Jared Bressler's judging philosophy


Jared Bressler
Coach Texas Tech University

Case: I much prefer policy to value and fact, but if you relay want to run a value or a fact I will listen to it. I am OK with performance and other non traditional affs explain how you want me to evaluate them. I will not vote on case deference (or any deference) unless you give me a reason to.
Topicality: Make sure you extend your voters I have drooped way too many people for not doing this. In general I prefer competing interpretations to any other standard, but if the Aff wins I should only look at in round abuse I will only look at in round abuse. I don’t know what is or is not reasonable if you are running that as a counter standard tell me why your reasonable.

T: I will vote on competing interpretations unless told otherwise. I will vote on RVIs and Ks of T if you win them.

Theory: I have the slight preference that you put theory on a separate sheet of paper than the CP or the K it keeps my flows better. Again you need a clear voter for me to vote here. Do the same if thing if you have a large theory preempt in to LO.

Disads/CPs: Fine give good impact calculus. This should probably include magnitude probability and time frame and if you relay want to do a good job explain why whichever of these you are ahead on is the most important. Again offensive answers will help you more than difference. If you want to go for deference explain how it fictions in comparison to your offense (if you win a terminal no like explain how that makes the DA go away). I will only look at the impact caculus that you gave. This means if everyone only talked about magnitude that is all I will look at. Clear and concise counterplan texts and perm texts make my job easer.

K: This is what I typically liked to run. I am cool with any framework you want to set up. I am cool with any theory argument you make on the K (again put this on another sheet of paper for me).

Other things

If you shame your opponents I will give you 0 speaker points.

I am cool with speed and will tell you if you are unclear.

I will severely dock speaker points if you are rude or offensive.

If you are passing around coppies of plan and counterplan texts and you want me to make my decision based on what is written down you would do well to give me a copy.

Make sure you termanilize your impacts.

I think that you should call points of order.

Any other questions feel free to ask


From this point on if you have ask for 30 speaker points you will get 0/


I’m not writing this in response to any given argument. I have heard of arguments being made that this is relevant to and I want people to know this before they fill out any more strike/preff sheets.

As a person with Autism I can’t evaluate rounds except by the flow. I know people are calling on judges to evaluate rounds differently, I will vote on flowing bad but I doubt I will ever be able to evaluate a round in any other way. Even if I don’t physically flow the round I will be flowing in my mind, I can’t help that any more than I can help fidgeting with paper or any of the things that come with being Autistic. I’m sorry if this way of looking at debate excludes you from debate, I recognize that NPTE-NPDA privileges the way I engage in debate and that’s fucked up, but it’s the way I am. I try to put all arguments on my flow and evaluate them as fairly as possible.

Judge Philosophy Directory