I was a mediocre policy debater in the early 90s for two years. I like constitutional warrants. I can handle flow, but I prefer argument and persuasiveness over speed.

Don't make me feel like I'm choosing between Garbage A and Garbage B. Use some sophistication to convince me think I'm the dumbest guy in the room. Even though I can understand it, I don't like overly complicated jargon (ie the phrase "Non-Inherent T-Shell") that's exclusive to debate. On the other hand, I used to run a lot of counter-plans in policy, so go big or go home with the squirrel and K. Plus, it warms my heart when a team can link a nuclear war impact to a contention.

I really like a lot of debate clash, specifically about evidence. I don't always ask for evidence, but when I do, I ask to see the entire, original, uncut card. I am not a fan of teams throwing knee-jerk requests for evidence at the opposition. I also think its a good idea to have all evidence printed out. I don't flow cross, so if you get ideas for an argument, bring it up in speeches.

Lastly I've been doing this for a few years. Let me judge the round and determine the pacing of the experience. Please don't tell me what to do outside of the rhetoric within your speeches. And for heaven's sake, be respectful to people, both within and without the round.

Joe Rankin

Bettendorf High School

jrankin@bettendorf.k12.ia.us

UPDATED: October 4th, 2022

I'm not sure what happened to my previous Paradigm that was posted, but it appears to have been erased/lost. My apologies as I just learned of this at the Simpson Storm tournament (Sat, Oct 1, 2022) this past weekend.

My name is Joe Rankin and I am the head coach at Bettendorf High School in Bettendorf, IA. I have been the head coach at Bettendorf since the 2005-2006 school year. I primarily coach Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, and Extemporaneous Speaking...however, I am familiar and have coached all NSDA sanctioned speech/debate events over my time at Bettendorf.

In terms of my coaching paradigm, I'd generally consider these the 'highlights:'

1. I prefer topical debate. The resolution was voted on by coaches and students through the NSDA voting process. That's what I want to hear about.
2. I can generally handle 'speed,' but that doesn't mean I enjoy it. I'd rather help you develop skills that you will actually utilize interacting with other human beings outside of this one particular subset of existence - so I'd much prefer a rate that is more akin to real-world applications.
3. You can make whatever arguments you want to make...but I generally haven't voted on many things associating with theory, kritiks (or however you want to misspell the word critique), or other generally non-topical arguments you make in the round. It takes more work for me to believe those types of arguments are true and not a whole lot of work to make me believe those types of arguments are generally false. So, I wouldn't encourage this type of argumentation in front of me.

I figure that is sufficient for now. If you have any questions, I tend to give you that window before the round begins while setting up to judge. If not, please feel free to ask before the round. The end goal of the round for me is a competitive academic environment that is focused on education. I don't mind answering questions that will help all of us improve moving forward.