My paradigm is more of a combination of Tabula Rasa and speaking skills/communication. I prefer concise arguments that are understandable over speed. However, I will not count it against a debater if they prefer to deliver their debate speech a little faster. My most important factors are that the debater believe in their argument, and present it as such (with eye contact and confidence), while being able to discount their opponent's points.

Fair warning: I'll pretty much toss everything here out the window the instant you're an unpleasant or disrespectful jerk in-round, including being a smarmy wanna-be comedian looking for dumb jabs at your opponent.

Stopped coaching and judging "full time" in 2018 to move back into academia. It was a healthy move, but my flow speed has tanked since then. Deal with that.

TOC top speaker in 2006. Former PF coach and active judge. Philosophy, Art and Theatre degrees.

Easy Mode: I disclose results of every round unless attacked by tab not to, and even then just ask me in the hallway before tab yells at me twice. However, you'll know before the end of the round pretty easily what's up just by paying attention. I'll laugh at patent absurdity and scowl at obtuse knuckleheads. My facial expressions detail *exactly* how I feel about what you're doing in every moment. This is bad community theatre facial expressions kind of stuff, people. Use it and react to alter what you do and run in the round.

PF tl;dr-->Expect second team to respond to attacks on case in rebuttal. Summary should crystallize the round, not be a rebuttal expansion. Will not vote on morally reprehensible water tester arguments like 'genocide good' or 'climate science is a liberal lie'. Will vote down on reprehensible decorum including blatant sexism and harassment. Default neg on presumption of affirmative burden of truth/net outcome or in case of insoluable flow.

LD tl;dr-->Somebody entered me in the pool by accident or desperation. I still have a philosophy degree if you're willing to slow the heck down...but I've honestly enjoyed nearly every round I've been in.

CX tl;dr-->Did it and moved on. Not here by choice. Do professional theatre and art criticism, and did Theatre of the Oppressed with Boal at UNO, and continue to be a Joker as part of pedagogical practice. Not impressed by shenanigans. Slow it down but don't insult my intelligence on argument structure.

Longform (PF primary)

It will forever be my goal to treat debate as a fundamentally educational activity. If I have one goal every tournament, it's to make at least one team know that they got the best possible feedback and push forward they've ever gotten from a judge and member of the debate community. We are here to make sure debaters come out the other side of a round as better students and people.

I am happy to see PF move in new and intelligent directions. Willing to listen to direct-clash TV-ready Ted Turner Debate as well as traditional policy maker standpoints, kritiks, theory, and performance elements if presented clearly within the confines of PF time structure, but recognize that you still have to make the round at least productive and educational for all involved rather than attempting to exclude or undercut other teams with a blatant attempt at LD or Policy approaches, and only 4 or 2 minutes to present them. This new-ish nat-style, hyperdismissive wanna-be technical jargon-fest is both annoying and utterly embarrassing in how much it gets wrong in trying to pull from LD and CX. Stop it. Use your time to build a core narrative with solid comparative analysis, not card dumps and baby's-first-topicality.

I hold to a line-by-line flow and expect second team to respond to attacks on their case in addition to engaging the other team's case. Turns and dropped arguments are voters if presented by a team, but in cases of competing voters: theory-framework and direct impact calculations should be done by the debaters. If I end up with null arguments that lack interaction analysis I will look elsewhere before coming back to pick apart the argument interaction myself.

Framework for round structure and impact weight should carry with it minimum standards of preference vs competing frameworks, be it educational, grounds based, or decision process justified. Competing frameworks should not drown out the remainder of the round, especially if you're going to go evidence heavy or engage in competing ideologies. You can still win the round if you accept your opponent's framework if you meet it and can offer comparative analysis that places you in a preferable voting position...and most of the time counter framing is just bickering in PF. Pick one and win everywhere else. If it's truly abusive, it should be an easy call to standards to say so and move on or prefer yours.

Summary should be THE place to present the clarity of your round vision, and make solid decisions on what the round has become, what can be disregarded, and where it should end up. No new arguments [and ideally no new evidence] from here on out. Final focus is an opportunity to pull from the summary vision and perform, crystallize, and leave no question on your side winning.

Aff must show, at minimum, the truth of the resolution. In cases of "on balance" resolutions, you must engage in comparative analysis to develop the status of this truth. Magnitude, time frame, probability, and threshold offer basic elements to compare two impacts.

I will pref neg if aff fails to meet minimum burden of resolution, or if round is left in an inconclusive position/null impact state. Don't expect great speaker points for anyone if that second situation comes up.

So long as the tournament/circuit rules doesn't explicitly forbid it: competitive alternative advocacy is fine by me. [Facing NSDA rules on plans and counterplans though, just follow them explicitly] Permutations by aff against alternative actions by neg are just tests of competition unless you push for wider terms of impact from the perm. However, if aff can show that neg alternatives are non-competitive vs plan/resolutional action, no amount of competing 'solvency' can push neg for a win without them also presenting a net harm to aff that has been dealt with via comparative analysis. Hey aff! Topical counter or alt with no net benefit or harms from neg? Just coopt it, and we can be cool.

I will not vote on any case arguments addressing sexual violence or rape that were not preceded by a pre-round trigger warning. If, upon hearing this trigger warning, the opponent requests the argument not be made and that request is denied, I'll listen/be receptive to theory arguments about why I ought to vote a particular way based on the introduction of that issue. That doesn't mean I'll automatically pull render a final ballot decision on it one way or the other, but I will be exceptionally open to doing so if the argument claiming I should evaluate the mere fact that the sexual violence argument is made is won in the debate.

Generally start at 28 on speaker points and move up or down. 30 is perfection in speaking, argument structure, logic and overall sense of "this is what is good about a PF debater". 26 and below are reserved for refusal to engage in clash or logical analysis while simultaneously being a totally unpleasant individual in terms of respect towards your opponent or myself. Speaker points are an opportunity to send a message of the kinds of interactions that will and will not be acceptable in a safe and educational environment.

Enjoy yourselves and enjoy the event as a whole. Keep it respectful, smart, and funny within the round and you'll make it a better day for everyone involved.

Fred Robertson, retired teacher and speech and debate coach---lives in Omaha, Nebraska

I coached at Fremont High School and Millard West High School for the bulk of my career, retiring in 2013. I guess I am semi-retired since I do assist in Lincoln-Douglas debate for Omaha Marian High School for coach Halli Tripe, and I still judge on the Nebraska circuit fairly regularly. I also direct and teach at my non-profit, Guided by Kids, along with Payton Shudak, a former state champion Lincoln-Douglas debater at Millard West. At Guided by Kids, we offer free speech and debate instruction, as well as encourage community involvement, for 5th-8th graders in the Omaha metro area. I also ran my debate camp, the Nebraska Debate Institute, every summer from 2004 to 2020.

During my career, I served on the NFL/NSDA Lincoln-Douglas wording committee for over 10 years, and I was happy to be admitted to the NFL/NSDA Coaches’ Hall of Fame in 2015. Being in the same group as J.W. Patterson, the late Billy Tate, Lydia Esslinger, and Kandi King—to name just a few of the people in that Hall who have been or continue to be incredible individuals and educators-- is a great honor.

I judge Lincoln-Douglas debate more than anything else, but I will include Public Forum, Policy, and Congress as I have been used in those events as well.

Lincoln-Douglas debate:

One thing that distinguishes me from other judges is that I expect quality speaking. That means you ought to be looking at me and speaking with inflection which shows understanding of what you are saying, even if you are reading evidence. I am tired of watching students read to me, even though they are delivering their cases to me for the tenth time. That’s simply bad speaking.

I am not a fan of speed when you can’t be at all clear. I’ll just say slow down and if you don’t, it’s your own fault if I don’t flow arguments or understand what you are saying. In debate, less can be more if you learn to choose arguments and evidence wisely. Too many LD debaters are adopting the “kitchen sink” style of debate—throw as much nonsense as possible and then claim drops as critical to how I should judge the round. Usually, that isn't a successful strategy when I am judging.

Lots of theory arguments made in LD are lamentable at best and would be railed against by policy judges who know what a good theory argument should be. I think that sums up my attitude towards 90% of the theory arguments I hear in LD rounds. That doesn’t mean theory arguments should never be run. What it means is that I usually see these arguments run in rounds in which an opponent is doing nothing theoretically objectionable, but nevertheless I’m stuck watching someone who has been coached “to run theory” always because it’s "cool" or who has made this bad choice independently. In these rounds, I am bored by meaningless drivel, and I’m not happy.

I enjoy debate on the resolution, but that does not mean critical approaches (critiques, or the K, or whatever you want to call it) cannot be appropriate if done well. I enjoy seeing someone take a critical approach because they genuinely believe that approach is warranted because of a resolution, or because of an opponent’s language in reading case or evidence (but there are limits—sometimes these claims of a link to warrant a critique are dubious at best). or because the debater argues the issue is so important it ought to be valid to be argued in any debate. I’ve voted for many critical cases and approaches in LD and policy over the years. If I see that approach taken skillfully and genuinely, I often find these arguments refreshing and creative. If I see that approach taken for tactical reasons only, in a phony, half-baked way, however, I often find myself repulsed by critical arguments posited by students who appear not to care about what they are arguing. I am sure many ask "How do you determine who is being genuine and who isn’t?" 40 years of teaching and coaching have made me an expert judge concerning matters like this, but I do admit this is largely a subjective judgment.

Telling me what is offense/defense and what I must vote on regarding your claims regarding these distinctions has always bored me. Tell me in a clear way why an argument your opponent has made does not matter, or how your answer takes the argument out. Using the jargon is something you’ve learned from mainly college judges (some college judges are quite good, but my generalization is solid here) but, at 66, I’m not a college judge. I feel pretty much the same way about the often frenetically shouted claim of “turns” aplenty. Settle down and explain why your opponent’s argument actually supports your side. I may agree.

Other stuff—fine to ask me some questions before round about my preferences, but please make them specific and not open-ended to the point of goofiness. Asking me “What do you like in a round?” is likely to lead to me saying “Well, I’d like one of you to speak like Martin Luther King and the other to speak like Elie Wiesel; or perhaps bell hooks and Isabel Wilkerson---but I doubt that’s going to happen.” Please be on time to rounds and come with a pre-flow done. Don’t assume I’m “cool with flex c-x and/or prep time.” If the tournament tells me I have to be “cool” with those rules I will be, but if I haven't been told that, I'm not. Ask me if you can speak sitting down. Of course I accommodate needs to do so, but often this is just done by speakers because it’s too dang hard, I guess, for you to stand to speak or do c-x. I find that perplexing, but if you ask, in a nice way, I may say “Oh, what the heck. It’s round five and everyone’s tired.” You should bring a timer and time yourself and your opponent; keep prep time also. I’d rather flow and write substantive comments rather than worry about timing.

A final word—I still love judging Lincoln-Douglas debate, and especially seeing new debaters who add their voices to this activity. It’s also a joy to see someone stick with the activity and keep getting smarter and better. Too often, however, I see very intelligent novice debaters who deteriorate in speaking skills as they advance through varsity LD. All I can say is that with the very best Lincoln-Douglas debaters I judged over a long and still-continuing career, that did not happen. Jenn Larson, Chris Theis, Tom Pryor (blast from the past for Minnesotans who remember that incredibly witty and brilliant guy), and Tom Evnen come to mind. I am old, yes, and I’m not “cool” according to many who would judge judges nowadays, but I am straightforward in telling you who I am, and I will never tell you anything other than the truth as I see it in an LD round I judge.

Public Forum:

Read my LD stuff to get the picture. I’m tired of continual claims of “cheating” in Public Forum. Slow down, read actual quotations as evidence and choose them wisely so they constitute more than blippy assertions.

I have no bias against PF at all. Loved coaching it and had many high-quality teams. A great PF round is a great debate round. Make sure to give me a sound “break it down” analytical story in the summary and final focus and you will be ahead of the game with me. Stay calm and cool for the most part, though of course assertive/aggressive at times is just part of what you should do when debating. It’s just that I have seen this out of control in far too many PF rounds, especially in Grand C-X, or Crossfire, or whatever that misplaced (why have c-x after the summaries have been presented?) abomination is called.

Policy: Love the event, though it was the last one I learned to coach fairly well. If I’m in a round, I usually ask for some consideration regarding speed, just so I can flow better. If you read my LD paradigm, you can see where I most likely stand on arguments. If I happen to judge a policy round, which is fairly rare, but does happen—just ask me good, specific questions prior to the round.

Congress: I usually judge at NSDA districts only but that of course is a very important congress event. I have coached many debaters and speech students as well who were successful in Congress, though it was never a first focus event with the bulk of students I coached. I like to see excellent questioning, sound use of evidence, and non-repetitive speeches. I appreciate congress folks who flow other speeches and respond to them. I also like to see congresspeople extending and elaborating on arguments wisely, referencing the congressperson who initially made the argument. It’s wise for you not to do a lot of goofball parliamentary maneuvers. That’s just not good strategy for you if you want to impress me, and I most often end up as a parliamentarian when I do judge Congress, so overall impression becomes very important to how I rank you. I’ve seen some great congressional debate over the last 30 plus years I’ve judged it, but most of the time, I’ve seen too many repetitive, canned speeches followed by non-responsive rebuttal speeches. If you do what I prefer, however-- which is the opposite of that kind of “bad Congress”-- you can do fairly well.

I was debating when public forum first started, and I have been involved with it ever since. As such, I've tried to keep in mind the original spirit of PF while adjusting for what I feel are inevitable aspects of the current nature of the event.

-I think a good PF round should be able to be understood by any average person who reads a lot of news. I expect that an intelligent person, if paying close attention to the round, should be able to follow along while receiving a good understanding of subject material.

-I dislike lying. If it comes out that you are making up something that is clearly not inferable from your evidence, and you are called out on it, I will trust your interpretation of facts slightly less for the rest of the round.

-I am a PF coach, so I usually am versed enough in the topic to give a decent topic analysis. (If it's a foreign policy topic I'm probably not going to fall for BS, but if it's an economics topic you might be able to trick me.) It is okay to speak at a level of assumed basic facts about the resolution, but I will not give unexplained link chains and warrants very much weight.

-Speed is not preferred, but I can usually follow along, and it won't necessarily cost you. If you want to guarantee I catch everything on my flow, don't go too fast.

-Remind me of claim/warrant/impact structure in each speech. I expect robust explanations of these in constructive, and an incorporation of a brief summation of each argument from which you are trying to achieve impacts throughout the round. Simply repeating the names of cards without context might not register very heavily with me.

-I don't flow crossfire really, but I do pay attention to establishment of weighing mechanisms, definitions, moral playing fields, framework agreements, etc., and accept an agreement in crossfire as standing unless nullified in a following speech.

-Don't belittle your opponents personally, for any reason. I know debates get heated and that's ok, just make it about the arguments and not your opponent's intelligence.

-I am used to teams rebuilding in 2nd rebuttal, but it's not necessary if you aren't used to it.

-I get so bored during evidence exchanges. Please keep them necessary and brief. I will accept logical rebukes of your opponent's sources a lot of the time without you having to look at evidence.

-Frameworks need to be responded to, but if you just state it at the beginning of the round and then never mention it again until final focus, I'm probably not going to factor it very heavily into my decision.

-My biggest areas of knowledge from training or formal education are: Ecology, Foreign Policy, International Relations, World Religions, and Political Philosophy. One of my many jobs is being a market gardener of vegetables and flowers. I'm also an avid forager. I might be especially swayed by widespread geological impacts. I love a good pollinator collapse impact link chain; just terrifying.

-If, hypothetically, a round was tied in every way, I would be fine choosing a winner based on who delivered their arguments with more believability and inspiration. You almost certainly aren't going to lose for delivery, but I really appreciate it when somebody is debating like they actually care about what they are talking about.

-Primarily a PF coach and judge with experience in all debate events.

-I'm a note/flow judge, although arguments are still weighed on their quality rather than just quantity "pulled through". The earlier and more consistently an argument is made, the more weight it will have if carried to the end of the round.

-This is in addition to weighing arguments on their evidence and impact(s). While I won't insert outside arguments into the round, a weaker argument will still be weighed accordingly even if the opponents don't respond sufficiently (although a team that clearly rebuts bad argument will win the point more strongly).

-Evidence is important, especially the more specific the data or the more counter-intuitive a claim is. I remember citations in round by their content more than the author: so rather than only saying e.g. "our Smith card already refutes that point", be sure to also bring the simple explanation of what the evidence says and how it applies.

-Because topics will often provide contradictory evidence for debaters to use and my ability to investigate authors/credibility/etc in round is limited, it's often the case that the side that offers the best warrant analysis in round can make the difference (explain why your evidence makes more sense).