wkudebatebrooks
09-13-07, 11:39 AM
1. My name is Brooks Johnson. I debated two years at Flower Mound High School in Texas. I debated at Baylor University (NDT/CEDA) for 4 years and went to the NDT. I am now the Assistant Director of Debate of Western Kentucky University.
2. I prefer the debate to be one about the desireability 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 and can debate why it should be adopted, I will vote for it. Or if you are an AFF that does not have a plan, I will vote for you if given reasons why a plan is bad.
3. Cross-Ex is either the best or worst part of the debate. Do not ask the other team to explain their 1AC "in their own words." More can be demonstrated in a 3 minute CX period than in an entire speech if done effectively. Good CXs will also earn better points.
4. Topicality: These are not my favorite debates, but a really smart T violation is awesome 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.
5. Theory: Again, not a favorite debate of mine. If it's dropped, I'll vote for it, but I prefer a substantive debate over a theory one. Lame theory arguments against Kritiks are almost universally unpersuasive. However, I'll definitely vote on theory if sufficiently impacted. In general, PICs and conditionality (to an extent) are good.
6. I love case specific strategies. These need to have offense against the case advantages. Contrary to popular belief, you must have offense against a case. I will rarely vote on defensive arguments alone.
7. I am rarely excited about another Lopez throw down. Counterplans and DAs are really fun debate when specific to the affirmative and well developed.
8. Poorly debated critiques are probably the most torturous thing I can imagine enduring. On the other hand, well debated critiques are among the most exciting and probably what I would prefer to hear. A good k debate for me involves specific links ( Do not say, “they use the state and the state is bad” or “it’s pretty evident there is a link to capitalism” these are not arguments to me), 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. Performance? All debate is a performance, isn’t it?
9. 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.
10. 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 you better be amazing.
11. Rudeness? My basic standard is that if you are killing a team (particularly younger kids or less successful kids), there's no need to be rude. If it's a close debate or if there's some historical bad blood between the debaters, you can act however you want. I'm extremely unlikely to ever be offended by something you say in a debate, no matter how rude you think you are.
12. I don’t take myself very seriously and neither should you. Humor is always more engaging than hostility. I love to reward funny debate, even if I am, but preferably if anyone I know is, the butt of the joke.
13. Also, I have perhaps a high threshold for arguments that are obviously stupid. I am confident that you can discern these as well as I can but will disclose that I count among them many theory args like "must define all words" or "aff choice."
14. You do not, or should not, have an "underview." Regurgitating your last rebuttal is redundant and just makes you look incompetent. Over redundancy is very annoying.
15. And finally, my name is Brooks. I am inclined to ignore or revolt against all requests made to or demands made of "Judge."
2. I prefer the debate to be one about the desireability 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 and can debate why it should be adopted, I will vote for it. Or if you are an AFF that does not have a plan, I will vote for you if given reasons why a plan is bad.
3. Cross-Ex is either the best or worst part of the debate. Do not ask the other team to explain their 1AC "in their own words." More can be demonstrated in a 3 minute CX period than in an entire speech if done effectively. Good CXs will also earn better points.
4. Topicality: These are not my favorite debates, but a really smart T violation is awesome 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.
5. Theory: Again, not a favorite debate of mine. If it's dropped, I'll vote for it, but I prefer a substantive debate over a theory one. Lame theory arguments against Kritiks are almost universally unpersuasive. However, I'll definitely vote on theory if sufficiently impacted. In general, PICs and conditionality (to an extent) are good.
6. I love case specific strategies. These need to have offense against the case advantages. Contrary to popular belief, you must have offense against a case. I will rarely vote on defensive arguments alone.
7. I am rarely excited about another Lopez throw down. Counterplans and DAs are really fun debate when specific to the affirmative and well developed.
8. Poorly debated critiques are probably the most torturous thing I can imagine enduring. On the other hand, well debated critiques are among the most exciting and probably what I would prefer to hear. A good k debate for me involves specific links ( Do not say, “they use the state and the state is bad” or “it’s pretty evident there is a link to capitalism” these are not arguments to me), 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. Performance? All debate is a performance, isn’t it?
9. 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.
10. 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 you better be amazing.
11. Rudeness? My basic standard is that if you are killing a team (particularly younger kids or less successful kids), there's no need to be rude. If it's a close debate or if there's some historical bad blood between the debaters, you can act however you want. I'm extremely unlikely to ever be offended by something you say in a debate, no matter how rude you think you are.
12. I don’t take myself very seriously and neither should you. Humor is always more engaging than hostility. I love to reward funny debate, even if I am, but preferably if anyone I know is, the butt of the joke.
13. Also, I have perhaps a high threshold for arguments that are obviously stupid. I am confident that you can discern these as well as I can but will disclose that I count among them many theory args like "must define all words" or "aff choice."
14. You do not, or should not, have an "underview." Regurgitating your last rebuttal is redundant and just makes you look incompetent. Over redundancy is very annoying.
15. And finally, my name is Brooks. I am inclined to ignore or revolt against all requests made to or demands made of "Judge."