Brandon Anderson (He/Him/His) brandonandersonbc@gmail.com

Congress: Yes, Congress is both a speech and a debate event. That means I expect competitors to not just be the best debaters they can be, but to convey their message with passion as great speakers. Remember, as a Senator/Representative you have thousands of constituents and I want your arguments to reflect how the legislation impacts them. By far the biggest frustration I had as a competitor and as a judge was a congress debater debating “Tax cuts = good” instead of properly debating “tax cuts = good, but here’s how this legislation achieves that”. Your arguments are largely tied to the confines of the legislation, make sure your arguments reflect this reality. Finally, exceptional PO's will be rewarded exceptionally.

LD, PF, CX: I promise I will flow the round and I am dedicated to giving you constructive feedback. As a competitor I hated “Tough round, 6” ballots and I will not put you through that. Also, send me your constructive case when applicable, if I miss something I want to be able to give you credit. I am not a tech judge, so if you make an argument pleasure ensure you give warrants as this helps me buy your arguments when weighing the round. I will respond to all lenses of argumentation as long as respect your opponents. Last and most importantly, please don’t spread.

Extemporaneous Speaking: I won a Nevada state title in USX in 2023 and competed around the national circuit in this event so I hold a high regard and standard for this event. I don’t mind a few stumbles, but citing your evidence (Source, Month, Year) is crucial to a high ranking. Being able to explain your evidence‘s impacts and appear knowledgeable is of the upmost importance. While I strive to be impartial and set the standard around which competitors are in the room, expect this ballot to be detailed!

Platform Speaking: I value your message. Ranging from funny messages to the more serious, I understand that speech is inherently set up in a way that pushes you to share personal and oftentimes sensitive topics. My promise to you is that I will respect your message and expect everyone in the room to respect one another, Your ballots will be largely based on technique and movements by which you convey your message.

I thank you for your bravery in public speaking. The variety of speech and debates is quite enjoyable for me. In my opinion speech and debate are about communicating clearly, effectively and efficiently through the use of words, verbal tones and body language.

In debates and extemporaneous speeches, I appreciate it when speakers begin by stating the question and by listing their main points before going in depth. I feel this helps the speaker keep a focus as well as prepares the audience to listen. I expect the main points to make logical sense as they are tied back to the original question and I expect them be supported by evidence.

In all speaking I expect clear, concise communication which is most likely to happen when the speaking speed does not exceed the listening speed. If a participant chooses to spread, then my listening skills are greatly diminished which results in me not being able to follow your reasoning and you will not be communicating your point.

Last, but not least, I expect all participants to treat each other with respect through both their words and actions. Disagreement is a big part of debates, but that is no reason to be denigrating to one another.

Background:
I competed in Original Oratory, Duo, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, and Congressional Debate from 2016 to 2020 and have been coaching high school debate since 2023.

Judging Philosophy:
- Clarity and Understanding: The essence of speech and debate lies in effective oration and forensics. It's imperative that I can understand you and that your opponents can as well. While I tolerate spreading if it's comprehensible, clarity is paramount.
- Flowing the Debate: I flow debates, so clear signposting, defined terms, and a logical progression of arguments are crucial for effective communication and scoring.
- Argument vs. Style: In my view, debate is a 51-49 balance of argument quality over style. However, being a great orator is essential. A good argument is not enough if it's presented monotonously or without engagement. Debaters should consider their speeches as a one-sided dialogue with the judge, aiming to uncover the truth and connect meaningfully.

Expectations:
- Structure and Organization: I value well-structured arguments with clear signposting. Debaters should logically progress through their arguments, making their line of reasoning easy to follow.
- Engagement and Oratory: Debaters must engage with their material and the audience. I look for debaters who not only have strong arguments but also convey them compellingly. Eye contact, varied intonation, and a sense of connection with the judge are important.
- Holistic Assessment: In close rounds, I consider both the quality of the argument and the oratorical skill. Debaters who skillfully blend persuasive argumentation with dynamic delivery will stand out.

Advice for Debaters:
- Focus on clarity and understandability in your speech delivery.
- Structure your arguments logically, and make sure your case is easy to follow.
- Remember, debate is not just about what you say but how you say it. Engage with your arguments and the judge to create a compelling dialogue.

As a judge, my goal is to foster an environment where clarity, engagement, and effective argumentation are rewarded. I look forward to seeing debaters who embrace these principles in their performances.

I am a United States history teacher and Speech & Debate teacher. I have judged at NIETOC, TOC, and NSDA Nationals.

LD: I believe all debaters should discuss and argue the chosen resolution. I will listen to Ks but will not give them much regard. As a judge my role is to establish how well competitors can effectively argue an unbiased resolution that was selected by vote. I feel K's are written for and by debaters who choose to ignore the rules of debate. I can accommodate spreading. I rarely request evidence and consider myself truth over technique.

PF: Debaters should have a good balance and knowledge of their research. I expect debaters to argue either in favor of the change suggested by the resolution or defense of the status quo. I typically ignore policy suggestions made in public forum as I feel public forum is not a debate meant to argue for the development of a policy. I will support arguments for solvency as long as those arguments establish a clear likelihood. I can accommodate spreading. I value evidence in PF rounds.

Public Profile: https://linktr.ee/adamrose_xr_t

Educational Affiliations: Clark HS, IE University, National Academy Foundation, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, United Nations Academic Impact, United Nations Millennium Fellowship, United Nations System Staff College

Oratory Group Affiliations: IE University Debate Club; IEUMUN (Madrid, Spain), GIMUN (Geneva, Switzerland), HNMUN (Boston, USA), PragueMUN (Prague, Czech Republic), SPLIMUN (Lille, France), and WorldMUN (International).

Oratory Experiences: former President of IE Debate Club; Co-founder of IEUMUN; 5+ years of College-Level MUN as well as additional speaking events and competitions (Spanish Royal Artillery Debate, IEUSG Elections Debate, etc.)

Student General Guidelines:

Cues/Feedback: when judging competitively, I generally do not give cues or feedback regarding speed, pronunciation, or gesturing during speeches. Only at the conclusion will I give feedback. If a speech has time constraints, I may tap twice at 10 seconds left and tap repeatedly if going over time - these timed warnings may change given overall speech length. Students will be given notice prior to beginning their speech if such warnings will take place and at what intervals.
Style/Substance Preferences: I generally give more weight to substance over style when evaluating a speech, but I look for well-rounded performances. A monotone analysis without emotion will score equally poorly to that of a passionate act devoid of content. Aim to craft intelligent speeches with compelling messages that impart an impactful experience.
Objectives: when judging competitively, I encourage all students to aim to win. However, do not let competitiveness overshadow the event and what experiences you may take away from it. From honing your existing skills, to collaborating with new individuals, to learning a new ability, seek to gain something from having participated. Opportunities often arise from the places we least expect them.

I'm a newer judge and teacher. I vote on the most coherent, logical argument. You won't win me over on an emotional argument or one that does not make sense. I don't like logical fallacies. I like quantity over quality. I want you to to explain your contentions, not just state them.

I usually don't like spreading, but if I can understand you, it's okay. Since I'm newer, I do my best to take notes during your round to try to flow.

Parent/Coach at Coral Academy of Science Las Vegas with 7 mos. of tournament history.

Please go slower and impact your arguments that an average person will understand .

My note-taking focuses on key points in the arguments.

I find arguments grounded in real-world impacts to be the most persuasive.