Brundage,+John

Judge's Name: Brundage, John High School Graduation Date: 2011 Judge's e-mail: john.brundage@wayne.edu Experience: - High School debater - College debater - Occasionally Judge Rounds Judged this topic: 50 (SDI, UDL, Local MI) Judge Paradigm: Tabula Rasa Rate of Delivery: 4 Moderately fast Quantity of Arguments: 2 Relatively few Topicality: 3 Moderately Counterplans: 1 acceptable Generic Disadvantages: 1 acceptable Conditional Negative Positions: 2 usually acceptable Debate Theory Arguments: 1 acceptable Kritik arguments: 1 acceptable Overall judging paradigm: Who I am: I am a current Wayne State University debater who debated for 3 years with Dexter High School.

Summary: I will do my best to lay aside my personal beliefs and judge the round based on which arguments are won and lost on the flow, though I do reserve to right to give low speaker points if I'm forced to vote on a particularly obtuse argument or strategy.

Paradigm: I default to a utilitarian policy making paradigm, meaning, if no one tells me otherwise, I will view myself as a policymaker, and will vote for the plan which saves the most lives/prevents the most amount of suffering for the greatest number of people.

With topicality/theory, I default to reasonability, meaning that the burden of proof is on the team advancing the violation to demonstrate that in round abuse has occurred

For both of these, remember that they are only how I default in the instance in which no alternative is presented, I will evaluate the round the way you tell me to.

Dislikes: -Process. consult, and plan inclusive counter-plans -1nc's with more than two conditional worlds -"Impact calc" which consists of "we outweigh on timeframe" and no explanation for why any impact would come before or after another -Bad evidence -Debaters who go out of their way to create a mean spirited atmosphere (I'm fine with aggression, just be polite and don't be a bully) -Prep stealing (prep time ends when the flash drive containing the speech doc leaves the speakers computer to be given to the other team)

To get higher speaker points in front of me, debaters should emphasize: -Clarity over speed -Explanation over extension -Analysis/precision over jargon

Feel free to ask questions