Though I am not a lay judge, I believe Public Forum debate should be accessible to lay judges. So don't go too fast. Be respectful. And make sure impacts are realistic; it doesn't take much for me to buy an argument that breaks a multi-step link chain. Finally, and most importantly, honesty matters. So make sure you represent your evidence accurately; I will drop teams that misrepresent evidence, and I'm willing to ask that they be disqualified too.

I was a mediocre policy debater in the early 90s for two years. I like constitutional warrants. I can handle flow, but I prefer argument and persuasiveness over speed.

Don't make me feel like I'm choosing between Garbage A and Garbage B. Use some sophistication to convince me think I'm the dumbest guy in the room. Even though I can understand it, I don't like overly complicated jargon (ie the phrase "Non-Inherent T-Shell") that's exclusive to debate. On the other hand, I used to run a lot of counter-plans in policy, so go big or go home with the squirrel and K. Plus, it warms my heart when a team can link a nuclear war impact to a contention.

I really like a lot of debate clash, specifically about evidence. I don't always ask for evidence, but when I do, I ask to see the entire, original, uncut card. I am not a fan of teams throwing knee-jerk requests for evidence at the opposition. I also think its a good idea to have all evidence printed out. I don't flow cross, so if you get ideas for an argument, bring it up in speeches.

Lastly I've been doing this for a few years. Let me judge the round and determine the pacing of the experience. Please don't tell me what to do outside of the rhetoric within your speeches. And for heaven's sake, be respectful to people, both within and without the round.

I did two years of PF, one year of LD, and one year of extemp. If you have a question about something not on this paradigm, feel free to ask before the round.

Public Forum:

I would consider myself a fairly technical and flow based judge. While I can flow decently well, I generally don’t want to see any spreading (very fast speaking) in PF unless it’s clear both teams are fine with it beforehand.

I also don’t want to see any theory or Kritiks in PF as I feel PF as an event should solely be about the resolution. That being said, there isn’t really a type of argumentation that I will auto-drop, but it’s going to be very hard to win my ballot if your main strategy is off-resolutional arguments. Counterplans are fine as long as they and the resolution are mutually exclusive.

Weighing is absolutely crucial. It’s not enough to win arguments on the flow, you need to tell me why those arguments matter the most in terms of the resolution. If you have to make a choice between weighing and covering the entire flow, choose weighing. The most frustrating rounds to judge are when no one does any weighing or telling me the framework to evaluate the round, and I have to decide on that myself.

LD:

I’m fine with any type of argumentation as long as you tell me why I should vote on it, but I’m somewhat pre-disposed to on-resolution types of argumentation. I don’t have a problem with speed, I will say ‘clear’ if I want you to be more clear.

The framework debate and weighing are very important. Don’t just extend arguments without telling me why they matter. Again, winning the most critical arguments is way more important than winning the most arguments.

Extemp:

If a tournament allows competitors to use notes, I prefer that competitors don’t use notes, and will generally rank competitors who don’t use notes over those who do. I will give time signals. Using sources are important, with publication, author, and date (month and year are fine unless you have a story covering fast-changing events). I consider speaking ability and content/structure to have roughly equal importance.

Congress:

Quality over quantity. I value better speeches and better questions over more speeches and better questions. The best speeches have a good structure, multiple sources, and refute the points of previous speakers. The worst speeches are those that just rehash the same points as previous speakers while adding nothing new.

Policy:

If I am judging Policy, there is a severe shortage of policy judges at the tournament you are at. I don’t know much about Policy Debate at all aside from the amount of policy type arguments I saw in LD. In all honesty, it’s probably best to treat it like a more technical PF round with longer speeches.

I believe Public Forum Debate should be accessible to the public.

Debaters should remain on topic and make arguments that are based on logical, rational positions.

I support the rules of Public Forum Debate as established by the NSDA and I am not interested in seeing it become another version of Policy Debate.

I expect debaters to be honest and civil. Violations of these standards can result in loss of speaker points. Intentional deception will result in a loss.

EMAIL: mcgin029@gmail.com

POLICY
Slow down; pause between flows; label everything clearly; be aware that I am less familiar with policy norms, so over-explain. Otherwise I try to be more-or-less tab.

LD

I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.

I coach students on both the local and national circuits.

I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.

You can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing impacts back to whatever decision mechanism(s) have been presented.

I prefer that you not swear in round.

Joe Rankin

Bettendorf High School

jrankin@bettendorf.k12.ia.us

UPDATED: October 4th, 2022

I'm not sure what happened to my previous Paradigm that was posted, but it appears to have been erased/lost. My apologies as I just learned of this at the Simpson Storm tournament (Sat, Oct 1, 2022) this past weekend.

My name is Joe Rankin and I am the head coach at Bettendorf High School in Bettendorf, IA. I have been the head coach at Bettendorf since the 2005-2006 school year. I primarily coach Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, and Extemporaneous Speaking...however, I am familiar and have coached all NSDA sanctioned speech/debate events over my time at Bettendorf.

In terms of my coaching paradigm, I'd generally consider these the 'highlights:'

1. I prefer topical debate. The resolution was voted on by coaches and students through the NSDA voting process. That's what I want to hear about.
2. I can generally handle 'speed,' but that doesn't mean I enjoy it. I'd rather help you develop skills that you will actually utilize interacting with other human beings outside of this one particular subset of existence - so I'd much prefer a rate that is more akin to real-world applications.
3. You can make whatever arguments you want to make...but I generally haven't voted on many things associating with theory, kritiks (or however you want to misspell the word critique), or other generally non-topical arguments you make in the round. It takes more work for me to believe those types of arguments are true and not a whole lot of work to make me believe those types of arguments are generally false. So, I wouldn't encourage this type of argumentation in front of me.

I figure that is sufficient for now. If you have any questions, I tend to give you that window before the round begins while setting up to judge. If not, please feel free to ask before the round. The end goal of the round for me is a competitive academic environment that is focused on education. I don't mind answering questions that will help all of us improve moving forward.

Greetings All,

I am a debate coach of over 20 years. I have coached Policy, Public Forum, Congress and Lincoln-Douglas Debate. My favorite is L-D, but only if you DO NOT SPREAD! I have judged at Nationals and have watched some of the best debater's in the country debate the issues, they don't cram a bunch of junk into the round.

If you prepared a good case, defend it, respect your opponent (don't be rude) and can counter your opponent you have a strong chance of winning the round.

I expect a value, the means to measure it and contentions (main arguments).

I DO NOT LIKE CRITIQUES! All your opponent has to do in the round in my book is to call you out for it and your opponent will get the win.

I expect you to be able to explain your points and defend them in CX and flow your arguments into your rebuttal. DO NOT BRING IN NEW EVIDENCE OR ARGUMENTS INTO REBUTTALS. Give me examples or context, so you can apply your case to the resolution. I need you to show me that you comprehend the resolution and how to apply values to it. The more you explain or give me context, the more convinced I am of your comprehension of your case and it will increase the chance of a winning ballot.

I strongly suggest that you pull your value through at every turn you can (within each contention), try to bring it into CX and of course the rebuttal. You can drop your value and value criteria if you accept your opponent, but this is risky and not recommended. At the end of your constructive and rebuttal summarize why you won!

Again, DO NOT SPREAD! If I can hear you breathe you have likely already lost the round!

I have been teaching public speaking for over 25 years. There are few careers that benefit from SPREADING! I make it a point to remind students of this!

Speech must be clear and understandable if reading quickly. I appreciate when rounds stay topical however I am open to theory as well as other types of arguments.