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.

Please weigh weigh weigh. 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.

T: I am comfortable voting on T. 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. If you want there to be RVI's you need to tell me; I will assume there are no RVI's otherwise.

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.

I have noticed a new trend with K debate where teams are kicking the alt and running the K as a DA/Turn to case. I am not a super big fan. 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 framework.

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 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!

I'm pretty tabula rasa. If you don't tell me what to put on my flow, it won't go there.

Please clash. Please weigh. Please tell me why your argument is the better argument or why I should vote for it. Give me voters or you ain't got my vote.

If you choose to run a joke case know that your link chain must be solid or else you will probably lose. I'm all for you trying though.

Background: I have been judging speech and debate for the last four years. I have a lot of respect for the amount of research and time that goes into preparing and delivering a quality debate.

Style: I prefer traditional debate, delivered at a traditional speed, with value and criterion and clear contentions and subpoints. I judge the round based on your framework, impact analysis and flow. Please be very clear about the impacts of your arguments. Saying things like "the magnitude of my/my opponent's impact is x" will go far towards my understanding of the voting issues in the round. If your framework is complex, please explain it very clearly. The winner of the round will be the one who most clearly presented their side of the argument, defended it, and attacked their opponent's. I will flow with you, and will be tracking each of the arguments. My own opinions on the topic will never be a factor in my decision.

Speed: I prefer conversational pace. Rate of speed does not factor into my decision. If you speak too quickly, however, I might miss important elements of your case. Please signpost your contentions and subpoints slowly and clearly so I can flow with you. You can also share your case with me to help with this. My email is sharmilla@venturelearning.org

Cross-X and Voters: I appreciate good clash, especially in Cross-X (but do not be rude to your opponent). I do not flow this portion of the debate. If you bring up any points in Cross-X that you feel are good voting issues, please clearly state them in your follow-up speeches. Please do not bring up any new arguments in your final speeches-- I will not include them in my flow. I appreciate voters in the final speeches of both the affirmative and the negative. These should include not only why your case wins, but also provides the impacts of your case vs. your opponent's case. Signposting the attacks on your opponent’s case is also of value in determining the winner of the debate

Theory: If you are going to run theory, I need you to be very clear why your interpretation should be valued in the round, as well as the violation and the impact that it has on the round. I am not very familiar with debate jargon, so if you are going to run theory, please simplify it so I can understand.

Topicality: This will not be a major voting issue in the round. If something is clearly untopical, please mention it.

Respect: I enjoy good clash--heated debates are fine (and fun!), but please be respectful of each other. Comments that are homophobic, racist, sexist, or at all discriminatory will result in an automatic loss and poor speaker points.

It is important to remember that debate is supposed to be an educational activity that will better prepare participants to be more critical in their thinking and be more able to convey that critical thinking. In rounds, you should speak clearly and coherently, so your arguments can be understood and flowed effectively. It makes the round easier for all parties involved. If I miss an argument you bring up in your speeches, I can't rightly determine if that argument has an impact on the round as a whole.

On to more technical aspects, the framing of the round is essential. The AFF must show that their arguments are topical, and that the framework they propose is reasonable to the resolution. Pertaining to this, arguments should support the framework. For example, if you are going to run a framework that looks at levels of freedom as your weighing mechanism, I will not vote on an argument that states that your advocacy produces economic benefit without a link between those two arguments.

It is up to both sides to argue. The judge is supposed to vote on what is said in the round, not what is implied. If your opponent is being unfair or abusive in the round feel free to call them out, insomuch as you have a reason or impact as to why that particular behavior damages the validity of your opponents position. Give the judge clear impacts on your arguments so that it is easier to support your side.

Just keep the debate clear, clean, and coherent. Other than that, feel free to use whatever arguments you want to make.

If needed:

bryantgsaunders@gmail.com