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!

PF paradigm: I judge based on the flow. I don't judge off of my pre-existing ideas or what I believe to be true in the real world. I judge based off of the arguments presented and the rebuttals to those arguments. If your opponent says something stupid or makes wild leaps in logic and you don't call them on it, it's not my job to enter the debate as a third party and call them on it through the ballot. That's your job. I don't flow cross, so if you want me to weigh something said in cross, put it in a speech.

My preferences:

I can handle speed, but don't spread. If I can't flow it, I'm not considering it in the final judging.

Extend your arguments. Make it clear. Explain. If I don't know much about the topic, I should still be able to understand.

Be civil.

Be ethical with evidence. Don't paraphrase things that aren't actually supported by the evidence or leave out key information that changes the interpretation of the evidence.

I don't like K's in PF.

Weigh the impacts. Give me voters.

Policy paradigm: I'm pretty traditional. I'm fine with progressive arguments-- I'll weigh any arguments you want to make-- but they can't be sloppy. You have to be able to explain it to me effectively, not just read a bunch of cards and expect me to figure out how it links. If you're running something squirrelly and your opponent responds with logic, I'm probably going to prefer logic. Again, I'm pretty traditional.

If the aff makes a logical argument and the neg counters with philosophy, why should I prefer philosophy over real world impacts? Explain it to me.

I don't really love role of the ballot arguments that I have some obligation to vote for you so we can change the world. That I have an obligation to vote for you so we can send a message. My obligation is to vote for the best debaters.

I like K alts that solve. There's that traditional thing again.

Spreading is fine.

Be clear. If you go too fast I will likely miss what you are saying. I judge debates based on engagement, clarity and organization of logic, relevance of data, and lucid analysis. If I do not understand what you are saying, however, then all that becomes impossible for me to interpret.

About Me- I did Policy all four years I was in high school, I graduated class of 2021.

I do tend to fidget; I promise I am still listening.

I am currently coaching the policy teams from the school I graduated from.

Overview-

My biggest philosophy is you can be aggressive without being rude, I think aggression is good, especially in debate, however if you are rude I will doc you speaks.

Please don't do the thing where you individually ask if people are ready, just say "is anyone not ready?" give it a few seconds and then start your speech, if someone is not ready, they will say something, asking everyone individually takes so much unnecessary time. I'll just cringe, this won't affect my judging though.

Please include me in email chains, if I can see the evidence and arguments I will have a more unbiased opinion, this goes with pretty much all judges.

I won't judge you differently if your camera is on or off, however psychologically you are more likely to win if the judge can see your face (I try my hardest not to let this sway me though)

Don't look at each other during cross. Just don't do it, ever. I'll just cringe this won't negatively affect you

If a question is asked before cross is over, still answer it.

If the timer goes off while you're answering a question still answer it.

If the timer goes off in your speech, finish your sentence.

Don't forget to tell me your name before we start.

I flow like a policy debater so please sign post and emphasize your authors and taglines

I will vote on what you tell me to vote on.

When referring to your opponent please just say "my opponent" or "them" if pronouns are necessary

If you're in policy I will vote on what you tell me to vote on, or flow if you don't tell me.

If you're in LD I will vote on what you tell me to vote on, or morality if you don't tell me.

If you're in PF I will vote on what you tell me to vote on, or Cost Benefit Analysis if you don't tell me.

Please tell me what you want me to vote on, as a judge I should not have to draw any conclusions myself.

Speaker Points-

<27- You did something wrong, you were rude, discriminatory, disrespectful, etc.

27- You were an okay speaker but have room to improve

28- You were an average speaker, good but still could improve (average in debate)

29- You were very good, very little room for improvement

30- You were exemplary, I was very impressed with your speaking (I don't give out 30's very often but it does happen)

My average speaker point given out is a 28.5, lowest I have given is a 23, I give out an average of one 30 a tournament.

Those Policy Questions-

Tag team cross- Yes you can do this, if one partner is dominating the other partner will get lower speaks, you should talk about the same amount of time.

Prep Time- I have been told 8 minutes, that's what I will go with unless the tournament states otherwise

Is cross binding- Yes, if you say it in cross, it is the same as saying it in a speech

Is the neg block one speech- Yes this is the reason it is back-to-back

Tabula Rasa- I try my best to be a blank slate and let you convince me of your arguments without outside bias, however I cannot guarantee no bias, but I will try my hardest. I believe I should have to do little to no thinking myself and I should just be able to look at my flow and see who won.

I believe in no new arguments in the rebuttals, but you can bring up new arguments if it is your first chance to answer your opponent's arguments

If you are going to be talking about sensitive topics (especially ones that can be trauma related) please give a trigger warning (this should go for every round, we want everyone to be comfortable)

I love theory and kritiks (you don't have to run them, but I do appreciate them)

I am okay with swearing but ask your opponents

Choose clarity and emphasis of points over speed and volume of words.  If you are speaking so fast it is difficult to understand you OR if you are not separating your points when transitioning from one point/sub-point or between contentions, this will impact your speaker points.

Be respectful but control your time.  IF YOU ARE BEING ASKED A QUESTION, do not interrupt the person asking it.  If you interrupt, you will loose speaker points.  IF YOU ARE THE ONE ASKING THE QUESTION, this is your time.  You can interrupt once your question has been answered OR if the person you are asking goes off topic... you are encouraged to do this (as long as you do it in a respectful manner).  If you don't do this and you allow the other person to take over your question, you will loose speaker points.

Once your time is up, finish your statement and be done.  If you continue beyond that, I'll let you know your time is up and you will loose speaker points.

Happy debating!!!

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.

TL;DR

I judge off the flow (unless told otherwise). I'm game for anything as long as it's justified. Be respectful. Don't take it too seriously. Organized debaters earn high speaker points. Have fun!!!

Experience

In high school, I competed for four years in policy debate. In college, I competed for two years doing both college LD and BP. I've judged high school policy, LD, and PF. But it's been a little while, so I may be a little rusty.

Overall

Argumentation comes first, but I love organized debaters. I won many debates simply by organizing the flow in my favor for the judge. This is a great way to get good speaker points in front of me.

In your last speech, tell me what I should be writing on my ballot. What are the key voters, and why did you win them?

If you want to go fast, go as fast as long as you are still accessible to everyone in the room. Please go slow on parts you want me to flow (e.g. taglines, years). I should still be able to hear the evidence you're reading, so speak as fast as you can while still speaking clearly.

I love an effective cross-examination! Find holes! Get clarification! But be respectful. This is another great way to earn good speaker points in front of me.

You will lose my ballot if you are racist, sexist, ableist, or discriminatory in a way not listed here.

Have fun! I loved making jokes in rounds! Don't take yourselves too seriously. Debate is educational, but it's also a game, so enjoy yourself!

Policy

I judge the way you debate. Otherwise, I judge off the flow. I love a good policy-oriented round, theory round, critical round, whatever you want to debate as long as you justify the arguments.

On topicality/theory, I am open to voting in favor of reasonability if you tell me the reason and justify why your affirmative is reasonably within the range of the topic (or reasonably meeting the interpretation on a theory flow). What are the implications of considering you reasonable v. not reasonable? How does that affect the topic education at large (education voter)? How does that affect debate at large (fairness voter)? That does not mean I will vote for reasonability every time, the negative (or other side of the theory flow) should be telling me the opposite. Why is it not reasonable, how does it harm topic education or debate fairness at large? You can certainly also tell me why I should not defer to reasonability, but to be persuasive, be more specific than "Reasonability is bad because it's too subjective".

For counterplans, I think your ability to debate theory can be a key way to win or lose (specifically for things like delay counterplans, different actors, consultation, etc.). That goes for the aff side of handling a CP and the neg side. Theory is by no means the only way to win with this argument. But often, people waste time on theory saying the same thing over and over again that is not effective or they do not spend enough tine on theory and lose as a result.

I love critical debate, but don't assume I already know your criticism and understand your alternative. If I don't understand it by the end of the round, I'm going to assume it is not an effective one (especially considering the education of K debate is usually its driving force).

LD

I judge the way you debate. Otherwise, I judge off the flow.

In LD, I love when debaters have an effective value and value criterion debate. If you generally agree on a value, then don't waste time explaining which one is better, tell me your case better fulfills that value. If they are different, get into the criterion debate. Why is your criterion better? How does your opponent's criterion actually support your value? Get creative! Be effective!

I'm open to anything in LD as long as you justify it. I never debated LD myself, so I don't have a ton of preferences beyond that.

PF

I judge the way you debate. Otherwise, I judge off the flow.

Be respectful in cross fire. Be extra respectful in grand cross. It doesn't look good on you to get angry at your opponents. If they're doing something wrong (hiding evidence, sidestepping a question, not letting you ask your question, etc.) I probably see it too. I know you need to be assertive too, so just be respectful and leave space for everyone in the round.

speak clearly

stand confidently

good normal eye contact

keep argument to the point

Trevor Osborn
Head Coach of Bonneville High School

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

· 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 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 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.

· Showing PERSONALITY is refreshing. Feel free to use humor, wit, boldness, and strategic cross to improve your speaker points.

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

· I prefer clarity and presentation over SPEED, 10/10. I dislike spreading and believe it is a poor excuse for real debate, or the real exchange of ideas. 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. If you will take a chance and present your content clearly, intelligibly, and persuasively—instead of relying on reading as much content into your case as fast as possible (spreading)—I will reward it.

· 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).

· Add me to your email chain: trosborn(at)wsd(dot)net

I prefer arguments to be clear and well reasoned, with strong evidence to back them up. I prefer a more traditional debate, without spreading/spewing. Your argument should be presented clearly with an emphasis on speaking clearly, slowly is preferred. There should be strong clash in cross. I'm pretty "lay" so adjust accordingly.

Do not talk too fast, if I can not understand what you are saying it will not flow it.

Keep in mind that I do not know anything about the resolution, please explain what you are saying.

Not a theory fan.

I am comfortable with all types of debate. Please run whatever you want. I will flow.

Tech > Truth

Impact Calc > nearly everything else

Definition debate < value-criterion debate (LD-specific) < everything else

Here's my email: jacksontridges@gmail.com

thanks for 10 years and 100 tournaments of judging

:)

Overall, I vote on what you tell me to vote on. Pure and simple.

I ran Policy for two years in high school, with an additional year of National Extemp and other events. Within that time I ran almost every event. I went to Nationals twice, once in Policy and once in Informational Speaking. While running Policy, I ran decently traditional, but I have run K's, Theory, Procedurals, just about everything. In LD I ran traditional as well but know K's well enough as well. Generally, I have experiences with most parts of debate. I am now the assistant coach for Viewmont High School.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

GENERAL:

Argumentation:

Evidence is king. Make sure you have evidence to back things up. I am very partial to line-by line analysis of the links and evidence of the debate. If you are able to convince me that an argument does not link, I will drop it. Likewise, if you do not address arguments, they stand without questions. However, these arguments will still be weighed against all other arguments in the round, it is not an immediate win. Lastly, in all debates, telling me what is or isn't abusive (except for in-round debate arguments in policy) is a waste of your time. I've done debate, I can tell.

Cross:

Tag Team Cross is okay, but it will negatively effect your speaker points. No flex prep. I don't flow cross, but am aware of what happened, so if something is important, you will need to tell me.

FLASHING/PREP:

NSDA standard prep times. Period. Flashing does not count (as long as you don't abuse it), and neither does getting up to speak and off time road maps, but talking to your partner, typing etc. are prep and I will start counting.

SPEECH SPEED:

Slow down! Although speed can be fine to an extent, if I can't understand you, I'm not going to vote for you. Slow Down, Enunciate, and ensure I understand, especially on analysis, overviews, and tags.

SPEAKER POINTS:

I'm not going to give a 30 to anyone who can't enunciate and speak well. I know speech quite well, and I evaluate you for speaker points as SPEAKERS not by how fast and well you debate. Good speaking skills are imperative for all events.

LD:

FRAMEWORK DEBATE (Value / Value Criterion / Some Observations):

Framework is how I view the round, not how I vote. If you end up with an uncontested value and value criterion, don't expect to win the round by default. Unless you give me a compelling reason to vote on the framework, I will use it as a way to frame your arguments to decide a winner. Therefore, it is imperative that you tell me why your arguments fulfill the Value or Value Criterion of both you and your opponent, unless you know which one will be the framework for the round.

NON-TRADITIONAL ARGUMENTS:

No. Just no. You will lose because you are not sticking to what this format is about. I understand that there are good arguments that could be run this way, but all of them that can add to the debate can be run in the LD framework without needing policy invasion.

PF:

I am going to vote how you tell me, pure and simple. Clean, simple, easy to follow debate is the way to win in PF. There is no need to tell me that the framework is cost-benefit analysis, as this is a given unless otherwise shown in round. Also, all arguments in the round are potential reasons to vote, dropping arguments does not mean I do not weigh them, so debating on all the issues is your best bet. Make sure you do the analysis and give me voters, and you will do ok.

POLICY:

AFF ARGUMENTS:

Traditional affs are my favorite, Kritical and Performative affs are ok as long as they link and add to the debate. With this, however, it is imperative you tell me why these are a good idea in the face of the topic and debate in general. Performative especially needs to tell me why the performance adds to the round. In my experience, traditional affs are the best way for us to have a good discussion about policymaking. No matter how you run, a harm to solve and some sort of solvency is needed. Without this, I will not vote for you.

TOPICALITY/THEORY/PROCEDURALS:

Topicality and Theory are awful and should not be used unless abuse is present and you are going to go for it. This is IMPORTANT. I HATE TIMESUCK ARGUMENTS. If you decide to run this, it had better have substance, a reason, and impacts. Also, once you introduce it, it is a voting issue no matter whether you drop it or not. Except in very specific situations where T is needed to define the Aff (which doesn't happen very much), if you run T and the aff is topical, no matter what else you run, you will be dropped. For theory, you can expect a bogus theory argument which is trying to timesuck will also get you dropped. Topicality and theory are important to check abuse, but don't expect to run them abusively and get away with it.

DISADS/COUNTERPLANS:

Disads and counterplans are the fundamental way for the Neg to talk about policymaking (what we are there for) in the round. I pretty much like everything but make sure your links are solid. Don't give me a floating counterplan though, it must have a disad it solves. Also, a perm is a test of competition, not a change of advocacy. Just a tip.

K'S:

Kritiques are acceptable, but are situational and only should be run if there is actually an issue. K's are very cool, and they allow great discussions within the debate space, but they should not be used as a win-all but as a discussion about an issue in the aff mindset or the resolution writ large. Don't expect me to vote for you just because you ran a K. Framework is important, and if none is provided, your K will be measured against the 1AC. I'm not going to vote for this A Priori unless you tell me why and there is an impact (in other words, why it is any more than a disadvantage). Also, don't expect me to get your K just because I was a policy debater. Slow down on these.