My background is in two years of high school debate and university Model UN. My approach to judging policy debate is tabula rasa. While I know that spreading is typical of Policy, I’m not a big fan. I prefer a few well-developed arguments and strong communication skills. Counterplans are interesting if done well. I’m not big on K’s.

Hi, I was a debater in high school but I focused on Speech events (IE, Oratory, Ect.) Though I did policy and congress as well. Now I am a Sexual Assault Program Coordinator at Safe Harbor Crisis Center in Davis county. My focus is on if your argument is comprehensive and presented well.

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!

Experience: I have competed in every debate event, as well as most speech events over the course of 3 years in highschool. I qualified to Nationals twice as well. I'm currently an active NSDA Alumni and I offer hired judging for various schools, mostly in Utah.

General for Speech Events
I will be timing you, but you are also free to time yourself when appropriate. I dislike when speakers try to fill all the time by repeating themselves or talking in circles. Quality over quantity.
If you are double entered, I will alter the speaking order if necessary to make sure you can give both speeches timely. Please speak up if you need this, since Tabroom doesn't always tell me.

General for all Debate Events:

If evidence asked for in-round does not exist or is being blatantly misused, I will not vote for you. If there are claims of evidence being misread or used in an abusive way, I will ask to look at it myself. Most importantly, looking at evidence counts as part of your prep time, unless it gets into rule-breaking disputes.

I like seeing assertiveness during cross, but don't be over the top. A good cross to me looks like advancing a conversation and making points, not just clarifying. If your opponent asks a reasonable question and you are being intentionally vague with your answers or stalling the clock, I will count it against you. Please also look at me and not your opponent as much as possible.

I am perfectly okay with progressive debate (kritiks, philosophy, plans, counter-plans, etc) and know how to judge it, but I am strict with the rulebook on how/when it can be used.

If you plan on spreading, please have your cases ready to share with your opponent(s) or me as necessary.

Email for evidence/case sharing: maeve.k.hall@gmail.com

Lincoln-Douglas:

I weigh most on the Value/criterion debate. If I see it from one debater and not at all from another, my ballot is easy to write. If neither engages, I will have a hard time picking a winner. If both engage, then we all have a fun round.

I do believe having a Value/criterion is necessary. If you don't provide a framework, it's really hard for me to vote for you. If you're unprepared or wanted to do that level of progressive debate, I'm sorry.

Policy:

Please ask for specifics in round

Hello, my name is Clinton Henry and I am judging your round. I am in the Medical Field, and I am also in the US Air Force. I have never judged before this tournament (NAT QUALS MARCH 2024)

Here are things my daughter has explained to me and what I want to see in round happen:

I do not flow cross, if you want me to consider what is said in cross then you need to bring it up in your speeches.

Time yourselves please.

Pre-decide sides and speaker order before round- I don't want to waste time once I get to the room to start judging. (Make sure to introduce your side, speaker order, and the names of who is speaking before your speech)

Absolutely no spreading. 200-250 WPM is what I am most comfortable with, considering 170 is a casual conversational pace.

Impact weighing is going to be the biggest part of the round for me, as I am a lay judge. Claim, warrants, links and impacts- all very basic levels of debate. PF is anyman's debate, I should be able to walk into the round and understand most of what is being said.

LD and Policy, I am a traditional judge, no Ks, tech-y cases, or theory. I simply will not understand those arguments unless you explain them very plainly. LD- it's a morals debate, I need some basic idea of your philosophy and your value and value criterion.

Policy, I doubt I am going to judge one of your rounds, but if I do judge one of your rounds, please know that I am trying my best, and every argument or thing you want to me write down or pay attention to- TELL ME.

Tell me what exactly to write down on my flow. Tell me to circle things, cross things out, what is important and what isn't important.

I want a clean and respectful round. I run according to NSDA timings for all events, so PF-ers have 3 min prep each team, Policy has 8 min prep each team and LD have 4 min each. Be in charge of your own time and have integrity, don't worry about the other team's timing unless it is becoming abusive or unfairly weighing on the round.

No cursing, foul language, or any crudeness will be tolerated at all. Results in a deduction of speaker points.

My ballots will typically be simple reasons for why a side wins, for speaking ability, clarity of argumentation, well develop cases, solid rebuttals and frontlines.

I'll try to be very tabula rasa for every round I judge. My personal feelings and ideas will be left at the door and it depends solely on the debaters to get their arguments and ideas through to me in an informed and effective manner.

30 speaker points = best speaker I've heard all day

29 = better than most

28 = good

27 = average speaker

26 = needs improvement

I judge off of the flow--so please make it clear where you are on the flow when you're arguing to make sure that I can follow. I don't flow cross-ex, so if something important comes up during cross-ex, make sure to bring it up during your next speech so I can make sure to give you credit for it. If you are extending an argument on the flow, please cite the summary of the argument (not the card name/author/year) so that I know what you are extending. Past that, make sure that you are very clear about how you fit under the winning framework/value-criterion to secure the win, and be respectful to each other (especially during cross) if you'd like high speaker points.

I am a parent judge. I do not like you to speak way fast. It helps me when you recap at the end.

.

Decorum is paramount!

Please remember this if nothing else. I like to see good flow and obvious preparation with your case, topic, policy or presentation. In impromptu and extemporaneous I want to see your personality and natural instincts on display. I really prefer you take your time and use the grace period after to wrap up your sentence or thoughts so I fully understand and get your message as intended and not be left to assume.  I want to see good compete out of opponents and respectfully aggressive approach. Again decorum is huge with me. Being actively engaged in the entirety of every round is something I look for. You can always be learning from those around you.  And lastly have fun! I am grateful for each of you and for all of your hard work.

Assistant coach for Davis High School, I am laid back judge with lots of experience debating and judging.

The only thing I care about is that you signpost throughout your speeches and give me voters in your final speech, Everything else is free game.

If you want something from me to perform better to my style of judging, I really am a sucker for clear logical structure. I am awful at visualization, so if you clearly establish your line of thought in regard to your case and responses to your opponent for me to write down I will be SO happy. It is two birds with one stone, If you put emphasis on clarity, you are a stronger debater and you have made evaluation of the round easier in your favor.

Have fun

If you have any questions about my RFD, critiques, or how I interpreted the round feel free to send me an email: crisafer.js@gmail.com

IE Events: I'm looking to see if you have a clear thesis and if you do a good job supporting it. I will not rank someone very high if there is any ambiguity in what they are saying or if they lack persuasive evidence. Please do not be worried if I will agree with you or not. I just want to see a good argument and know precisely what you are arguing.

Debate Events: Clarity is really important. I want to judge according to the best arguments, but please remember that your judges are most likely not going to be as familiar with the subject matter as you are. Be deliberate in your speech and thoroughly explain your evidence.

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.

I am a lay judge, but several of my children have participated in debate. I am a school librarian and teach digital citizenship courses, which include the importance of citing one's sources and finding unbiased and credible information when researching. I value civility and decorum and find personal attacks distasteful. I prefer a moderate tempo when speaking and would prefer to avoid the progressive format. I wish you all the best of luck and look forward to seeing you in round and hearing your cases!