My background- While in high school, I competed in varsity public forum all four years. I'm well versed in the format and how things are supposed to run. I have been judging since I graduated, which was in 2015, so I have stayed up to date on formats, styles, etc. If you have any more questions about this just ask.

Speaking- Delivery is important. If you are fumbling through your case and your arguments and seem unfamiliar with what you're saying, that doesn't look good to me. I do fine with speed, but I still need to be able to understand what you're saying. If you are going to be going through your speeches rather quickly, be sure that your tags are made clear so I'm flowing things where you're intending for them to be flowed.

Argumentation- I am a flow judge so I prefer you break your arguments into points that can be tagged and followed with ease. This applies to all of your speeches. If you leave things untouched on the flow, I consider that dropping the point. When it comes to crossfires, be civil. Don't belittle each other, and respect what your opponent has to say regardless of how much you disagree. You can be passionate, but don't be rude. The summary and final focus SHOULD NOT cover the entire flow. By this time you need to have the round broken down into a few main arguments for me to vote on, and they should be consistent throughout both speeches. You need to tell me why these are the most important arguments of the round and why you've won on them (weighing arguments/evidence). Telling me you attacked your opponent's point is not enough, tell me why your attack is valid and defeats their point. Frameworks are fine, but if both teams are running one and they contradict each other you need to tell me WHY to prefer yours.

Evidence- Your claims need to be evidence backed. With that, you need to represent your evidence as it was intended, which requires you to have an understanding of it before using it in the round. Misrepresentation is absolutely not okay, and if your opponents call you on that I expect you to clarify/defend what you said about it previously, and I have no issue with looking at the evidence myself. With this, there should be a clear link between your evidence and the argument at hand. You shouldn't be trying to make connections that aren't there just so that you have something to say against a point.

Timing- I will keep time for all speeches, crossfires, and prep time. You are more than welcome to keep your own time as well and are encouraged to do so. I prefer that you don't time your opponents because if your timer goes off before mine/theirs it is disruptive and in my opinion rude. If you feel you must time them as well, please do it silently. If you are asking for evidence, I will run prep time while you're looking through it. While you are using prep time, I am paying attention. I will stop prep when I see that you have stopped working, not when you tell me to stop.

I am 100% open to answering any questions you have at the beginning regarding my paradigm, and at the end regarding the round (time allowing). I will disclose if that's what the tournament has asked for me to do, but otherwise, I typically keep my vote to myself. All of my feedback is meant to be constructive and to help you improve, not to tear you down!

Public Forum since 2014.

I am a current college student and was a four-year public forum debater and extemporaneous speaker. I value weighing your evidence against your opponents. You need to make it very clear why your arguments are the most impactful in the round. Make sure this is extended from summary to final focus. I will not do the work for you. I will not take into account any new refutations presented in the second summary. I have no problem with speed and am open to any arguments within the rules. Feel free to ask me any questions before the round.

tl;dr

flow judge, impact calc, speed ok but risky strategy, no blippy arguments, technicality ok but insufficient on its own

Judging Paradigm

I'm a flow judge who primarily votes on impact calculus. I can handle speed but if you speak too quickly for me to write something down, I won't consider it in my decision. I will not provide you benefit of the doubt in this situation; speed is a tactical decision on your part and you must embrace both the benefits and risks if you choose to use it. I will not consider new arguments or dropped arguments in the final speech. Don't try to lie about whether an argument was dropped; even if I end up voting for you, I will deduct a painful number of speaker points. A debate is only fair when both sides readily embrace the truth and consider the purest form of each others' arguments.

I will choose a winner by weighing arguments. I will defer to your impact calculus when you do it throughout your speeches and weigh arguments clearly. If you don't weigh arguments for me, I will decide the weights myself and you may not like what I value. There is only upside to clear impact calculus. I am receptive to arguments grounded in the real world and am not very persuaded by contentions that are super abstract or unrealistic. While I vote on impact calculus, I usually find extinction-level impacts to be a huge stretch and will likely not buy all the links required to get there. There’s a difference between impact mitigation and impact denial .

I am impressed by unique, well-crafted arguments or strongly-run stock contentions. Do not try to twist your opponents' arguments to fit whatever tag your briefs have answers to if they aren't the same thing; value your own intelligence (and the work your opponents have done) enough to come up with unique responses. Much of the value of debate comes from researching the topic, and teams that have clearly put in the work will be rewarded.

As a practical matter, you're unlikely to have spent enough time developing your contentions if you have a million points and subpoints. I would rather hear you develop a powerful three-contention case than try to overwhelm your opponents with a bunch of blippy arguments. If you want to run cases like that, policy debate is always an option. If your arguments are underdeveloped, it will be much harder to run effective impact calculus and reduces your odds of getting my ballot.

Unless the outcome is very clear, it will take me a minute to flow everything out and evaluate the impact calculus at the end of the round. I tend to be fully engaged during the round so the final decision takes a bit to figure out and write down. You can't improve without feedback and I will happily answer any questions you have about the round and my decision. If we're in a time crunch I probably won't offer you feedback immediately after the round but please come find me.

Technicality

I understand technical arguments and you should too. I want to hear you talk about solvency and topicality if it's relevant, but if you don't have a strong understanding of how these concepts apply to the arguments you're making, you're probably wasting your time. If your responses are only technical, you probably aren't engaging your opponents' contentions deeply enough to win on the flow.

I feel pretty meh about kritiks. I think the discourse has immense value in general but doing so in the debate bubble is likely preaching to the choir. I'm open to a K but am probably more interested in hearing you engage with the topic that was assigned. Unless you really impress me or tie your K to the topic in a meaningful way I will probably vote you down even though I support the discourse.

Timing

You get a few seconds to organize papers, flowpads, your laptop, and whatever before the speech but if I feel like you're biding your time I will start the timer on your speech. Roadmaps are off-time, but if you're just going say "I'll be hitting my opponents' points and then coming back to mine" don't bother; I understand the outline of a regular speech. If you call for evidence, I will not start prep time until your opponents provide you the requested materials; however, neither team should be prepping during this time. If you choose to continue prepping anyway, I will deduct that time from your prep even if it isn't your team's prep.

Behavior

I have little tolerance for rudeness but my bar for it is fairly high. Debate is a high-stress activity and the potential for misunderstanding is great, so if you're exceeding that bar I will be harsh with your speaker points. It is not hard to extend your opponents the respect they deserve for 45 minutes. Complain about them after the round in private like a normal person.

For policy debate, I am primarily a stock issues judge, though topicality is very difficult to win from me. I am open to counterplans, etc..., and I will basically judge whatever happens in the round. Thus, "stock issues" may be what I prefer, but I judge the round based on the arguments presented and the refutations of those arguments.

For public forum, I prefer direct clash-- actually refute the opponents case with your own case. I think favorably on cross-applying arguments from your case to the opponent's case. Importantly, follow the flow and do not cast it aside once the 2 minute speeches started-- you spent time developing those cases and arguments, so see them through in the summaries and final focus speeches.

For speech events, I follow the basic rules of each event. In drama, humorous, and related, I like to see clean transitions, clear and distinct characters, etc... In extemp, I like to know why the topic is important (why ask this question?), clear citations and warrants, and a speech that follows a logical line of analysis to its conclusion(s). In oratory and similar, clear logic (organization, thought process-- whatever is relevant to the topic and nature of the event) and a speech pattern that doesn't sound too memorized-- the speech should flow just as naturally as a conversation.

LD

I am in my third season of judging LD, so I am still learning. I will admit that I am leaning on my Public Forum experience to a degree during the learning process. I have so far developed two rules about judging LD:

1.) Defend your value statement, especially if your opponent attacks it. If your opponent is able to negate your value statement, your case goes away and it becomes extremely difficult to win at that point.

2.) If you and your opponent agree upon or merge your value statements and your criterion, then to me it becomes a PF round.

PUBLIC FORUM - READ TO THE END FOR AN UPDATE ON THE NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2021 TOPIC.

Introduction

The best thing about Public Forum Debate is that anyone can judge it, and the worst thing about Public Forum Debate is that anyone can judge it. If you don't read this before a round, ESPECIALLY IN THESE DAYS OF ONLINE DEBATE, don't complain to your coach about what is said on my ballot after you lose.

How I vote/Framework

You can present your framework if you want, but I really don't pay any attention to it, especially with resolutions that are Yes/No. I am more interested in hearing the contents of your case, and I don't start flowing until I hear you say "Contention 1". I vote based on the cases, their contents, the attacks made on the cases and the responses to those attacks. Whoever has the majority of their case left standing at the end of the round wins. I value evidence over opinion, but not exclusively so. If you are presenting a morality-based case, you do so at your peril. It is my opinion that morality arguments are best done in LD. If you present a morality-based case AND you tell me I'm immoral if I vote you down, you are officially done at that point (it's happened, that's why it's included).

Argumentation
First and foremost, I expect professional conduct during the entirety of the round. While I haven’t yet decided a round based on arrogance, rudeness or condescension, I also have no qualms awarding a low-point win if the tournament rules allow.

Case speakers – I would like to think that I have a pretty good idea of what has to be proven by whom during a debate round, especially toward the end of a topic period. Therefore, I don’t want to hear the Webster definition of 3 or 4 of the words in the resolution unless your definition differs from your opponent's. You may present framework if you want, but refer to the above as to how I treat it. As stated above in "How I vote", I very rarely start flowing until I hear "Our first contention is...…"

Rebuttal speakers – I value your responses to your opponent’s case more than I do getting back to your own, especially if all you’re doing is re-reading it. In addition, PLEASE TELL ME IF YOU ARE ATTACKING YOUR OPPONENT'S CASE OR ARE SUPPLEMENTING YOUR OWN WITH WHAT YOU ARE PRESENTING. If you don't, it doesn't get flowed, and what doesn't get flowed doesn't get judged. I also like rebuttal speakers who are skilled enough to be able to attack their opponent’s rebuttal if you are speaking second. Finally, be very careful if you're attacking your opponent's case with points from your own. If your attack point gets damaged or negated, the opponents points you attacked will more than likely pull through intact.

Crossfire – It is very difficult to win a round during crossfire, but it is very easy to lose a round during crossfire. I’ll let you interpret that however you want. I consider CX to be for my benefit, not yours. I'm not real crazy about interruptions or talking over one another. Let your opponent finish an answer before you ask a follow-up question. I do reserve the right (and I have done it) to cut off a CX round if all you're doing is continuing the debate rather than doing Q&A. My rule at the buzzer - an answer may finish, a question may not.

Summary - The third minute of summary that was added last year has been interesting in how teams have approached it. I will say this: If you are speaking first, you can go back and attack your opponent's rebuttal, but don't spend more than 90-seconds on it. If you spend the entire time in attack, I'm going to assume you think you're losing. You should be introducing voters and giving me your introductory analysis of how the round is going.

Final Focus – You should be telling me why you won the round. I do not object if you figuratively take me by the hand and walk me through your analysis of how the round went. If you spend more than half your time continuing to attack your opponent's case, I will again assume that you're not confident about the success of your own.

Delivery
As far as speed goes, this is not policy. While I do flow with a spreadsheet on a laptop, there are even speeds that I can’t follow. If you see me put my hands behind my head, you are talking too fast, and what does not get flowed does not get judged. Please slow down a notch when presenting main points and sub points.

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2021 TOPIC - If you are going to run Climate Change on the Pro, or Remittances on the Con, you had better be able to connect it back to the resolution. If you don't, and your opponent argues that either of these points are non-resolutional, I will agree with them.

Questions? Feel free to send an email to either wilsonbl@sio.midco.net or blaine@ucctcm.org

I have two rules for when I judge:

1) If you are going to use analytics, either use evidence to back it up, or make it seem like you know what you're talking about. Don't just use analytics to attack your opponent's case.

2) Don't piss me off. If you do, I will not be inclined to favor you in the round.

Now that those are out of way, here's the rest.

Introduction

I did debate for four years: one in policy as a freshman, and the next three in Public Forum. After that, I've been judging from 2017 onward, taking a break in 2020. I'm primarily a public forum judge, but I have judged LD and policy in the past. If you have me as an LD judge, know that I won't follow anything special that you may try to run, such as a role of the ballot argument. Keep it to Value/Criterion, and the round will be a lot better as a whole.

Definitions/Framework

For definitions, only define stuff that you think is necessary. This doesn't mean define the word "harm" in an "on balance" resolution, but if there's a word that you think a lay judge might not understand, such as "urbanization," that might be one to define. On framework, keep it short and simple. Framework should be something by which I judge the round, not one of the voters. Don't spend so much time on it that you have to cut the rest of your case short. 10-20 seconds max.

Speakers

Case - use as much of your time as possible without going over. Make sure that you have enough time to get through all of your points and recount your main points. Also, if you have a one point case with multiple subpoints, just why? At that point, just have the point as framework and the subpoints as the main points.

Rebuttal - first, don't use a prewritten rebuttal speech. That just tells me that you're unprepared for other people's arguments and that you're not confident in your own attacks. Second, make sure you actually attack your opponent's arguments. If you just attack the general (insert opponent's side here) case, and you don't link your attacks to anything, that's not going to help you. Make sure you are linking your attacks to something your opponent said, otherwise it's going on the flow, but it'll have very little weight.

Crossfire - don't speak over your opponent, refer to Rule #2. Rounds usually aren't won here, and they're more for you than me, so just don't be a dick and you'll be fine.

Summary - start to condense the round here. This doesn't mean continue attacking your opponent's case if you couldn't get to it in Rebuttal, this means get your arguments together and start explaining to me why you think you've won the round. If that means just restating your point titles, go for it, but explain in your own words why you think you've won these arguments. Don't just repeat verbatim what's on the cards. I've heard that, but why does that matter in the grand scheme of the round? Tell me that, and I'll listen.

Final Focus - give me why you won the round. I don't want to hear a continuation of the round. I want to hear 2-3 convincing arguments as to why you have the arguments necessary for me to vote you up. If you don't tell me what is most important, and the other team does, I will be more inclined to vote for them because they told me why they won.

Speed

Given that I'm still relatively young, I can pick up most things, but when you start reading at Policy speeds in a Public Forum round, that's when I put my pen down/stop typing and just stare at you. If I don't flow something, that usually means you stumbled over it or sped through it, which means I don't judge it at the end of the round. If you want to speed through the card, that's fine, but if you speed right through the tag, I won't be using it in my decision, which will inevitably hurt you in the long run.

Other

Reactions - try to keep a poker face when in rounds. This is especially visible in online rounds where I can just look slightly to the side of my screen and see you making a face at whatever your opponent just said.

Timer - when the timer goes off, you can finish your sentence, and that's where my attention span ends. I will leave my timer going off until you stop speaking, however long that takes. Hopefully, it shouldn't take too long. If the timer goes off after a question has been fully asked in Crossfire, you are allowed to give a short answer to the question, but don't go off on a long winded tangent on whatever you're talking about. If you're in the middle of a question, Crossfire is unfortunately over.

Be Professional - while I have given some debaters lower speaker points due to breaking Rule #2 as seen above, I have yet to decide a round based on that alone. If that does occur, I still find an objective reason in the round to explain why they lost, not just that they pissed me off. So while it hasn't happened yet, don't let your emotions make you the first round that it happens.

Prep/Called Cards - if you call for a card during crossfire, I will not start prep time so long as no prep work is being done on either side while the card/article is being looked at.

Questions

If you have any questions on decisions, any comments that I made, feel free to contact me at wilsonbc@midco.net. Try to let me know what round I had you in and what the topic was, as I have a reputation for not having the best memory.