Brooks+Bryan

Experience- High School: Two Years NCFCA Policy and IEs (National Christian Forensics and Communication Association), qualed to nats in IE both years College: Three years NFA-LD and NPDA at Hillsdale College. Broke every year at NFA nats. Judging: Multiple NCFCA, CCM, and UDL tournaments. Lots of NFA and NPDA practice rounds; several LD and parli tournaments.

Affiliation: Hillsdale College

Paradig.m:

I am as tab ras as I can be. I can handle speed as long as it’s clear, although you should not use speed to exclude your opponent. If I can’t understand you, I will clear you twice in any one round. After that, it’s your problem. I will listen to speed Ks, but 99% of the time they're a losing argument. The aggrieved party will probably have a much easier time winning on case or a DA.

For impacts, I will weigh them however you tell me to. Left to myself, I will weigh the biggest impact first, regardless of timeframe. I don’t know what “probability” means, as for me probability is determined by how much ink is on the flow. If you drop a nuke war scenario, it becomes inevitable, and saying “it hasn’t happened before” as a probability argument doesn’t work when you’ve conceded it will happen in this instance. In other words, even ludicrous impacts become inevitable when you drop them. For me, if you drop an argument, you concede that it’s true. I will assume what you claim about a card to be true unless it is called into question. I may call for cards after the round, but unless a claim about a card (e.g. it says extinction) is contested, I will default to believing the initial claim (e.g., my thought process will be: “The card doesn’t say extinction, but the aff claims it does and the neg never says it doesn’t, so I vote aff”). However, powertagging may cost you speaker points; in extreme cases I have no problem destroying your chances of breaking 3-3 or 2-2.

I vote on net benefits unless told otherwise. If you want me to vote outside of net benefits, give me warrants and preferably a card. I will vote on terminal defense, although the neg runs a huge risk if they only go for defense. In a round with only defensive ink on the flow, 1% risk of solvency for a 1% risk of harms is enough for me to vote aff.

I would say I have an average threshold on T. I see an interp debate resolved by the standards debate—if you concede standards or counterstandards you will get in a lot of trouble. I prefer to vote on competing interpretations, but if the neg drops reasonability it becomes very difficult to win T. I require standards and voters in the 1NC—I have dropped negs who clearly won T but didn’t put voters at the bottom. I will vote on procedurals, but please, please, please make sure it’s legitimate. I reserve the right to give you the ballot but destroy your speaks if you win on horrible procedurals. If the seeming trend in case writing from last year continues, vagueness may become a very legit procedural in the coming years.

I will vote on Ks. I would say I’m moderately well versed in the literature; I have seen most Ks out there and probably will not be surprised. If you do run a K, give me a clear framework and tell me how my ballot operates in the world of the K. If you don’t explain the K and either my action or my understanding of the K is integral to solvency, I reserve the right to intervene. After all, if I don’t understand the K, then your K doesn’t solve. I will vote for project affs/negs, but I generally think that in-round is not the right place to have that discussion. I have next to no exposure to performative argumentation, but if you feel like running it, I’ll listen. In K debates, if your opponent makes an argument, feel free to adopt a performance that forces him/her into a performative contradiction. Threaten to smash his/her laptop (I don’t suggest actually doing it), steal his/her box, or (if it works with the K) take my ballot and sign it. If his/her framework lets you get away with something nuts, go for it.

Decorum is important; if there is some horrible breach of decorum, make it a voter and I will vote on it. If you do not bring it up, I may dock speaks but I will not intervene. Be warned, however, that I have a very high threashhold for voting on decorum—snark and sarcasm are very effective argumentative tools. Be aware that sometimes I was a very snarky debater, so what I consider out of bounds is probably higher than average. I say that because I don't want you to use decorum as an easy way to win. If there is an obvious offense, please make it a voter.

I have read and understand the NFA-LD rules. I think everything in-round is up for debate, including the validity of enforcing the rules. I do not think the rules require me to drop someone for not reading full cites. I am fine with counterplans, and do not think they have to be non-topical. They should, however, be mutually exclusive and I’m perfectly fine voting on perms. I am fine with conditional Ks and CPs. If I forgot anything, just assume that I’ll vote on anything and, as long as it isn’t stupid, I’ll be fine with it. Weird argumentation is fine—one of my favorite rounds ever the neg ran a DA against me saying Obama is a time traveler and the aff distracted from his mission to kill the white overlords.

I will disclose in round. Assuming I'm not punishing a debater, speaks usually range from 26-29.5.