Last changed on
Tue December 10, 2019 at 9:55 AM EDT
Judge Philosophy
Name: Kate Hamm
School Affiliation: Ransom Everglades
Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 10+
Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: X
Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 34
Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: X
If you are a coach, what events do you coach? All events
What is your current occupation? I am a high school teacher and head coach.
Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:
Speed of Delivery: Debate may be crisply delivered, but I am not a fan of the ‘spread’ in PF. If you need to spread – switch events. Can I flow the spread? Sure, I just don’t want to in PF. If the round comes down to two well matched teams, the team that has better, more persuasive arguments will beat the spread every time.
Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Summary speech should begin the narrowing process of the debate. The debate should be narrowed into the key arguments. I don’t want to hear a line by line of 16 minutes of argumentation spewed into a 2 minute speech!!!
Role of the Final Focus: The role of the final focus it to weigh the impacts of the arguments that were narrowed in the debate and persuade me as to why one side won and the other side did not.
Extension of Arguments into later speeches: If the refutation (rebuttal speech) does not attack an argument presented in their opponent’s case, their summary may not try to do so. If the summary speaker leaves an argument out of the debate, their partner may not bring it up in the final focus. If arguments from the Constructive case are not extended by the summary, nor mentioned in the debate after the constructive case, please DO NOT try to impact them in the Final Focus.
Topicality: Really? This is an issue in PF only if a team tries an abusive definition. I do not want to hear a theory debate.
Plans : Some resolutions are policies…
Kritiks: Oh Hell No. Not in PF.
Flowing/note-taking: I flow… a lot.
Do you value argument over style? Style over argument? Argument and style equally?
I generally judge on the arguments and score points on style… therefore, I do give low point wins.
If a team plans to win the debate on an argument, in your opinion does that argument have to be extended in the rebuttal or summary speeches? The rebuttal speech in PF should refute the opponent’s arguments; they may rebut their own, if time. But that is not mandatory for me. It is mandatory, however, that the summary speaker narrow the debate to the arguments that stay in the debate. The final focus may not extend a case argument if their own summary speaker dropped it.
If a team is second speaking, do you require that the team cover the opponents’ case as well as answers to its opponents’ rebuttal in the rebuttal speech? See above.
Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Absolutely NOT!
If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here.
I love debate… I reward (with speaker points) students who elevate debate into a fine art. I do not reward (with points) those who make it into a short form policy event or a two person LD circuit circus. If two teams are giving me a spew fest of spread crap, the team who wins the flow will win the debate, but neither team will win high speaker points!
First and foremost this activity is one of communication. If you aren’t communicating… find a different activity.
