I have been an IE judge since 1998.

I have 25 years of experience in speech activities.

I don't like presenters to talk too fast. I am looking for well-developed arguments. I need competitors to read their sources to me (not just a name and a date), and I want speakers to weigh the impacts of the round in their final two speeches each.

I expect competitors to be polite and professional and want a good exchange of ideas.

I assure you I will not vote on my own preconceptions or beliefs about the topic, but make my decisions based upon what is said in the round.

If competitors don't tell me how to evaluate the various arguments, and I am left to figure it out myself, they've done a poor job of debating the topic.

Name: Courtney Bassett

School Affiliation: Seaholm HS

Number of Years Judging Public Forum: 5

Number of Years Competing in Public Forum: 0

Number of Years Judging Other Forensic Activities: 20

Number of Years Competing in Other Forensic Activities: 10

If you are a coach, what events do you coach? Public Forum, All Individual Events

What is your current occupation? Community Engagement Coordinator at a school, Online Magazine Editor, Membership Coordinator for a nonprofit

Please share your opinions or beliefs about how the following play into a debate round:

Speed of Delivery – prefer slower

Format of Summary Speeches (line by line? big picture?) Big picture

Role of the Final Focus – narrowed argument, impact

Extension of Arguments into later speeches

Topicality - neutral

Plans - no

Kritiks - neutral

Flowing/note-taking – flowing contentions

Do you value argument over style?  Style over argument?  Argument and style equally? Argument over style

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? Yes

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? Preferred

Do you vote for arguments that are first raised in the grand crossfire or final focus? Not necessarily or usually

If you have anything else you'd like to add to better inform students of your expectations and/or experience, please do so here. No

Special Section, NSDA Nationals

Welcome! If you’re reading this, then we are definitely going to be meeting each other. I wish you all the best: congratulations on being at Nationals. Below are the Public Forum paradigm, and an expansion of my normal National paradigm (building on the NSDA document you already have).

Public Forum

A lot of what I have in my Policy paradigm (below) applies here. Here’s what to keep in mind:

Audience. Unlike the more technical Policy, I understand Public Forum as Outward Facing whose intended audience is someone reasonably informed. Terms and ideas are expected to be accessible. Rhetoric (diction, vocal presentation) are important factors.

Spread. Keep it rapid and conversational (roughly 150 w.p.m.). Excessive speed violates Outward Facing. Further, with spread, clarity about tags and structure is critical, as is enunciation.

Comparative Advantage. I will compare the two sides relative to advantages and how they meet their Framework (below). I expect both sides to make affirmative cases as to why I should prefer their reasoning. You will not win by solely attacking the other side; your case matters. Be clear about your impacts.

Framework. Show how your case fulfills or meets your framework (this is the core of Comparative Advantage for me). If given time you should explain why your framework is to be preferred.

Policy

In formal terms I follow an open policy paradigm. I'm a realist; I come from politics and extemp. For me, debate deals with the questions and discussions we (community/society) deal with in the public, decision-making space. Of course, all discussions have social locations and thus can be profitably interrogated by critical theory or explored through CPs; just show me why it matters or how it connects to our decision-making.

Leave academic or debate theory arguments outside. I will find them interesting, even entertaining, but not decisive.

Some practical details:

• Impacts do not have to go to catastrophe to be persuasive (especially the N-war move). Plausibility counts.

• I pay attention to how links are made, how the internal logic works. If you call attention to a dropped argument, show me why it matters, otherwise, I will defer to the points of clash.

• Where the argument turns on a key piece of evidence, I may examine to determine how much weight to give it (i.e. reliable, authoritative etc.) I am open to voting on T.

• And last, as a practical matter, I have old ears, so make tags clear. Preferred delivery rate tops out at 180 wpm.

Now for some additional Nationals Specifics/extensions

Off-case: Kritiks
As noted above I am open to arguments that illumine where an argument is (culturally) situated. I tend to treat Ks as a relative of the DA or perhaps a CP

Ks that I am comfortable with:
structural racism, Afro-pessimism
Neo-liberalism , colonialisms
the Foucaldian suite of approaches, including biopower

Other critical theory approaches: be cautious. I will not be able to track you as fast. Practically this means I will lean into the card re: authority.

Meta theory, debate theory — no. I find these involve a host of tacit assumptions that I may or may not be willing to accede to.

Off-Case: CPs
On a continuum of the very focused or limited to the very broad, I lean to the focused side.

as CPs expand, I tend to defer to the Aff

Extensive CPs carry similar burden as the 1AC.

Conditionality — there are strategic reasons to drop a CP, I will accept this within reason. (NOTE on the NSDA paradigm I’m a bit more conservative)

PICs — Use with caution. I hear these as a stepping stone, a way to interrogate the AFF case. The idea of testing the case with a “what about” that isolates an issue… good. When it is a broader form, I want to know how you avoid the DAs of the AFF case

Bright Lines or what’s out of bounds

Abusive behavior in the round (language; overly aggressive CX).

Refuse polarization. Extending abusive behavior to culture. I realize this is a challenge in our polarized culture; stay clear of the easy ad hom attack on “them”.

Cases that advocate violence in order to work.

Arguments that advocate non-democratic solutions. This can crop up in Ks: how does Power not end up in oppressing the many?

I started out as an old-school LD debate coach & judge, and that's still pretty much my mindset no matter what I'm judging.
I love debate and view it not so much as a means for one side to beat another, but for all involved to be able to have a broader understanding of the issues that we face in current events. I also hope this event fosters a deeper understanding of the philosophical and theoretical ideas that weave their way throughout the different ways we talk to and learn from each other and that influence how we vote and otherwise act in the world.

I view all debate as a public speaking event first; speed/spreading (which I despise to the ends of the world), speaking with your face in a laptop or other device, sloppy articulation, etc., will tilt me toward voting for your opponent, and will definitely result in reduced speaker points.

I flow all speeches in debates & take notes on CX. My tech-leaning students describe me as a flow/lay/flay judge. I try to quote from my flow/notes/jumble of words to support which side I voted for and why.

I understand that no one is truly tabula rasa, but it is an ideal that I strive for. I love me a good, solid framework and clearly articulated voting issues, and a values clash is essential in LD. If you don't signpost, I promise I'll be lost 30 seconds into your speech. I look for claims supported by warrants & data, as well as clearly articulated impacts. In LD, I'll buy logic and clear analysis over stats if the analysis is logical and truly links to the resolution, claim, etc., being addressed.

In PF (and sometimes LD), I feel there is some leeway for judge "intervention" in the NCFL by-law that directs us to ask, "Were the arguments intelligent?" E.g., if a case asserts that prison rehabilitation can lead to nuclear war, I will have a ridiculously low bar for refutation.

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