Just some preliminary information. I debated for North Allegheny High School in Pennsylvania in PF for four years, and currently attend the University of Michigan. I did a lot of national circuit debating, including some invitationals, round robins, and the rest, but also spent a lot of time on the Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania state circuits. If you know much about PA debate, that’s a striking difference in technicality and perception of how Public Forum debate should be. So I’m open to basically all kinds of PF.

How I evaluate rounds:

1.     If you develop framework and effectively argue/extend it throughout the round, that is the first area I will evaluate. It will determine how I view the round and how I reconcile arguments. Have clear warrants and discussion about framework when there is clash (which there definitely should be).

2.     I’ll take a look at the offense on both sides of the flow and how they have been extended. Turns and impacts are what I usually vote off of, but make sure you extend the warrants to those impacts in order for me to evaluate them. I only weigh offense extended through summary AND final focus, including turns (but not defense: rebuttal to FF is fine for that). I’ll say it again: extend offense through summary and FF.

3.     WEIGHING. WEIGHING. WEIGHING. Please weigh your arguments. I know everyone tells you to do so and you’ve probably picked up rounds not weighing your arguments very well. Not with me. Tell me why your arguments are more important and relevant than your opponents and give me reasons why. Or else I’ll be taking impacts and making my own decisions on which I prefer, at which point debaters get my decision back and think they got screwed. Both you as a debater and me as a judge don’t want that, trust me.

4.     How do the impacts fit into the framework debate established in point 1? That matters to me because framework determines how I view the round. Its dope when debaters link impacts back to the framework you’ve developed, so do that.

Evidence:

I’m a big believer in debaters working out evidence issues in round. If an indict is read and not responded to, the card is dropped. If an indict is read and effectively responded to, I weigh it. Really simple. I only call for evidence in three instances:

1.     Someone tells me to look at the evidence

2.     I need it to make a decision (probably cause you didn’t weigh in the round)

3.     I think its utter BS and can’t believe it.

If I think the card checks out, I weigh it. If its BS/misquoted, I drop the card and am more prone to drop you cause I hate BS cards. As for evidence challenges: I really hate them but if you truly believe they are screwing you with the card, go for it.

Miscellaneous:

- I don’t flow cross so if something important happens in cross, bring it up in later speeches.

- I’m good with speed but don’t spread or anything like that.

- I’m not a big fan of theory or K’s and whatnot, but that is because I never learned much about them. So if it’s a well-warranted shell, I’ll buy it.

- I buy everything, no matter how unique, if its well warranted and well argued. I love the well-written and debated unique contention.

- Be funny but don’t force it. I appreciate good humor.

- Don’t be rude; it’s just debate that’s no excuse to scream or be condescending.

- I will disclose if I’m allowed to.

- Ohio State trash talk is greatly appreciated and probably worth an extra speaker point. 

- If you have any questions, don’t hesitate to ask. You all should know everything you can about me.

Good luck and Go Blue.

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.

Name: Eric Beilin

School Affiliation: Cypress Bay High School

Number of Years Judging: 1-2

Number of Years Competing: 3

I will judge a round primarily based off of my flow, although I will take into account how well arguments are presented to me as if a team cannot properly explain their points they will carry less weight to me. The most important part of an argument to me is that it is fully fleshed out with warrants and links clearly and logically showing how you got to your conclusion. I am fine with teams running summary and final focus as big picture or line by line speeches as long as it is well signposted. Second speaking team does not need to respond to first rebuttal unless they choose to. Any arguments in final focus must be in summary, with the exception that I allow the first speaking team to extend responses to arguments if the responses were dropped in both summaries, as this allows the first speaking team extra flexibility. Ask me in round any further questions about my judging philosophy.

N/A.

I have been coaching debate since 1983. I was a policy debate coach and judge for 30+ years. In 2012, I started coaching Public Forum debate. I vote on clear impact calculus, politeness, clarity in speaking style and well cited sources. One of the reasons I left policy is because it became a ridiculous spewing of words much too fast for anyone who was not familiar with the evidence to understand.I prefer debaters who tell a "good story" rather than give me a bunch of numbers and blippy arguments. I am looking for real debate in conversational speeches in the round.

I believe crossfire should be where debaters clarify and explain. Answering questions so that we can look at the arguments and evidence honestly is important. Any kind of rude behavior in crossfire could very well lose you the round if I am the judge. I'm looking for an exchange of information in crossfire.

I try to go into each round without preconceived opinions, and I try hard not to intervene. I will look for the easiest place to vote in the round, especially if there is not clear impact calculus in the final two speeches.

My email is marshd@dexterschools.org