UIL Speech Judges
If you have corrections, questions or comments regarding this information, please notify The UIL Speech and Debate department at speech@uiltexas.org or 512-471-5883.
Christopher Brannen
Current high school:
Mont Belvieu Barbers Hill
Currently coaching?: Yes
Conference: 5A
Number of years coached: 7
Number of tournaments judged: 12
High school attended:
Langham Creek High School
Graduated high school: 2001
Participated in high school: Yes
Participated in college: Yes
Judging qualifications:
I’ve been an educator for 11 years and coaching Debate now for 7 years.
I have a B.A. in Speech Communication and an M.A. in Communication.
I participated in Mock Trial in College.
I have judged multiple events on the TFA/UIL/NSDA circuits for the past 7 years.
Judging Philosophy
CX
Rounds judged: 8
Judging approach: Policy Maker
Policy priority: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Evidence philosophy: Quality of evidence is more important than quantity of evidence
Paradigm: * On Impacts: I prefer real-world impacts. I'm generally deciding the debate by weighing the impacts of arguments at the end of the round. * On Kritiks: I don't like leftist kritiks. I think they are anathema to the very spirit of the activity we are participating in. I think Marxism in all its forms is absolutely morally repugnant and reprehensible. If you run Cap/Anthropocentrism/Give Back the land/Fem/Baudrillard/ etc… I'm not going to like it. These arguments are circular and uncompelling. I’ll keep Locke and Montesquieu and the rest of you can have all the foolish Gramsci and Robespierre you want. However, if you and your opponents really want to K debate, I'll hear it and try to judge it. * On DAs: Make sure that you do solid impact comparison. At the end of the round I need something to weigh. The link controls the direction of uniqueness/the DA, not the other way around. Arguments like this can be helpful to you *On Framework: If you give me a framework, and win the framing debate, I will view the round through your framework. You still have to impact the debate and win down the flow. In other words, if your opponents meet your framework better than you and say so they win. If your framework is morally repugnant to me I will reject it. In the absence of framework debate I default policymaker. * On Topicality: The plan is what makes you topical. I will view the round through the lens of competing interpretations unless you tell me to do otherwise. I don’t think affs need to specify their agent. * On Speed: I'm good on most speed. I’m kind of deaf so yell. Please signpost clearly and slow down for tags. * On Theory: I default to reasonability. I'll hear a good theory argument, though, given that it is thoughtful and has a point. I don’t vote for whining. I really don’t care if your opponent hurt your feelings or offended your sensibilities. Beat them on the flow and we can discuss them being jerks after the round. * On Counter plans: I like them. I prefer single-actor counter plans to multilateral actor counter plans. I generally believe that if the US already belongs to that organization then the counterplan is plan plus or the net benefit doesn’t have a link. Absent debate, I think PICS are good and dispositionality or unconditionality makes for good debate. * On Decorum: I award speaker points based on my preferences. I like polite debaters who appear to enjoy the activity and I reward that. I like debaters to stand during their speeches and during cross-examination. I find objectionable language unacceptable as it rarely provides a good warrant. * On Evidence: If you want me to call for evidence, it must be red-flagged in the 2NR or 2AR. I generally find quality round overviews in the last rebuttal to be helpful for me to understand why you think you have won the debate. * If you have questions about anything, feel free to come talk to me at any tournament. I’ll do my best to answer your questions.
Judging approach: Policy Maker
Policy priority: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Evidence philosophy: Quality of evidence is more important than quantity of evidence
Paradigm: * On Impacts: I prefer real-world impacts. I'm generally deciding the debate by weighing the impacts of arguments at the end of the round. * On Kritiks: I don't like leftist kritiks. I think they are anathema to the very spirit of the activity we are participating in. I think Marxism in all its forms is absolutely morally repugnant and reprehensible. If you run Cap/Anthropocentrism/Give Back the land/Fem/Baudrillard/ etc… I'm not going to like it. These arguments are circular and uncompelling. I’ll keep Locke and Montesquieu and the rest of you can have all the foolish Gramsci and Robespierre you want. However, if you and your opponents really want to K debate, I'll hear it and try to judge it. * On DAs: Make sure that you do solid impact comparison. At the end of the round I need something to weigh. The link controls the direction of uniqueness/the DA, not the other way around. Arguments like this can be helpful to you *On Framework: If you give me a framework, and win the framing debate, I will view the round through your framework. You still have to impact the debate and win down the flow. In other words, if your opponents meet your framework better than you and say so they win. If your framework is morally repugnant to me I will reject it. In the absence of framework debate I default policymaker. * On Topicality: The plan is what makes you topical. I will view the round through the lens of competing interpretations unless you tell me to do otherwise. I don’t think affs need to specify their agent. * On Speed: I'm good on most speed. I’m kind of deaf so yell. Please signpost clearly and slow down for tags. * On Theory: I default to reasonability. I'll hear a good theory argument, though, given that it is thoughtful and has a point. I don’t vote for whining. I really don’t care if your opponent hurt your feelings or offended your sensibilities. Beat them on the flow and we can discuss them being jerks after the round. * On Counter plans: I like them. I prefer single-actor counter plans to multilateral actor counter plans. I generally believe that if the US already belongs to that organization then the counterplan is plan plus or the net benefit doesn’t have a link. Absent debate, I think PICS are good and dispositionality or unconditionality makes for good debate. * On Decorum: I award speaker points based on my preferences. I like polite debaters who appear to enjoy the activity and I reward that. I like debaters to stand during their speeches and during cross-examination. I find objectionable language unacceptable as it rarely provides a good warrant. * On Evidence: If you want me to call for evidence, it must be red-flagged in the 2NR or 2AR. I generally find quality round overviews in the last rebuttal to be helpful for me to understand why you think you have won the debate. * If you have questions about anything, feel free to come talk to me at any tournament. I’ll do my best to answer your questions.
LD
Rounds judged: 7
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
# I expect you to share evidence. Don't even wait for your opponent to ask. Plan on sharing it. # On Speed: I'm good on speed. I’m kind of deaf so yell. # On Framework: If you don't provide a scale in the round to judge by, I will (likely) fall back on who argued their Value/Criteria framework the best. # On Plans in LD: I prefer a traditional debate, but some of the resolutions these days really do lend themselves to plans. I don't love them, but I'll try to keep an open mind if you want to run a plan or a CP. # On Clarity: Use conditional statements and make your logic clear for me. Don't make me guess. I want to hear your reasoning. Don’t make assertions without backing those assertions. (Warrants? Impacts?) # On Signposting: Signpost clearly. Make sure you remind me where we are and what the order of the arguments are. Repetition is a skill in speeches. It isn’t bad unless you overdo it. # On Rebuttals: In your rebuttal, crystalize for me. Give me voting issues. Use debate jargon, I’m good with it. I’m looking for who wins the key issues of the debate. Tell me what you think those are and why you think you won them. (Or why you think your opponent lost it.) # On Decorum: There are lines of decency one should not cross. LD is about values. I have no problem imposing a base-level of my own values to the round. I award a wide range of points in debate based on my preferences. I find objectionable language unacceptable as it rarely provides a good warrant. # If you have questions about anything, feel free to come talk to me at any tournament. I’ll do my best to answer your questions.
Approach: Communication skills and resolution of substantive issues are of equal importance
Philosophy:
# I expect you to share evidence. Don't even wait for your opponent to ask. Plan on sharing it. # On Speed: I'm good on speed. I’m kind of deaf so yell. # On Framework: If you don't provide a scale in the round to judge by, I will (likely) fall back on who argued their Value/Criteria framework the best. # On Plans in LD: I prefer a traditional debate, but some of the resolutions these days really do lend themselves to plans. I don't love them, but I'll try to keep an open mind if you want to run a plan or a CP. # On Clarity: Use conditional statements and make your logic clear for me. Don't make me guess. I want to hear your reasoning. Don’t make assertions without backing those assertions. (Warrants? Impacts?) # On Signposting: Signpost clearly. Make sure you remind me where we are and what the order of the arguments are. Repetition is a skill in speeches. It isn’t bad unless you overdo it. # On Rebuttals: In your rebuttal, crystalize for me. Give me voting issues. Use debate jargon, I’m good with it. I’m looking for who wins the key issues of the debate. Tell me what you think those are and why you think you won them. (Or why you think your opponent lost it.) # On Decorum: There are lines of decency one should not cross. LD is about values. I have no problem imposing a base-level of my own values to the round. I award a wide range of points in debate based on my preferences. I find objectionable language unacceptable as it rarely provides a good warrant. # If you have questions about anything, feel free to come talk to me at any tournament. I’ll do my best to answer your questions.
Contact Information
email: christopher.brannen@bhisd.net
cell:
office: 281 5762221
Availability Information
Meet types:
Invitational
District
Regional
CX State
State Meet
Congress Region
Congress State
Qualified for:
CX
LD
Extemp
Prose/Poetry
Congress
Travel
Region of residence:
3
I will travel to: 1 2 3 4 5 6
