Baskin,+Jason

Austin High School (MN) Former Head LD Coach Eagan High School (MN) 2002-2007
 * Jason Baskin**

I am very much a flow judge and have been heavily involved in judging on both national and local circuits for the past 5 years, so I have exposure to many different styles. My judging philosophy is pretty simple.

1. I look to the criterion first and expect debaters to link their arguments back. It is fine, and often beneficial, for a debater to link back to both criterions. My perfect debate round is where you as a debater tell me why the criterion is best (both why theirs is wrong and why yours is better) and link your arguments back to that criterion.

2. I value well-developed arguments that directly respond to your opponent more than poorly explained, quickly read, or semi-applicable blocks. (Blocks are fine but they should actually respond to what someone is saying) While I understand the need for speed in some situations it annoys me when it comes at the expense of clear speaking or being able to explain your argument well. A clear case position coupled with arguments on the other side of the flow that totally defeat your opponent's logic is a sure ticket to a W29-30.

3. An FYI to save you time and help your chances of winning a round: Because I vote off the criterion my threshold for voting off something that comes above the standards is pretty high. I don't reject any style of debate on spec, but if you want me to vote off "educational value", etc. you need a pretty compelling reason why that comes before the standards. If there's been an egregious violation of debate ethics or the spirit of the activity I'll listen to it, but you are probably better off spending your time making well-reasoned and evidenced arguments on the flow.