Blodgett,+Ryan

I debated for Joshua High School (Joshua, TX) from 2004-2006 then the University of Texas at Dallas from 2006-2008. I judged around 120 rounds from 2006-2009 and have judged very little since then. I have never seen a paperless round.

In high school I was very policy oriented. I have not read the literature behind most Kritikal arguments and my evaluation of them will reflect this. When running kritical arguments in front of me, assume I have read none of the literature and explain the terminology.

My ideal view of debate is based on a plan that serves as a warrant to prove the resolution true. I believe that the affirmative team should present and defend this plan and that the negative should argue that it is not a warrant that proves the resolution true, either because it is a bad polciy choice (i.e. DAs, Case turns, CPs) or that it is not an example within the resolution (T), or both.

I will evaluate Kritiks similar to counter plans unless told to evaluate them otherwise. I find no alt solvency (alt is utopian) arguments fairly compelling on Kritiks in many cases. I have and will vote on the K if I must, but I would rather not if I can avoid it, mostly because I tend to find policy arguments more interesting.

I also find theory arguments fairly compelling and am more willing to vote on blippy impacted theory arguments than most judges, as long as they have a warrant behind them and are extended and not answered sufficiently. I am open to theory arguments such as multiple worlds good/bad, conditionality good/bad, reasonability good/bad, etc.

If framework is not argued I will default to my view of debate, vote affirmative if they offer a topical plan that is advantageous to the squo unless a comparatively advantageous competitive policy option is listed. Alternate frameworks are acceptable but they will need to be explained so that I know what I am voting on. I have voted on the "coin flip and then let's go take a nap" framework before and would be quite willing to again if it is presented before or during the round (and both teams agree).

Being funny is definitely a plus and will reflect well in your speaks.

I also enjoy hearing cool arguments like space and gmo's (good or bad).

I default to an offense/defense mechanism of evaluation and will usually find "risk of" arguments slightly compelling. Impact analysis and overviews when needed are good. You should tell me what to vote on and not go for too much in the second rebuttle.