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!

(Updated For The Stanford Debate Tournament)

First off congrats on actually looking up your judges wiki, next step is implementing it in the way you debate.

If you'd like to contact me for anything other than a solid after-round grilling of why you disagreed with my decision, my email is JacobDKunzler@gmail.com. I'd also like to be on any email chains in round.

tl;dr: I read kritiks, theory, cp's da's and most types of arguments in high school. I will buy anything you have to sell, not only because I love capitalism but because I do my best to enter the round as tabula rasa as possible. Read whatever you want, just be able to defend it. The exception is anything related to the spread of discrimination in the debate space. I don't care how well you prove your point that women's suffrage was not utilitarian (I wish I hadn't been in that round) I'm not going to buy it. If you feel your opponent is violating this please email me.

Speed: Yeah, speed is probably one of the more exclusionary aspects of debate but that doesn't mean it's going away. I've been out of the circuit for a few years, so plan on going around 70% top speed. If its a problem I'll clear you. I don't plan on ever deducting speaks for a clear meant to slow a debater down.

Kritik: I read a modified form of the Afro Pessimism K for 2 years on both the aff and neg until I started reading poetry based cases. I'm by no means an expert but will definitely know what elements are necessary to call your argument a kritik, and will be looking for them. If both procedural arguments and the K have pre-fiat impacts you should work to create a priority between them. You probably wont like the way I prioritize arguments if you leave me no option other than to choose for myself. (quarters may or may not be involved because why not, capitalism makes all the other decisions in this country)

On the aff I'm also a strong advocate for the kritik, go ahead, but you better be ready to justify why that education specifically is more valuable than the education of a typical affirmative, and be prepared to answer the procedurals out of the negative.

Procedurals: never my strong suit but nonetheless a form of debate that I enjoyed. While some disagree I believe fairness is inevitably an internal link to education, and will be more easily convinced of arguments in line with that way of thinking, but I do my best to enter a procedural debate as tabula rasa as possible. I default to drop the arg over drop the debater, no RVI's, Reasonability over Counter Interpretations, and Procedural fairness over structural fairness.

I default to epistemic certainty, but when read, I'm pretty easily persuaded by epistemic modesty. I'll also default to truth testing over comparative worlds.

Speaks: I start both debaters at 28 speaker points and go on to add or subtract whenever I feel I need to. Some great things to avoid would be unclear spreading, rudeness. Some great things to do would be humor (quality over quantity), familiarity with your own case in cross, and overviews.

Flashing is not prep but don't abuse it.

If all debaters ask me then I will disclose the round

If you want to talk about the round definitely find me/email me, given that I have time we can go over anything you'd like.

I believe disclosure is good for debate, and will grant you +.1 speak for either being disclosed before round, or showing me after

Flex prep is chill for clarification, but try to avoid its use for argument building.

Hey everyone!

My name is Sugar, I am currently an assistant coach at Davis High Debate. I graduated last year, after competing at Davis Debate for 3 years. I’m currently a freshman at the U of U. I love debate and judging it, so please reciprocate that energy.

I mainly competed in LD for all of my debate years. I qualified to nats in LD, all three years of my debate career and broke my junior and senior year. So trust me, I know what I am doing. You don’t have to treat me as a mommy judge. I also have a pinch of policy experience, so I am familiar with certain prog possessions.

LD

- Love LD with all my heart. Arguably the best debate event.

- Signpost. (can’t believe I have to say this but many people don’t know what signposting is so...here I go...tell me where you're at on the flow).

- I prefer trad arguments, but I’m ok with you running prog arguments. Just make sure that you know what you’re doing and it is accessible. If you run a far too prog arg against a novice that doesn’t quite understand what you are running, I'm sorry, but I won’t evaluate the arg. Please be as inclusive as possible.

- K’s. Not a fan unless it is specific to the round such as a speed k, extinction k, and so forth.

- CPs are ok. If they’re Mutually exclusive and outweigh. I am also swayed by CP Bad theory and will prob end up voting on it.

- Line by Line Judge. You win the flow. You win the ballot.

- Yes, you can time yourself.

- Ok with speed. Not ok with spreading. You should know the difference. If you spread and someone runs a speed k against you, you better start packin up cause you most likely just lost.

- Framework debates have become repetitive. If your value is societal welfare and your opps value is societal progress, feel free to just concede the fw debate and move on. It’s not as important as winning on substance. However, fw can be used to your advantage. I’m not saying its never important, it is the lens through which I view the round. If you are running something obscure that gets backed up by your fw then you should absolutely extend and argue your fw.

- Also I hate the way debaters are extending cards. I could care less if you have five authors that all make the same argument. If your opp attacks the main argument, then don’t get up in your speech and say “my opp dropped four cards extend the Johnson evidence which states…”

- You don’t have to give me voters. Voters should be incorporated into your rebuttals as you go down the flow.

- Feel free to collapse if you think it’ll win you the round. But just know that I do like to judge the round based on how many arguments were won.

- Please don’t run phil cases. I don’t wanna hear 6 min of Kantian ethics.

- Tech>Truth but why not be both

- I really like T, especially in LD. I don’t know why judges hate Nebel T, cause I abs like it. If you run it well, you could win my ballot.

- Please cut your cards correctly. If I catch you falsifying evidence you will receive an L with 20 speaks. To add onto that, make sure your claims are actually backed up by your evidence. I hate seeing cards that are like:

o Trump…wag the dog…tensions increase…lying to news reporter…only a matter of time…could lash out against the public…war is inevitable...numbers game… (if your card looks like this you’ll lose the round, I don’t care how you creative you are when it comes to cutting cards)

- If you run a nuke war extinction scenario. It better be really really really good. Cause I hate having to judge such a low-prob impact scenario. If you don’t take into account deterrence, motives, alt causes, international geopolitical stance, and so forth I won’t buy your impact.

- I usually like to fill out my ballot during CX but that shouldn't undermine its importance. I am still paying attention and yes CX is binding (why wouldn't it be binding). However, I don't flow CX if you want an argument to be on my flow you have to bring it up during CX.

-You don't have to use up all your time. Novices- it's ok to end a speech early.

Policy

- disclose prior to the round. AFF will lose every time if NEG runs disclosure theory and proves AFF refused to disclose. For those who don't know what disclosure is... disclosing is where you send out a copy of the highlighted and cut version of the 1AC at least 30 min prior to the round (or as soon as pairings come out). I'm a lot less stringent on NEG disclosure but I like the practice of sending out previous 2NRs. Now you may be asking yourself how do I send out my 1AC to debaters that I have no way of reaching out to. Allow me to introduce to you the policy wiki, it's a place where you can disclose your case and contact your opponents. Look into the policy wiki it's not that hard to learn how to use and its been used for a very long time now. You have been warned.

- 21ssantillan@gmail.com yes put me on the email chain. but I flow off of my ears and not my eyes. So if you don't speak clearly I won't take a second to go through the doc. If you could have the email chain set before the round I'll grant you an extra 0.5 speaker points.

- Spreading is ok. But be inclusive and be clear. Slow down on taglines and analytics. You should never sacrifice clarity over speed. Sadly most policy debaters can't do both.

- K's. um just be careful and run them correctly. Be inclusive.

- not a perf judge.

- High prob low magnitude scenario > low prob high magnitude scenario

-cut your cards well, please

-tag team cx is ok

- Analytics > Cards. By far. I could care less if you have multiple cards making one argument, if logic and analytics are sufficient to take down the premise you'll lose on the arg.

-signpost and give an off time roadmap. I can’t believe I have to put this in here but so far out of all the policy rounds I’ve judged in our circuit No one has signposted correctly. Please please please signpost.

For other events just ask me during the round.

(Here are some copied parts of other people's paradigm that I completely endorse).

Dawson Braxter (I've never met Dawson btw, I just really like his paradigm)

"Policy: Know that while I have a great deal of experience in judging this event as a debate coach, and while I respect the original premise on which Policy Debate was created, I am largely disappointed with the culture of Policy Debate, and hope that you'll do the courtesy of making it a healthy event for this round. Don't expect me to allow you to flash or email-chain any files with the other team, or with me. If you cannot coherently communicate your argument in the time that is allotted without lapsing into the epileptic fits of high-pitched squeaking and gasping that are so irresponsibly passed off as authentic debate, you may expect me to weigh your wanton abuse of the debate round into my decision. Fitting an overabundance of contentions into your constructive cases simply to set your opponent up later to be unable to sufficiently answer them all is not demonstrative of you being the better debater; it simply tells me that winning means more to you than authentic debate. Additionally, simply reading cards without contributing your own critical analysis does not convince me that you are the better debater, but only demonstrates you possess the linguistic skills of a parrot.

I promise you that it is possible to have a Policy Debate round where you can be intelligible to your judge and to your opponents. Speech rates in excess of 300 words per minute, while they may be the norm in Policy Debate as it currently stands, are beyond disappointing."