Paradigm

Cade Blenden
Hired Judges

Cade, he/him

Current Affiliations - competitor @ Washburn University: '21-Present, coach @ North Broward Prep: '22-Present.

Past Affiliations - Topeka High School: '17-'21

Don't be mean, this should be a fun event for everyone. People who are mean will be punished via lower speaks. People who are actively awful (discriminatory, violent, or hateful to no end) will be punished via a combination of lower speaks, an L, and a discussion with relevant coaches/adults affiliated with your school.

cade.blenden03@gmail.com

Policy:

Competed for 4 years in it, able to judge anything, probably have a bit of a critical bend.

T and theory debates are my least favorite and the hardest for me to keep up with.

No clue what my 'split' on framework versus critical affirmatives is, but I'd wager its pretty even--I think the biggest thing for critical affirmatives looking to not lose to framework is to have explicit and well-defended links to the resolution to justify the affirmatives inclusion in the round.

'Straight up' debates are fine, though I get lost with too much policy debate talk--impact comparison is the quickest way to get me with arguments like this.

Ks versus policy affirmatives are my favorite type of debates. I figure I can understand most critical debate arguments, but am most well-read in literature on existentialism, psychoanalysis, and Marxism. More teams should be willing to defend their affirmative against the K--if ur aff sets up the link turn really well, don't invest needless time in setting up a losing perm debate!

PF:

Talk about the topic. Compare impacts. Respond to your opponents arguments. The more these things get overcomplicated, the harder PF becomes to understand and reliably judge.

LD:

I am judging this like a policy debate. Theory is not something I am the biggest fan of--especially some of the 'LD' type frivolous theory arguments.