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

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.

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.

In Forensics, I look for realism. I do not want just acting, I want you to really feel your emotions. I will take a person with less blocking or "polish" but more emotional realness over "the perfect forensics piece" any day. Showing me the thought process of your character on your face while you are speaking and hitting those emotional highs and lows will always be important to me, as that shows me that you aren't just reading a script, you are trying to be a real person. "Forensics robots" make me sad, to be honest, so I really want to see those moments that look like they were taken out of our everyday lives, not just characterizations that feel two-dimensional or "cartoon-y."

In high school I competed in Duo, Multiple, and Poetry twice. In middle school I mainly competed in Duo, but also did Poetry, Sales, Storytelling, and Dramatic Interpretation. My favorite category is (and probably always will be) Poetry. During my senior year of high school, I even earned the MSCI State Championship Title in Poetry Slam, winning with a poem about my love/hate relationship with Slam Poetry. I loved putting together cohesive poetry programs for competition and now help others to do so as a coach for Mason County Central High School in Scottville, MI. Previously, I was a coach at The Roeper School in Birmingham, MI. As a college student, I now am studying Secondary Education at the University of Michigan-Dearborn. I am majoring in English and am pursuing a teachable Speech minor to continue my work with the Michigan Speech community. I am an active member of both MSCI and MIFA, and have worked with the DCFL as well.

In Debate, I look for how well you argue and support your points. I am also looking for a solid framework that is not only logical but is also clearly presented to both your competitors and judge. Having the "right cards" is not as important to me as your argument, but I am not one to shy away from asking to see your cards during the round. Please be kind to your competitors and do not take yourself too seriously. If you are a Spreader, I will dock you points. Arguments are meant to be heard and understood, not read as quickly as possible to stop that from happening.

I competed in Lincoln-Douglas debate for two years in high school through the DCFL. I went undefeated my senior season, becoming the number one seed in our league and made it to the NCFL National Tournament that year. I have had experience coaching and judging both LD and PF debate since then through MIFA and the DCFL.

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.