Experience

I am a head coach and a former assistant coach with three prior years of coaching and judging experience focused in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum Debate. I am also a high school English teacher. My educational background is in Political Science, History, Communication, and Education.

Rate of Delivery (Speed)

I prefer a typical conversational speed, but rate of delivery is not a primary factor in my decision. I believe a reasonable speed allows for a more a more quality debate. In other words, I am more concerned about what you say than how much you say. It is your burden to make sure your speech is clear and understandable. If I miss an argument then you did not make it.

Lincoln Douglas Paradigms

I feel that value and criterion are key elements of the case, and these are a major factor in my evaluation. Final rebuttals should include voting issues and a bullet-point analysis of your case. I also prefer to hear voting issues as you move down the flow. The use of evidence is somewhat necessary, but I will look more at how you use that evidence to prove your point. If you offer a piece of evidence without explaining how it ties back to your key arguments, it will have little significance to me. I write down key arguments and some detailed notes throughout the round. When making a final decision, I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round, as well as who persuaded me more of his / her position overall.

Email: blainesdebatestuff@gmail.com (add me on all email chain's.)

Preferences:

If you have any specific questions about my paradigm, a ballot, or a decision please feel free to reach out to me at blainesdebatestuff@gmail.com and I will be happy to help you out.

Please prioritize debating how you are comfortable rather than conforming to every little thing that I say in my paradigm. My paradigm is more of a suggestion than a requirement to win the round. Debate is for the debater, not for the judge; and I want to see rounds where teams want to be there. I am comfortable with all styles of debate and don't think there is an objective best way to do it. If you debate how you know how, you will do great!

I judge mostly on tech, but I do like big picture arguments in the ladder half of the debate. However, please please please EXTEND YOUR WARRANTS first before going big picture on me. Common sense is your greatest tool, warranting will almost always trumps cards.

Weighing is important. I need you to tell me why you win. I don't want to be the one to decide what arguments are most important. You as the debater should be telling me this. With that being said, effective weighing is reliant upon good link debate. Good warrants are a pre-requisite to weighing, and good evidence is necessary to have good warrants. Please extend before weighing - it makes flowing easier.

T: I am comfortable voting on T in all events. Competing interps are best. However, I should have a reason to vote for T, like if your opponent violates but there is no real impact to T, I'm just gonna drop it. RVI's are dumb, so if you want me to vote on one you better be very sure your justification is solid.

Case K: You can read them, but they should have direct links to the case or topic. If you have specific questions, just send me an email or ask me in round. K's in PF feel like you are shooting yourself in the foot because of the time constraint, LD and policy are preferred.

My current pet peeve with K debate right now is that I am seeing teams are kicking the alt and running the K as a DA/Turn to case. I am not a super big fan. It feels scummy. This is fine in some circumstances, but people are doing it way too often. If you are going to do this, you better have super solid framing.

Performance or Debate about debate: Threshold for winning on these arguments is higher than a case K, but you can run them. Just make sure your framing is good, and I need solid warrants on why I should vote on performance.

Warranting is everything. Evidence is great, but the evidence has to have a warrant to weigh it. This is also true if you are trying to do evidence comparison. (Ie. If you tell me to post date, there needs to be a warrant as to why the post dating matters.)

I am not a fan of tricks. I only understand it on like a 3rd grade level, and most of the tricks rounds I have judged were unbearably unorganized. I'll vote on it, but the threshold to win the ballot is very fine.

I am comfortable with both trad and progressive LD and am happy to judge on both and don't think one is better than the other.

Judge Instruction is your friend. Paint a picture of the round and why you win and you will have a better chance of me voting for you.

Most importantly, just be comfortable and have fun!

My name is David Chen, My paradigm is to judge the competitors speech, what they are presenting, knowledge of the topic, how they presenting the topic, and the competitors professionalism. In a speech I would like to see how well a competitor can present the information that supports their argument or speech/topic. I want to see confidence in both the words that are spoken and in the person speaking. I would like to be able to be intrigued with the words you speak, changes in tone to keep me invested in your words. 

Ex-Captain, have done Policy and BQ. Familiar with all debates. Weber State Student.

Don't use slurs. Using them as an example is fine but do not use them offensively. Also don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or discriminatory in any way. I will give you the lowest speaker possible if I deem it to be offensive to your opponent. Cussing is allowed.

T's K's and spreading are alright with me. Don't do 14 off or anything wacky like that.

If your partner roasts your opponents or says something cool in cross, you will get 1 extra speaker point for yelling "WORLDSTAR" out loud.

All Debates: Please be respectful to your opponents! :) I will NOT drop your speaks based on speaking differences (e.g., stuttering, sound errors).

Policy: I have experience, but am a little out of practice. I was usually more of a politics DA/ CP or T debater, but that does not bar me from voting for a well-done K. I am willing to hear just about any argument, but I need impact analysis! Tell me how/ why to vote. I am not willing to kick a position for you when I write my ballot. Speed is generally fine, but I need clarity. Please don't give opponents a ton of cards that you didn't even read. I expect competitors to be respectful of their opponents, partners, judges, etc.

LD: My primary experience is in Policy debate, but I have judged and coached LD for several years. I like for debaters to give me voting issues and tell me how to vote/ why they won. I do think values and criterion should be part of those voting issues. Off-time roadmaps are fine. Please be respectful to your opponents! :)

PF: My primary experience is in Policy debate, but I have judged PF for several years. I like for debaters to give me voting issues and tell me how to vote/ why they won.

· I value traditional logic and persuasion over any kind of technical, rule-based, or theoretical argument. I will very rarely give a debater the win based on a technicality or theory.

· I do not believe a debater needs to specifically address every single subpoint of every single contention in order to win a round; I will weigh evidence and impacts. You will not win or lose by flow alone.

· I prefer that debaters engage with arguments rather than try to avoid or exclude them.

· I prefer strong clash in debates, or a robust discussion about the ideas presented by the resolution. I disfavor arguments that seek to avoid the resolution at hand and instead force the discussion into one about rules, theories, or technicalities; however, at the same time, I understand that on some occasions discussion about these ideas is unavoidable.

· I do not punish debaters for not filling their time. If you've said what needs to be said, feel free to concede your time without penalty.

· I believe cross is very important and I will weigh it in my decision.

· I prefer clarity and presentation over speed, 10/10. Debaters should be able to present their case in the time allowed and at a pace that is understandable to the judge and opponent(s). I prefer not to have to read your case at all and instead I wish to be captivated and brought to a clear understanding of your position simply by your presentation.

· Unless I have your case/evidence in front of me, I prefer you expand on your SOURCES (tell me where it comes from and why it’s reliable).

· I believe good debaters don't have anything to hide and should SHARE information with their opponent(s).

If you tell me a good joke that makes me laugh I will give extra speaker points. I can probably be bribed

I did debate all four years in high school so I know how tournaments go.

What I would like to see in round is just a well done, civil debate. I appreciate a good amount of clash, just don't become too disrespectful. Please make sources used very clear so I know where your information comes from.

Other than that I trust you to make the round go smoothly by timing yourselves (I will also be timing) and to be prepared to speak loud and clear, and sell your case to me.

I love debate and being able to judge after graduation. Just remember speech and debate is hard work but it is also so important and valuable in your lives; don't forget to have fun with it!

For my speech friends, all I ask of you is for your name, your prep time (if applicable), and your speech time. I ask that you do your best to not go over time, but I will respect the grace period given. That being said your final time will play into my final ranking and decision.