I am the head coach at Saline High School. I coach congressional and Public Forum debate. I was also the speech coach for years before that. I have experience in judging PF, congress and speech events.

Here is what I am looking for in congress debate:

- A nice introduction to open your speech.

- Well thought out arguments that pertain to the clash of the round.

- Credible evidence stating the site and date.

- Vocal variation to express your passion on the topic.

- Clarity and clear links and transitions.

- Any speech after the first affirmation needs to reference past senators in the round.

- Please do not use favorable questions. I want to hear valid questions that further the debate in the round.

- Please do not interrupt other senators during questioning, give them time to answer/ask.

- No rehashing of previous points, I want to hear your own unique points.

Here is what I am looking for in PF debate:

- I expect everyone in the round to be respectful and professional.

- Don’t talk too fast or too loud and definitely don’t talk over each other in crossfire.

- I want both teams to weigh their impacts.

- I also would like to hear clash between points from both cases in rebuttals and following speeches.

- And finally don’t wait until summary to cite sources, this should be done in constructive and in rebuttal speeches.

Good luck and do your best!

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.

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?

Good day debaters!

I prefer my rounds to be done in rap battle format. I will flow your flow as best I can providing that you speak rhythmically and with poetic contentions. If needed, I will provide a beat of 120 bpm. If you would like you may prepare your own or use a royalty free one off of the internet.

Be polite. I vote on good arguments that prove your claim with valid evidence, analysis, and impacts. Please state your claim, contentions, and impacts slowly and clearly. Speak clearly throughout the debate, especially during the final focus.

I am the Co- Director of Debate at Wylie E. Groves HS in Beverly Hills, MI. I have coached high school debate for 49 years, debated at the University of Michigan for 3.5 years and coached at Michigan for one year (in the mid 1970s). I have coached at summer institutes for 48 years.

Please add me to your email chains at johnlawson666@gmail.com.

I am open to most types of argument but default to a policy making perspective on debate rounds. Speed is fine; if unintelligible I will warn several times, continue to flow but it's in the debater's ball park to communicate the content of arguments and evidence and their implication or importance. As of April 2023, I acquired my first set of hearing aids, so it would be a good idea to slow down a bit and make sure to clearly articulate. Quality of arguments is more important than sheer quantity. Traditional on- case debate, disads, counterplans and kritiks are fine. However, I am more familiar with the literature of so-called non mainstream political philosophies (Marxism, neoliberalism, libertarianism, objectivism) than with many post modern philosophers and psychoanalytic literature. If your kritik becomes an effort to obfuscate through mindless jargon, please note that your threshold for my ballot becomes substantially higher.

At the margins of critical debate, for example, if you like to engage in "semiotic insurrection," interface psychoanalysis with political action, defend the proposition that 'death is good,' advocate that debate must make a difference outside the "argument room" or just play games with Baudrilliard, it would be the better part of valor to not pref me. What you might perceive as flights of intellectual brilliance I am more likely to view as incoherent babble or antithetical to participation in a truly educational activity. Capitalism/neoliberalism, securitization, anthropocentrism, Taoism, anti-blackness, queer theory, IR feminism, ableism and ageism are all kritiks that I find more palatable for the most part than the arguments listed above. I have voted for "death good" and Schlag, escape the argument box/room, arguments more times than I would like to admit (on the college and HS levels)-though I think these arguments are either just plain silly or inapplicable to interscholastic debate respectively. Now, it is time to state that my threshold for voting for even these arguments has gotten much higher. For example, even a single, persuasive turn or solid defensive position against these arguments would very likely be enough for me to vote against them.

I am less likely to vote on theory, not necessarily because I dislike all theory debates, but because I am often confronted with competing lists of why something is legitimate or illegitimate, without any direct comparison or attempt to indicate why one position is superior to the other on the basis of fairness and/or education. In those cases, I default to voting to reject the argument and not the team, or not voting on theory at all.

Specifically regarding so-called 'trigger warning' argument, I will listen if based on specific, explicit narratives or stories that might produce trauma. However, oblique, short references to phenomena like 'nuclear war,' 'terrorism,' 'human trafficking,' various forms of violence, genocide and ethnic cleansing in the abstract are really never reasons to vote on the absence of trigger warnings. If that is the basis for your argument (theoretical, empirically-based references), please don't make the argument. I won't vote on it.

In T or framework debates regarding critical affirmatives or Ks on the negative, I often am confronted with competing impacts (often labeled disadvantages with a variety of "clever" names) without any direct comparison of their relative importance. Again, without the comparisons, you will never know how a judge will resolve the framework debate (likely with a fair amount of judge intervention).

Additionally, though I personally believe that the affirmative should present a topical plan or an advocacy reasonably related to the resolution, I am somewhat open to a good performance related debate based on a variety of cultural, sociological and philosophical concepts. My personal antipathy to judge intervention and willingness to change if persuaded make me at least open to this type of debate. Finally, I am definitely not averse to voting against the kritik on either the affirmative or negative on framework and topicality-like arguments. On face, I don't find framework arguments to be inherently exclusionary.

As to the use of gratuitous/unnecessary profanity in debate rounds: "It don't impress me much!" Using such terms doesn't increase your ethos. I am quite willing to deduct speaker points for their systemic use. The use of such terms is almost always unnecessary and often turns arguments into ad hominem attacks.

Disclosure and the wiki: I strongly believe in the value of pre-round disclosure and posting of affirmatives and major negative off-case positions on the NDCA's wiki. It's both educationally sound and provides a fair leveling effect between teams and programs. Groves teams always post on the wiki. I expect other teams/schools to do so. Failure to do so, and failure to disclose pre-round, should open the offending team to a theory argument on non-disclosure's educational failings. Winning such an argument can be a reason to reject the team. In any case, failure to disclose on the wiki or pre-round will likely result in lower speaker points. So, please use the wiki!

Finally, I am a fan of the least amount of judge intervention as possible. The line by line debate is very important; so don't embed your clash so much that the arguments can't be "unembedded" without substantial judge intervention. I'm not a "truth seeker" and would rather vote for arguments I don't like than intervene directly with my preferences as a judge. Generally, the check on so-called "bad" arguments and evidence should be provided by the teams in round, not by me as the judge. This also provides an educationally sound incentive to listen and flow carefully, and prepare answers/blocks to those particularly "bad" arguments so as not to lose to them. Phrasing this in terms of the "tech" v. "truth" dichotomy, I try to keep the "truth" part to as close to zero (%) as humanly possible in my decision making. "Truth" can sometimes be a fluid concept and you might not like my perspective on what is the "correct" side of a particular argument..

An additional word or two on paperless debate and new arguments. There are many benefits to paperless debate, as well as a few downsides. For debaters' purposes, I rarely take "flashing" time out of prep time, unless the delay seems very excessive. I do understand that technical glitches do occur. However, once electronic transmission begins, all prep by both teams must cease immediately. This would also be true if a paper team declares "end prep" but continues to prepare. I will deduct any prep time "stolen" from the team's prep and, if the problem continues, deduct speaker points. Prep includes writing, typing and consulting with partner about strategy, arguments, order, etc.
With respect to new arguments, I do not automatically disregard new arguments until the 2AR (since there is no 3NR). Prior to that time, the next speaker should act as a check on new arguments or cross applications by noting what is "new" and why it's unfair or antithetical to sound educational practice. I do not subscribe to the notion that "if it's true, it's not new" as what is "true" can be quite subjective.

PUBLIC FORUM ADDENDUM:

Although I have guest presented at public forum summer institutes and judged some public forum rounds, it is only these last few weeks that I have started coaching PF. This portion of my philosophy consists of a few general observations about how a long time policy coach and judge will likely approach judging public forum judging:

1. For each card/piece of evidence presented, there should, in the text, be a warrant as to why the author's conclusions are likely correct. Of course, it is up to the opponent(s) to note the lack of, or weakness, in the warrant(s).

2. Arguments presented in early stages of the round (constructives, crossfire) should be extended into the later speeches for them to "count." A devastating crossfire, for example, will count for little or nothing if not mentioned in a summary or final focus.

3. I don't mind and rather enjoy a fast, crisp and comprehensible round. I will very likely be able to flow you even if you speak at a substantially faster pace than conversational.

4. Don't try to extend all you constructive arguments in the final stages (summary, final focus) of the round. Narrow to the winners for your side while making sure to respond to your opponents' most threatening arguments. Explicitly "kick out" of arguments that you're not going for.

5. Using policy debate terminology is OK and may even bring a tear to my eye. I understand quite well what uniqueness, links/internal links, impacts, impact and link turns, offense and defense mean. Try to contextualize them to the arguments in the round rather than than merely tossing around jargon.

6. I will ultimately vote on the content/substance/flow rather than on generalized presentational/delivery skills. That means you should flow as well (rather than taking random notes, lecture style) for the entire round (even when you've finished your last speech).

7. I view PF overall as a contest between competing impacts and impact turns. Therefore specific impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame, whether solving for your impact captures or "turns" your opponents' impact(s)) is usually better than a general statement of framework like "vote for the team that saves more lives."

8. The last couple of topics are essentially narrow policy topics. Although I do NOT expect to hear a plan, I will generally consider the resolution to be the equivalent of a "plan" in policy debate. Anything which affirms or negates the whole resolution is fair game. I would accept the functional equivalent of a counterplan (or an "idea" which is better than the resolution), a "kritik" which questions the implicit assumptions of the resolution or even something akin to a "topicality" argument based on fairness, education or exclusion which argues that the pro's interpretation is not the resolution or goes beyond it. An example would be dealert, which might be a natural extension of no first use but might not. Specifically advocating dealert is arguably similar to an extratopical plan provision in policy debate.

9. I will do my level headed best to let you and your arguments and evidence decide the round and avoid intervention unless absolutely necessary to resolve an argument or the round.

10. I will also strive to NOT call for cards at the end of the round even if speech documents are rarely exchanged in PF debates.

11. I would appreciate a very brief road map at the beginning of your speeches.

12. Finally, with respect to the presentation of evidence, I much prefer the verbatim presentation of portions of card texts to brief and often self serving paraphrasing of evidence. That can be the basis of resolving an argument if one team argues that their argument(s) should be accepted because supporting evidence text is read verbatim as opposed to an opponent's paraphrasing of cards.

13. Although I'm willing to and vote for theory arguments in policy debate, I certainly am less inclined to do so in public forum. I will listen, flow and do my best not to intervene but often find myself listening to short lists of competing reasons why a particular theoretical position is valid or not. Without comparison and refutation of the other team's list, theory won't make it into my RFD. Usually theoretical arguments are, at most, a reason to reject a specific argument but not the team.

Overall, if there is something that I haven't covered, please ask me before the round begins. I'm happy to answer. Best wished for an enjoyable, educational debate.

As an old school judge I tend to make my decisions on the clash in the round and how well/clearly the arguments are developed/responded to. A dropped argument does not mean an automatic win for the team if it is not key to the main argument being presented. Evidence is important to me and arguments based on quality of sources, analysis on importance of post dates info, etc are acceptable but should not be the main focus of the debate. I also consider how well the teams treat each other, and rudeness can impact how I view the round. Finally, the last two speeches should be narrowed to winning arguments and articulated in such a way to be convincing. I will make my judgments based on what you say in the final speech, not what I think you meant.

Brad Meloche
he/him pronouns

Email: bradgmu@gmail.com (High School Only: Please include grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com as well.)

(I ALWAYS want to be on the email chain. Please do email chains instead of sharing in the zoom chat/NSDA classroom! PLEASE no google docs if you have the ability to send in Word! If you send docs as PDFs your speaker points will be capped at 28.5)

The short version -

Tech > truth. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true. "Tech" is obviously not completely divorced from "truth" but you have to actually make the true argument for it to matter. In general, if your argument has a claim, warrant, and implication then I am willing to vote for it, but there are some arguments that are pretty obviously morally repugnant and I am not going to entertain them. They might have a claim, warrant, and implication, but they have zero (maybe negative?) persuasive value and nothing is going to change that. I'm not going to create an exhaustive list, but any form of "oppression good" and many forms of "death good" fall into this category.

Specifics

Non-traditional – I believe debate is a game. It might be MORE than a game to some folks, but it is still a game. Claims to the contrary are unlikely to gain traction with me. Approaches to answering T/FW that rely on implicit or explicit "killing debate good" arguments are nonstarters.

Related thoughts:

1) I'm not a very good judge for arguments, aff or neg, that involve saying that an argument is your "survival strategy". I don't want the pressure of being the referee for deciding how you should live your life. Similarly, I don't want to mediate debates about things that happened outside the context of the debate round.

2) The aff saying "USFG should" doesn't equate to roleplaying as the USFG

3) I am really not interested in playing (or watching you play) cards, a board game, etc. as an alternative to competitive speaking. Just being honest. "Let's flip a coin to decide who wins and just have a discussion" is a nonstarter.

4) Name-calling based on perceived incongruence between someone's identity and their argument choice is unlikely to be a recipe for success.

Kritiks – If a K does not engage with the substance of the aff it is not a reason to vote negative. A lot of times these debates end and I am left thinking "so what?" and then I vote aff because the plan solves something and the alt doesn't. Good k debaters make their argument topic and aff-specific. I would really prefer I don't waste any of my limited time on this planet thinking about baudrillard/bataille/other high theory nonsense that has nothing to do with anything.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K or to permute an uncompetitive alternative.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, especially when they are introduced as "the alt is compatible with politics" and then become "you dropped the floating PIK to do your aff without your card's allusion to the Godfather" (I thought this was a funny joke until I judged a team that PIKed out of a two word reference to Star Wars. h/t to GBS GS.). In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go.

Theory – theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” are rarely reasons to reject the team. These arguments pretty much have to be dropped and clearly flagged in the speech as reasons to vote against the other team for me to consider voting on them. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to. New affs bad is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals – By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points - ...are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual to the tournament, division, round, etc. I am more likely to reward good performance with high points than punish poor performance with below average points. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style. Being rude to your partner or the other team is a good way to persuade me to explore the deepest depths of my point range.

Cheating - I won't initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

I won't evaluate evidence that is "inserted" but not actually read as part of my decision. Inserting a chart where there is nothing to read is ok.

Wylie E. Groves 20'

University of Michigan 24'

add me to the email chain: sathvikrajagopalan213@gmail.com

*** READ THE MISC SECTION AS WELL :) ***

Topicality

** I haven't looked into this topic that much, but that doesn't mean I'm not willing to vote on T --- don't assume I know what your random topic buzzwords mean **

- for the neg limits or nothing. Predicability as a guiding point for the research burden of the resolution is def the move, but it depends on how it is utilized.

- I think that there needs to be a significant amount done on the interpretation debate. On that interpretation debate, standards/rzns to prefer need to be impacted out. For me, personally, I like examples on T debates (ie what ground do you lose, how the affirmative doesn't give it to you, and why that matters). Additionally, there needs to be specific explanations of your standards and how they are better than the affs or vice versa.

- For the Aff, reasonability is not as persuasive for me. That doesn't mean I won't vote on it accordingly. Reasonability can be very deadly and persuasive in debates that involve t-sub where there are a lot of definitions. Thus, substantial heg back on the limits debate paired with reasonability is the best route to go for me.

Counterplans

- How competitive or what type of competition the counterplan must embody is up to debate. However, Functional competition > Textual competition

- I like brief overviews explaining what the cp does and how it solves.

- X cp type is bad arg --- I'm very neg leaning on this, it is quite difficult to convince me that a specific counterplan should be excluded from debate unless it is flat-out dropped.

- I am open to voting on all kinds of PICs and Kritical counter plans as I ran them a solid amount when I debated in high school.

- the more specific and tailored the counterplan is to the aff, the more I will think it solves the case

- For the aff, I am most persuaded by the permutation debate

- I will listen to process CPs, Consult CPs, etc. but again whether they are competitive or legitimate is up for debate. However, I'm neg leaning on the competition debate.

Disads

- Yes. I am the same as my former coach, Dr. Ryan Nierman --- "There should be a clear link to the aff. Yes, there can be zero risk. The overviews should focus on why your impacts outweigh and turn the case. Let the story of the DA be revealed on the line-by-line."

- for the Aff, I am persuaded by link turns. Impact turns are fine and do become fun debates to watch and I'm persuaded by them as well, if they are debated properly.

- For politics disad --- the question of uq is very important. Post-dated uq evidence is VERY compelling to me in this arena.

- other aff things for politics like spillover effects, governmental compartmentalization, etc. are nice and I lean aff with them.

Kritiks

I ran all types of kritiks when debating and I'm open to hearing them (in other words yes Baudrillard, DnG, etc.). However, that being said a couple of things need to happen because I am not familiar with all literature. First, buzz words need to be explained, they are very annoying. Second, link to the aff should be clear and articulated clearly. I am not very persuaded by re-highlighted/cut pieces of evidence from the opposing team as links. Reps and scholarship links are rather unpersuasive if the aff has link defense. However, in Rev v Rev debates, if the re-highlight is explained clearly, they could be very impactful in the round. Third, there should be a clear, contingent story of the K from the overview or the line by line. No, this means you cannot read your freakishly long overview, but, if you do, the cross-application to the line by line portion must be explained again and not "cross apply x from the o/v or x author from the ov" for that is confusing. Fourth, the alternative must be clear, resolve the links, and just solve in general. The nexus questions need to be answered: What does the alt do? How does it do it? Does it solve the aff? What does the world look like post alternative?. Without a clear explanation of the alternative, it will be tough for me to go your way. Alternative solvency is very important to me in terms of voting on the K. However, I am open to kicking the alternative and going for the K as a case turn, but make sure you do a solid amount of impact work if you are doing that. Furthermore, "Competition arguments are most persuasive when the aff materially makes the world worse and/or prevents a material alternative" -- Henry Mitchell.

Outside of the proper page, I need to know what the role of the judge/ballot is (if there is one, tell me why that matters), a clear FW for the debate, and why your methodology comes first/is better.

FW makes the game work -- to beat scholarship and reps links the aff should weigh their resolution-focused FW offense against this. I think FW is super important in these types of K debates. Aff teams should always leverage their non-resolutions components as offensive and attempt to outweigh neg offense.

I also think it is super impressive when the aff out-debates the K team on the proper page ie with impact turns to the alternative and contesting the fundamental idea of the K. I find these debates quite entertaining and if done well, I will reward with better speaks. Note, that this doesn't mean that you should go ballistic on it, do what you think is best.

Theory

TLDR: lol.

floating PIKs are ok unless I'm told otherwise and they are rejecting the argument.

vague alts are probs a voting issue ...

- all theory arguments are reject the argument unless I'm told otherwise (if it is otherwise, tell me why they should lose the round on it)

- need to ask the status of the off if condo is legitimate. Else, the neg gets condo indefinitely.

- I will vote on theory if it is dropped/poorly handled

- I have a high threshold for voting on it even then, if it is dropped, cross applications from other theory args are dope.

K Affs

Yes. I ran a bunch of them. I NEED an advocacy statement. I pray that it is in relation to the direction of the resolution and not like reading something into the resolution. Those advocacy statements are actually awful and should never be used.

"In terms of going for framework, clash and fairness seem like generally good ideas. Impact turning these will be harder than defending and outweighing for me. Debate is generally good, but I usually find neg explanations of why generally underwhelming. Establishing limits offense as the negative is easier if you outline a case list that includes both critical and policy affs (but not required).

Counter interps that justify their differences based on something other than a definition of a word in the resolution are models of debate that must also defend their implications on debate beyond the current topic." --- what henry said --- literally my thought exactly.

Policy affs

- I generally don't like soft left affs that much, but you can run one if you wish. However, whoever wins the risk and impact calculus typically is who I vote for when it becomes a question of the adv.

Case turn

- sure, just don't card dump and not explain the card.

these are often very fun debates to watch.

Other notes PLEASE READ THESE (MISC)

- clarity > speed. If you are clear and easy to flow you will most likely get good speaks with me. This is especially important with an online debate where lags can happen and other tech difficulties.

- SEND YOUR SPEECH DOC WITH THE ANALYTICS. IN ONLINE DEBATE, IT CAN BE DIFFICULT TO HEAR SOMETIMES AND A SPEECH DOC MAKES THIS INTERESTING EXPERIENCE BETTER FOR EVERYONE.

- please read the re-highlight, I'm not a fan of when debaters say "insert this re-highlighting" and could disregard the argument entirely

- please don't steal prep and I prefer you all to keep the camera on at all times during the round

- When a debater asked for a marked copy, you are obligated to give it to them. In other words, when you mark a card during your speech, you need to physically mark it.

- Please be nice to each other

- I often reward debaters for using whitty statements and being clever.

- swearing is ok, but excessive swearing and offensive behavior will result in low speaks. 

- Line-by-line is extremely important in evaluating the rounds, especially on procedural flows.

- Clipping cards is cheating! If caught, you will lose the round and get the lowest possible speaker points the tournament allows.

" Finally, don't change what works for you. I am willing to hear and vote on any type of argument, so don't alter your winning strat to fit what you may think my philosophy is." - Ryan Nierman

- Have fun in rounds and let loose

ARE YOU OK WITH THIS AFF? The answer to that question is more often than not yes. I can have my opinions on it, but I will vote on it accordingly if you do the better debating. Whether that is done for the resolution question is up for debate ;).

My name Is Robert Reilly

I look for a clear and substantiated case supported with evidence. I believe that most debates are won in the strength of your arguments and your detailed and specific rebuttal against your opponents arguments.

I don't like uneccesary quantifications. I also don't like unwarranted agressiveness or rude behavior in round. Debaters should win and lose with class. Thank you.

- Be respectful of our opponents.

- Please speak at a moderate pace. Do not speed read.

- Make your case and make it very clear to me.

- Pretend I know nothing about the topic and you must

EDUCATE ME ABOUT THE RESOLVE.

- Clearly state your sources including the publication, author and date.

- Think of Crossfire as volleying back and forward with questions from one

team to another. You may ask a follow-up or for a clarification of an answer.

DO NOT make a speech ending with a rhetorical devise like, "isn't that true? or

"do you agree?"

- DON'T LIE OR MAKE UP FALSE/FAKE EVIDENCE!

- During the Summation and Final Focus speeches clearly state why you believe

your team is winning.

1. Talk about how & why your impacts are greater.

2. Tell me the contentions, evidence and impacts that you

believe you have blocked in your opponents case.

- Pretend that you are presenting to a Town Hall meeting with an audience of

50 to 100 citizens and you're trying to persuade them to follow and adopt

your side PRO or CON of the Resolve as the policy that they (the majority)

will vote for.

- Smile a lot, have fun, after the round is over even if it was super intense;

thank you opponents for being an excellent team that pushed you to be better.

Public Forum Debate:

I competed all 4 years of high school in Public Forum at Dexter High School, and have been coaching/judging since 2018. I mainly judge on use of impact weighing, cohesive arguments and responses, and unique/compelling arguments.

I judge on a mix of tech/truth. I won't necessarily drop a rebuttal or response with theory and no evidence as long as it makes sense, but for larger arguments that your case relies on, evidence is necessary. Decorum during the round (rudeness, interrupting repeatedly during crossfire, et cetera) will affect your score, more on this below. I don't flow crossfire and I don't judge on it, but I will be paying attention for contradictions or lack of knowledge/an answer. I'm not a fan of offtime roadmaps, considering they waste time during the round and serve very little purpose. If you signpost your speech properly, you won't need an offtime roadmap.

At the end of the day, I'll judge mostly on voter issues mentioned in the summary/FF, in terms of what arguments have been dropped, responded to, or are still standing, so make sure to collapse and/or mention your strongest points during the round at the end.

If any of the students in the round are having decorum issues, it will greatly affect my decision. I've noticed that most of these issues happen during crossfire, due to how easy it is to get frustrated with your opponent. While I was competing, I was definitely quick to make a crossfire heated - there's a pretty easy fix for this. Your speeches and your arguments should be addressed to me, and not your opponent. Your job is not to wear down your opponent until they concede, your job is to convince me that your arguments are more important. I hope this reframing of the debate can help some of you, even if crossfire isn't something you initially struggle with. Remember, we're here to learn and have fun, not to get angry at each other over arguments that really don't even matter in reality.

Forensics:

Now that forensics is slowly moving to Tabroom, I'll add a little blurb here about it. I competed in both interp and PA events, but found the most success later on in my forensics career in Broadcasting. I am more inclined towards the PA events and will probably be far more helpful as a judge in those events. If you're in interp and you've gotten a basically blank critique sheet from me, I sincerely apologize (if I have nothing to say it means I had nothing bad to say and didn't really notice you doing anything wrong).

That being said, in interp, there are a few things that I do not appreciate. First, adding too much emotion to lines that don't need that much emotion. If the only way you can come across as upset is by screaming your lines, try something else, like using facial expressions. I know a lot of you have pieces that require you to make loud noises, which is fine, but remember that there are usually people competing right next door. Screaming your entire piece is going to give me a headache and it's going to interrupt the round next door. Secondly, adding in incredibly dramatic scenes that make no sense with the cutting/story you're trying to convey. If you're conveying a character arc that has nothing to do with mental illness or suicide and then out of nowhere your character commits suicide, I will find it in bad taste unless there's a reason for it to be there. I don't take lightly to specifically issues of suicide and it won't give you extra points for having a more "emotional" program. Third, if you can do a cartwheel or a back handspring or whatever sort of gymnastic feat, please do not put it in your piece unless your piece calls for your character to do a gymnastic feat. I once judged a round where three people randomly did cartwheels and I had to decide who had the best cartwheel - please don't make me do that again. Thank you.

About Me: I went to a small high school and took debate class for all four years. I participated in policy debate, but we often did not compete in co-curricular events. I also joined the CMU Debate team for a semester and participated in Lincoln Douglas debate. In 2007, I judged forensics for MIFA as a student teacher at Utica High School. It has been about 10 years, but I just started coaching and judging Public Forum debate for Utica High School.

Judging Criteria: Providing framework is important, along with clear road mapping throughout your speech. Repeat your framework throughout the speech and adhere to that in your final focus. I usually flow the entire debate and judge primarily off of the flow, but I also weigh persuasiveness, evidence, logic, and refutations. I pay close attention to "dropped" arguments, so I suggest that you and your partner flow as to refute their arguments. Clash is very important to me in a debate. Use all of your speaker time - I am looking for your speech to refute the other teams' arguments, then strengthen your teams' arguments with supplemental evidence. Clear communication is important. Make eye contact as frequent as possible, I also prefer a conversational style, opposed to jargon that a "lay" judge would not understand. I am judging based on the quality of your arguments made - not the quantity. Speakers should appear confident, with clear, logical relevant arguments and recent evidence.

I like confidence in a speaker, but I do not like cockiness or being mean while debating. This is supposed to be fun and educational, so I expect you to keep it classy. Do not look at each other during cross fire - you are trying to persuade me - not your opponent. Do not make statements during cross fire - save that for your summary or final focus. Ask meaningful questions during cross fire, as it can be a turning point for a debate. I am not going to judge a debate based on how "pretty" you speak, but I take your communication style along with case, evidence & arguments into consideration.

Experience:

Competitive:

-PF Debate for 4 years for Brother Rice (2010-2014)

-Extemporaneous Speaking: 5 years (3 years for Brother Rice, 2 years for the University of Michigan)

-Rhetorical Criticism: 1 year (University of Michigan)

Judging:

-PF Debate (2015 – present) for Brother Rice

Professional:

-Programmer in the defense industry (2018 - present)

I typically flow on paper with colored pens in a notebook so there will be a lot of pen clicking.

I judge based on what I hear in the round, but also making way overgeneralized arguments and statements makes me sad inside.

I weigh what I hear talked about more than I weigh stuff that gets dropped by both teams.

Preferences:

Asking to See the Evidence: Don’t use it to steal prep, have a good reason for doing so.

Signposting: Please. Make it easy for me to follow and flow your arguments and responses.

Speed: Talk as fast as you’d like.

Summary and Final Focus: They’re not rebuttals, please don’t ramble. Being clear and concise about why you are winning goes as long way to helping me flow the round.

Timing: You’re more than welcome to time yourself, but my phone’s timer is the authoritative one.

I’ve been coaching for West Bloomfield High School and judging for 7 years. I do not like to intervene and put my personal opinions into the debate. It is up to the debaters to decide how the round will go and to back up their claims through sufficient evidence and reasoning.

DECORUM

Above all else, you are learning and growing as debaters. Any abusive or overly competing behavior does nothing for the educational activity that debate is intended to be.

I do not like when debaters cut each other off during CX. This is a time to understand your opponents case, how are you going to do that if you won’t let them finish their response to the question YOU asked? Keep it down to questions, this is not time to argue. I prefer you address your opponents'caseinstead of addressing them directly.

SPEED

When I'm judging, I don't get to ask you clarification questions in the round like your opponents do, so -- above all else -- prioritize being understood by ME and not just trying to read fast so you have more on the flow. Remember, for me to flow it, I have to be able to listen to and understand what you're going for; prioritize clarity over speed.

Do NOT spread (speed-read). Anything over 300 wpm (look up a video for reference) is "speeding". It's not like I can stop you from speed-reading, but I only flow the things I can listen to AND understand, not just the remnants of things you vaguely enunciated at 10000mph. I don't care if you've disclosed your entire speech verbatim; if you can't read that speech in a way that I can understand without me looking at your disclosed speech doc, you'll have a tough time with the flow.

SPEECHES

Please signpost your arguments! "Signposting" is stating what argument you're responding to before you start responding to it. It helps to organize and understand what you say for both your opponents and the judge.

Cross-examinations: I have always thought CXs were the most important part of any debate round, so listen closely. If you or your opponent say something in VERY stark contrast to your case, that goes on my ballot. Essentially, anything that raises a big red flag goes on the flow. This, however, does not happen often and can be arbitrary since there's no definitive scale for what's considered "in stark contrast" to a case. Thus, your best bet is to mention anything from CX that's of importance in a speech as soon as possible to ensure it gets on my flow.If you ask good questions & are polite here, I typically give high speaks.

STYLE

I'm a mix of Tech and Truth judging. Tech means judging exclusively on what's said in the round; Truth means judging based on how true your args are to the real world. I think any good judge should consider both -- it can prevent debaters from substantiating args that are exceedingly unrealistic but also holds debaters accountable for making realistic args (or at the very least, bringing them up at the appropriate time).

I fact-check any and all "Truths" before I use them in a decision. If it's highly controversial, out of date, or not concrete enough, I just don't use it in voting and default to whatever you told me in the round. In other words, unless you literally have me trembling in utter fear about being nuked to extinction/pandemic'd to oblivion/whatever, I'm probably going to factor in the more realistic impact.

THEORY & Kritiks

Preferably not in PF... Theory/Ks maybe, but it should be topical and relevant by the time you bring it up. I would vote for theories/kritiks if they're outstandingly clear, but I should be shaking in my boots at the mere thought of not voting for your theory/K.No tricks whatsoever-- they're super abusive and I'm not voting on that.

PET PEEVES

Please do not say "Judge, we've won this debate," because you don't know that.

When you are done with your speech, let me know by saying some variation of "we urge a (pro/con) ballot" or some indicator that you are done. Otherwise I might just think you are taking a long pause.

TLDR

Don’t be an abusive jerk and you’ll be fine.