Sherman,+Brandon

I debated for Millburn High School in New Jersey and graduated in 2006.

I've judged pretty infrequently since then, so I'm not always hip to all the latest national circuit trends. I don't consider that to be a bad thing, but you might.

I evaluate rounds in terms of standard(s) and impacts to the standard(s). If there's some hierarchy on that level, it should be explained well. In the very likely event that the round has no discernible standard, I usually end up assigning more weight to arguments that pay lip-service to "weighing," better substantive arguments, more facially plausible arguments, and arguments made by debaters from New Jersey, in that order.

I don't have any predispositions to vote on or reject any specific approaches to the debate (critical, theory, critical theory, etc..), but making me vote on terrible arguments and/or blips won't help your speaks.

I make a sincere effort avoid intervention, but I'm usually only successful to the extent that the quality of the round permits.