love debate and that debate should be fun. It’s a great opportunity that few people are given and you should attempt to make the best of it.

When not put in a paradigm as how I should evaluate a round I resort to a policymaking paradigm

Specific Issues

Topicality- Topicality has become a lost art in many places. Judges are often afraid to vote on T, meaning few negatives will actually run the argument. I’m not one of those judges. I enjoy a good T debate. To win T I believe you have to prove there is abuse. It can be potential abuse or in round abuse. If you are able to prove in round abuse even better. Jurisdiction standards alone are not enough to win you T in front of me but combined with other good arguments is enough to convince me. You need to paint a picture for me as how the world looks like if I accept your/their interpretation. The T debate for me is won on the standards level and the interpretation levels. If you want to win T go for it. You need to spend a majority of your time on it. 30 seconds on T in the 2NR is a wasted 30 seconds because you won’t win my ballot.

DA- Disads were my favorite arguments as a debater -- the bigger the impact the better. Often times when I judge debates the Aff will rarely read link/impact turns. The aff will often read a few defensive cards on the disad which will get them very little in the debate round. I want to see the Aff have plenty of offense on the disad. With the negative I prefer to see multiple link scenarios to the affirmative which allows for multiple impact scenarios on the negative. I must say I love the poltix disad. This does not mean read your newest crappy Thursday file and the blocks that are in there. Have a clear cohesive story and make sure that it is well explained

CP- Counterplans are cool with me. I think that topical counterplans are abusive looking from the outside of the debate round. That said if you can win in the round that topical counterplans are cool and not abusive that’s cool, and I’m willing to vote for you. Counterplans need to be competitive, often times I see high school debates where they really fail to be competitive. Along the same lines you need to have a solid net benefit which will help you far along in the debate. My favorite kinds of counterplans are smart PICs counterplans in which the neg team has obviously done indepth research for a specific PIC argument.. I honestly like a good theory debate. That said you need to do more than just read and reread your theory blocks throughout the world. Explain in depth your arguments. Just like on topicality I want you to explain how the world would look if was to buy into your/their arguments. When extending your theory do more than just reread your tags, give some analysis. Make sure that you slow down during the theory debate. If I don’t have it on my flow, it more or less never occurred in the round to me.

K- I'm really not a big fan of the K. I would prefer to see a straight up policy round with the CP, DA(s), Case and you can throw T/Plan Flaw/Cheap Shots in there as well. I was not the best K debater, nor do I understand kritiks as well as some other judges. Reason for this likely is because kritiks rarely get explained in depth. If you’re going to go for the K in front of me go in depth and get into the best debate on it that you possibly can. Make sure that you actually explain what the K is and don't assume that I or other judges actually know what your author is advocating. Even though I'm not a huge fan of the K, I've pulled the trigger voting on the K quite a bit this year. Its just a matter of expalining your arguments effectively and winning the round.

Framework: Honestly I enter the room with a predisposition that Policy Debate is good hence why I'm hear judging debate and I also view debate in a real world context as if the impacts of the round have real world implications. You can convince me otherwise and win your framework is better but many people fail to be honest about their predetermined biases when it comes to judging and this is one of mine.

Case- I think most rounds should have a solid case debate. On the neg make sure to have offense on the flow. I want to see turns, offense and most of all I want to see good arguments.

Plan Flaw/Spec Arguments- I’m cool with them and more than willing to vote on them. Like T though if you are going to go for it, go for it fully.

Cheap Shots- I’m more than willing to vote on a cheap shot, I find them to be strategic and not “cheap”. If you are going to go for the cheap their must be clear well detailed analysis and more or less a complete drop by the other team If your going to go for the cheap shot go for it. Close all of the doors as to where the other team could win. If that means you spend 2:30 on the cheap shot in the 2AR/2NR spend the time and then sit down. I don’t want to hear you repeat yourself numerous times

2AR/2NR- I want to see a good overview from both sides. Tell me why you win the round and why the other team is losing. I want to see impact analysis from both sides. Also, put me in a paradigm as how I should evaluate the round. Tell me how you define your paradigm and why it’s the best way to evaluate the round.

Speed- I debated in high school for 4 years and have debated in college. I can handle speed. That said clarity is a prerequisite to speed. I have no problem shouting clear during a debate. At this point you have two options: first you can become clearer and we can continue with the round, second you can continue how you are speaking and I’ll place my pen on the table and stop flowing.

Reading evidence- For me to pull evidence it needs to be in the 2NR/2AR. This doesn’t mean you say extend the Smith in 06 card and move on to your next point. You need to explain the warrant coming out of the last speech. If you have a card that you believe is a round winner and the other team has cold dropped make it a point and have solid analysis in your last speech and I will likely read it. All of this said, if there is a debate in which there are 8 solvency turns on 3 different advantages with debate going both ways I may pull all of the cards to try to decipher the round. Also, do not hand me cards at the end of the round that I did not call for

Ethics- Language- I personally do not believe that language choices should determine who wins or losses the round. With that said I’m open to the argument. If you win the argument you will likely win the round whether or not I agree with it. Clipping- If you clip your cards and I catch you, three things will happen: One you will automatically lose the round no matter if you are wiping the floor with the other team. Two you will receive zero speaker points. Three you will receive the reputation of a cheater that will haunt you for the rest of your debate career.

Speaker Points: I start off with a base of 27 points. If you are funny, make strategic arguments, and are better than an average speaker you will probably get more than 27 points. If you are dumb, incompetent, make horrible arguments and are a worse speaker than average you will probably get less than 27 speaker points.

Laugh Test: For me to vote for your arguments they have to pass the laugh test. Something like the Pretzel DA (Bush can't eat and do plan because he'll choke on a pretzel and die) and other stupid arguments will not win you a round in front of me.

I’m incredibly easy to read as a judge. If I like your arguments I will probably nod my head. If I think your arguments are bad I will shake my head, put my head in my hands and if their really bad I might just stop flowing

All of the above are my predispositions to debate. They are not set in stone. At the end of the debate like I said before debate is supposed to be fun. I’d rather judge a debate in which you are running arguments that you like, enjoy and are good at debating, then judge a debate that you aren’t enjoying but rather just trying to adapt to my judging philosophy.

Random: Do not steal the ballot, I’m totally not ok with that nor will I vote for you because of something dumb like that.

If you have any questions feel free to ask and I can explain my views more in depth.