I was a high school policy debater back when Ronald Reagan was president. Since 2013, in my "spare time," I have coached public forum. (My day job is working as a law professor.)

Speed doesn't bother me one way or another, but you do need to be clear. I want you to explain to me not just why you win an argument but why the argument wins the round. I'm open to basically any sort of argument, so long as it's not racist, sexist, etc. I try to listen hard to what your evidence actually says; smart analysis of evidence counts for a lot to me, and conclusory evidence doesn't count for much; paraphrased evidence typically counts for even less. Establishing the analytic links in your arguments also matters a lot to me. And weighing is super-important, as early as possible.

I prefer for the second rebuttal to spend some time responding to the first rebuttal and not merely responding to the opponent's case. In particular, if the first rebuttal reads any turns on your case, I will expect the speaker giving the second rebuttal to respond to those turns. If the second rebuttal speaker does not respond to turns, I will consider them dropped. And I don't need the summary speech to extend defense that has not been responded to. I will count defensive arguments for whatever they are worth if they are dropped.

Likes: Depth of analysis, engagement with the other side's strongest arguments.

Dislikes: Cases that are just strings of blippy half-cards, numbers thrown around without context. Don't hammer on particular numbers without telling me what precisely those numbers mean and how they specifically link to your or your opponents' advocacy. (Please don't read impact cards that say things like a two standard-deviation decrease in democracy leads to a three percent rise in infant mortality. What does that even mean?)

I've noticed that a couple of my preferences differ from those of many other judges I've encountered on the national circuit, and you should probably know that. First, and probably of greatest significance, I am far more skeptical of quantitative impacts than are many national-circuit judges. You should expect me to discount any large number that appears in an impact card unless you present evidence of each link that is logically necessary to the occurrence of that impact. That doesn't mean I won't vote on quantitative impacts -- I vote on them all the time -- but when weighing them I am unlikely to take large numbers in impact cards at face value. Correlatively, I am far more open to voting on qualitative arguments than are many national-circuit judges. But do actually make an argument; don't just give me some conclusory tag. Second, I am more open to theory arguments than are many national-circuit PF judges. But you have to actually make the argument. Don't just tell me your opponents are doing something unfair; explain why it violates something that should be a norm of debate and why the proper remedy is to drop them, disregard an argument they're making, or whatever.

I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge.  That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential.  If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say.  I also believe that clarity is important.  Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent.  In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.

Hello Everyone! My name is Beth Fowler and I am an historian and Senior Lecturer at Wayne State University. I am looking for clear, concise contentions supported by solid and specific pieces of credible evidence that builds to a persuadable argument. I also want debaters to listen carefully to their opponents arguments, and to be able to address them clearly rather than simply reiterating their own points. Use the cross-examination to ask probing questions about opponents’ evidence and arguments, and the summation to clearly explain how the argument your team built is more persuasive than your opponents’ argument.

My name is Lisa Grzywacz and I have been judging for six years. I prefer that you speak clearly and not too quickly. I am looking for organized arguments with statistics to back up your claims. Make sure that you reiterate your contentions while also refuting claims that the opposing team provides. It is beneficial to give a framework for which me to judge from.

As a judge, I assure you that I will not vote based on my personal beliefs. I look forward to hearing your arguments.

Email - robbpluta@gmail.com - please include me on the email chain!

As an FYI, I don't coach for any teams currently, and last debated as a senior in high school, so I probably have a little less experience with the intricate details of a lot of arguments than other judges, especially as the season is starting. Explaining everything out to me, no matter how obvious it might seem, is a great way to earn my ballot.

Judging Philosophy - My default position is that debate is an educational competition, and that by exchanging arguments in this space we gain knowledge on the topic, the world, political mechanisms, activism, etc. I can be convinced out of this reasoning but sans framework it's where I default.

I am adamant that I vote only on the arguments presented to me in the round. If an argument is clearly abusive, doesn't link, makes no sense, has no supporting warrants - I am counting on YOU to be the one to point it out. This is a test of your skills, not mine. I've voted for DAs that clearly don't link simply because the Aff let's Neg get away with it - always call out the other team and don't count on me to do it.

A dropped argument is a conceded argument - but you need to point out why this wins you the round.

Slurs or abusive language/arguments designed to hurt others (racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc), is an auto-ballot against the violating team. "Fascism good" arguments fall under this category as well.

Sans above, I will be willing to vote for any argument, but historically, I've noted what I find more persuasive below.

Topicality - I'll be honest that I have rarely voted on T's that were not dropped in whole/in part. The neg needs to make the argument that T is a priori (as I will not assume this). The Neg should attempt to prove what education/ground has been lost by the aff with actual examples, otherwise I tend to be unconvinced. If you're going for T, make it the whole 2NR.

DAs - always cool (Unless you're going for "climate change good / isn't happening" in which case I will laugh you out of the room)

CPs - always cool - Neg run what you want, aff run theory it's abusive. Arguments that tell me "this is what debate will look like if we allow ______" are a must if you're arguing abuse.

Ks - cool if explained well. A layperson's explanation is a must, especially on psychoanalytic Ks. It's not necessary for K's critiquing Aff's specific plan epistemology to have an alt, but is never a bad idea. Ks that critique the resolution/general format of policy (IE 'state bad') should absolutely have one. Aff - always question the link.

FW - super cool - needs to be in every round.

Theory - cool - I'm probably in the minority of judges who think so. But debate is a competition, and debating best practices that allow everyone to play the competition are intriguing to me. Statements like "Debate becomes _______" or "Debate will look like ________" are essential.

Performance Affs - cool, but should still be "topical". At minimum, a "plan text" that states "We [do the resolution] by ________".

Impact Calc - absolutely necessary. Probability / questioning the link always seems neglected in favor of magnitude, which would be a mistake for me.

General Things I like:

- SLOW DOWN on your Tags! and tell me NEXT when moving on!

- Explicitly contrasting FW/Role of the Ballot.

- Explaining the benefits or drawbacks of the world of the alt

- Questioning the warrants of cards

- Reading more than just the T or Theory shells.

- Theory debates where we are having honest discussions on game theory/what is best for debate, and moving beyond shell arguments.

Things I'm not the biggest fan of:

- Running Condo with less than 4 off case

- 5 or more off case

- Elections DAs more than 6 months before an election

- Sticking ONLY with T or Theory Shells

- Reading off standards/voters in T/Theory without explaining what they mean (What the heck is "reasonable"? Or "education"?)

- Not explaining the warrants/alt of the K to me.

- Heck, reading any K and not being able to explain it with current / relevant examples outside the space of the round