I value impact plausibility over magnitude.

I prefer communication-intensive debates:

- Define your position precisely

- Call out specific sources verbally

- Speak clearly

Experienced at judging both LD and PF.

Will judge policy in a pinch.

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!

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

Hi my name is Bryn Montierth. I am currently a Political Science and Film Production student at the University of Kansas and I'm familiar with all levels of debate from traditional high school to collegiate. I competed primarily in LD through high school, though I have done most forms of Speech and Debate at one point or another.

Add me to the email chain brynelizmoti@gmail.com or let me know the speechdrop code if you use either

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."

I am a part-time college professor and attorney with 17 years of both trial and appeals experience in the state and federal courts. I also have a Masters Degree in Public Policy and previously worked as a policy advisor at the U.S. Department of State and have been involved in discussing and presenting policy proposals to members of Congress, the Secretary of State, and foreign government leaders. I also do consulting work on international affairs and policy issues.

I have a great deal of experience judging moot court/mock trials for law schools around the country, but my high school debate judging experience is, well, less robust. Please be patient and understanding as I reacquaint myself with the process. I am returning to it now after all these years because I now have a HS daughter who has just taken up debate and I want to be involved. In high school, I did some of the traditional speech events.

10 Things to Know

1: I expect civility and professionalism in your presentation and your interaction with your opponents. You can make strong, pointed, passionate arguments in favor of your position, but if they stray into personal attacks or are condescending, demeaning, disrespectful, or mean-spirited in any way, you will basically guarantee that I will become annoyed. Attack the policy positions, the evidence, and the logic, not the person.

2: I will, for the most part, consider voting and speakers separately. Debate is about both persuasive substance and performance. Even if you are not the most eloquent speaker, I may still find your arguments to be more persuasive and substantive, or vice versa.

3: I will generally try to flow the rounds to the best of my ability, but this also means that you should have clear, understandable organization and structure in your speeches. If I can't tell that you're presenting a new piece of evidence, I will not flow it as such. A little organization goes a long way.

4: I am not a big fan of spreading/spewing/talking really fast because it can be difficult to understand and keep up with (More is usually not better. See #7 below). Speak clearly. If I can't understand what you are saying, then I can't/won't take those statements into consideration when voting. Arguments should be supported by evidence.

5: If you want to call out an opponent for asserting something you think/know is false, then you should provide a source/authority for your fact check, even if you don't have a card on hand for it. I will not automatically assume that you are correct just because you claim your opponent is wrong - no matter how passionately you say it. An exception would be if the corrective information is common knowledge and the assertion you are challenging is clearly inaccurate/overstated/suspect. (i.e. "The Astros won the World Series this year." is clearly false. You get the idea.)

6: I am looking for a thoughtful and vigorous exchange of ideas. I do not emphasize or embrace the technicalities and idiosyncrasies often associated with high school speech and debate.

7: I much prefer hearing fewer well-developed and well-presented arguments to a "toss the spaghetti at the wall" approach of offering up every conceivable argument during your presentation. In real life, if there were really 14 equally strong aff or neg arguments, the issue would not really be debatable. In my career experience, actual policy debates tend to center around a small handful of the most important/relevant/unsettled arguments. More is rarely better (but there are exceptions). Hit me with your best/strongest arguments.

8: Explain why I should vote for your side, including why your opponents' arguments fail and why yours don't, or why your arguments are better than theirs.

9: If there is a clear mismatch in terms of skill level and ability, I expect you to be kind and make it a positive learning experience for everyone and not make it unbearably awkward by taunting or rubbing the other side's face in it. Everyone is still learning and we all have to start somewhere.

10: Cross ex isn't trivia night. Don't just ask random "gotcha" questions about the topic of your opponent to try to embarrass them or catch them off guard. Ask questions for which the answers are relevant to the outcome and have real bearing on whether or not the policy at issue is sound.

Speaker Points/Rank

These are some easy ways to lose or gain speaker points with me.

- You will lose speaker points if you are unnecessarily rude, annoying, inappropriate, or hostile to the opposing team.

- You will lose speaker points if I can't understand what you're saying.

- You will lose speaker points if you can't ask/answer or you avoid relevant topical questions in CX.

- You will lose speaker points if you look only at your computer/notes the entire time. (Appropriate periodic eye contact is a critical communication strategy.)

- You will lose speaker points if your delivery is consistently monotone.

- You will lose speaker points by being overly dramatic in your speech or presentation - that's not how real-world constructive dialog works.

- You will lose speaker points if you read new cards or bring up completely new arguments in the 2NR/2AR.

+ You will gain speaker points if you have an organized structure in your speeches.

+ You will gain speaker points if you appropriately vary your tone, volume, and inflections to emphasize important points.

+ You will gain speaker points if you can deliver an impromptu rebuttal (i.e., not just reading off a script, though you can still refer to your notes).

+ You will gain speaker points if you sound confident in what you are saying.

+ You will gain speaker points if you directly respond to the opposing team's specific arguments.