Okay so here is the deal. I debated for three years in high-school and did mostly PF though I’m pretty familiar with the other events and have competed in a lot of them and my partner and I took first in our national qualifying tournament.

For debates I am a flow judge and love to see your evidence and thought processes. I will not draw conclusions, if you want me to think something you need to state it during a speech. I do not flow cross so if something good comes up during cross be sure to say it in one of your speeches. I love a good debate but it always needs to be respectful and intelligent. I know that’s what every judge says but please treat each other with kindness, however I love a good banter and hope to see it in round. No spreading please, but if you have to talk fast in round that’s alright just make sure you are clear and understandable.

For speeches I judge based of the quality of your speech giving as well as the content. Eye contact is wonderful and not too much fidgeting. Confidence is your best friend and don’t be afraid to move around a little bit.

Thank you all for being good sports and good luck!

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!

I am a new judge, I did mock trial, but I haven't done debate, so I'm relatively new at this.

Speak slowly, and emphasize your points. I like eye contact, literally makes me uncomfortable because you are looking at me so much.

Flow is my main judging point.

Little background about me: I was a PF debater for three years of high school, qualified for nationals in PF and would say was decent at it. I understand LD decently and dabbled in speech.

Debates:

Please be clear in your arguments, don't just assume that I understand what's going on, explain it to me. Act like I'm 12, I can figure some things out, but you have to lead me there. Use evidence, explain the evidence, tell me why that evidence matters. EXPLAIN EVERYTHING.

I don't really care about cross, it can be interesting, but overall, I don't care. If something important is said during cross, make sure to bring it up again, because I will not flow it.

If there are rules broken during the round, I may not pick up on it. Tell me about it. I will try my best to catch it, but no promises.

Give me eye contact whenever you can, I want to feel like you are talking to me, not your opponent

Speeches:

Overall, I'm looking for a good rhythm and flow. You can jump from topic to topic without something connecting them, I just won't like it, so do so at your own risk. You don't need a road map, however, they are beneficial. I like eye contact, make me uncomfortable with how much you are staring, be expressive. I don't want to be bored, so please.

Lincoln Douglas:

I look for debates that produce a philosophical argument. While statistics can be an important part of this form of debate, it should not be the main source for the arguments. Quotes from philosophers (I define this as any public figure with an opinion) should be the main source of evidence in debates.

Correctly pointing out valid logical fallacies in your opponent's argument will help to greatly weaken it.

I also need to be able to understand you and comprehend what you are saying, so make sure you speak at a normal pace.

Please don't spread. If I can't understand what you're saying, then I can't tell if you're making a good point or not.

Please be kind. Avoid being unnecessarily nasty to your opponent.