I believe that public forum was designed to have a "john or sally doe" off the street come in and be a judge.  That means that speaking clearly is absolutely essential.  If I cannot understand you, I cannot weigh what you say.  I also believe that clarity is important.  Finally, I am a firm believer in decorum, that is, showing respect to your opponent.  In this age of political polarization and uncompromising politics, I believe listening to your opponent and showing a willingness to give credence to your opponents arguments is one of the best lessons of public forum debate.

For some quick background on myself, I am a former debater and am currently in my last year of college. One of the things I like to see in a round is consistency and development. You should use your initial arguments as a steppingstone for the debate. Throughout the round, you should continue to grow your arguments and weigh your impacts against your opponents. Impacts are critical in a well-crafted argument and should be used to win a debate. One of the things I like to see in a round is a clash of arguments and proper use of crossfires. Use your crossfires to gain insight on your opponent's cases and further your position throughout the debate. I will judge on frameworks if given one. Be sure to argue for or against a framework throughout the round. Frameworks, contentions, and impacts should be carried throughout the round and not be forgotten after initially stated.

At the end of the day debate is about having fun and improving your public speaking skills. Make sure to show passion about what you are arguing, have a positive attitude, and make the most of each round. 

Hi! I did public forum in high school, and I'm currently a junior at Columbia University. In a debate, I look for logic, comprehensibility, and overall cohesiveness of your arguments. What that means is that I want your argument to make sense, flow enough to be easily followed, and that your arguments come together to paint some larger picture, either implied or overtly. (Please don't use logical fallacies :) ) I also think impact calculus is one of the most important focuses in a debate--this is how you build that bigger picture! If you have a framework, bring it up in your first constructive, right before you get into the body of your argument. Frameworks are important--if you set one as the basis of judgement for the debate, I will (within reason) adhere to it to judge your debate.

In terms of public forum specifics, I find it more useful to use your rebuttal speech to attack everything your opponent has said (or bring in new syntheses between a point you've made and an opponent's point) instead of restating your argument. For a summary speech, make sure to bring up all the arguments that haven't been dropped, otherwise I will assume you have dropped them. Don't feel like you have to stick to all of the points within your speech--in the real world, one seldom emerges from a debate having won on all fronts. If you find that you cannot win a single facet of your argument, it is totally fine to drop it (and defend it--mitigate the damage!) and focus on the strengths of your arguments.

In the end, I am looking to vote for the stronger argument (and impact, if you can quantify it)! So if you ignore everything I just said yet still have a stellar argument, you'll probably win.

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 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.

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

Hi,

I did Public Forum debate for all 4 years in high school so I usually know what's going on during a round (though I've graduated college since, so it's been a while).

I like to judge primarily on content and flow of arguments, but if speaking and organization gets in the way of me clearly understanding what is being talked about, that will definitely have an effect on how I judge you (I can't judge on what I can't hear or what I don't understand). I do my best to be unbiased, and if you hear your opponent say something that is clearly a fallacy or illogical, it is your responsibility to point that out to me (unless its absolutely ridiculous, I can only suspend my disbelief so much).

Please also keep in mind that some terms related to the debate topic might be unknown to me, and with this being a *public forum* debate, it is your responsibility to provide that clarity. Otherwise I'll be struggling understanding what you're arguing rather than recognizing how strong your argument actually is.

Extra points if I'm on the edge of my seat by the end of the debate. I love drama.

(but don't be mean to each other I hate that)

Hey, my name is Jake, not "Judge".

Addressing me as "Judge" just makes me feel not human and not present in the conversation we're having.

Since the Fall of 2019, I have judged and coached predominantly public forum and congressional debate for Dexter High School. I graduated from MSU with a degree in international relations. I am currently pursuing a Masters in Integrative Management and am a graduate admissions counselor for Michigan State.

I competed in policy debate with MSU from Fall 2015-Spring 2017. I attended Canyon Springs High School in North Las Vegas, Nevada. I’ve done all the forms of debate throughout middle and high school (PF for two middle school years, LD for one year, Congress for a few tournaments, and Policy my sophomore through senior year).

I want to give back to the activity that gave me so much.

I have paradigms written in the order:

1. Public Forum

2. Congress

3. Policy

4. Lincoln Douglas

Public Forum

Please remember that Debate is much more about developing skills than winning a singular debate. I conceptualize Public Forum as an event which can be watched by anyone. You are encouraged to speak clearly rather than "spread". You should strive to learn all the short-hand, technology, and research skills of any other debate. Don't imitate the speaking quirks of other debates.

I'm very much a "flow" judge. I don't care about the things I know about the topic outside of the round, I hope to be completely tabula rasa. If a team says the sky is orange, and it goes uncontested, I will vote assuming the sky is orange. If your response to "The sky is orange." is "That just doesn't make sense, because it's not." I do not want to be the one who does the work for you to assume that because it is not orange it is blue.

I strongly believe that teams should time themselves and call out their opponent when it is "time". If you say you want to use 30 seconds of prep, I will not tell you when those 30 seconds are up, unless you explicitly ask me to be your timer. I will just keep running your time.

You have 3:00 minutes of prep. Use it well. Do not steal prep before speeches. You should be ready when you say you're done. You should immediately go into cross-ex or the next speech. Setting your timer or document up to read is part of prep. Please get better at being more efficient.

Constructives:

I believe the first speaker holds the responsibility of providing definitions and the necessary context for understanding the topic. I do think definitions and context can be framed strategically in favor of the side in which the team is arguing; therefore, I would entertain counter definitions (and warrants to use one definition over another). Also, see the paragraph below about Framework.

I believe that if you are the second speaker, it is strategic for you to have a plethora of contentions that you can draw from to form a case that has built-in answers or "turns" for your opponent's case. For example, you know that you can only fit three contentions into your case to be within time. Yet, you have 5 or 6 possible contentions that you can put together to make a cohesive case. Reading one of your contentions that you know gives you a leg up on your opponents by either turning their argument or refuting their argument is strategic. It will also limit the ability of the first speaker to spread you out after their first rebuttal because the second rebuttal has to not only answer the first rebuttal but provide answers to the opponent's case.

I like it when teams use a lot of evidence, but if you have evidence that is using percentages, decimals, and whole numbers, please just do the conversion so they are all the same. I generally don't like data laundry lists, unless you specifically tell me why each point of data matters.

Summary:

Your summary should invest a lot of your speech time in impact comparison. Go through magnitude, timeline, reversibility (whether there is a brink point), etc. You need to be contextualizing your link scenario. You can not jump from an overview to saying that causes nuclear war without telling me who is fighting and why.

I catch maybe 50% of the authors/citations from the constructives. You can not just say "Extend Krueger" as an answer or extension. I probably don't know what evidence you're referring to. I would prefer if you say, "Extend Krueger which says...". At that point, I will usually catch the citation and call for the evidence if I really need to. I rarely call for evidence.

Final Focus:

Your final focus should start with a Reason for Decision. Tell me at the start the reasons I should vote for you and what my ballot does (does it fiat, actually save lives, decide on a decision about the rules of debate, or is it just a logical decision for which side I think is best.). The best teams can rehash the debate and close all the doors line-by-line.

Cross-Examination:

You should not be asking your opponent to reiterate anything. You should be asking leading questions like, "You said [paraphrase], correct?", "Your first contention was X, correct?". Asking "What was your first contention?" or "Can you explain your link scenario?" just gives your opponents more speech time and often leads to filibustering. If you ask these questions, you're lucky if you get good speaker points. I like teams who filibuster if their opponents don't know how to cross-examine them. I would like cross-ex to end at 3:00 minutes, not 3:30 because you're allowing the other team to ramble.

I don't typically flow cross-examination, but if you're asked a question like, "What is Iran's motivation to attack Israel?" and your response is, "Their feud goes way back." That doesn't give me much confidence that you actually understand your argument. This means your extension of that argument in the speech is just a reiteration with no contextualization, and that's not a good argument.

Framework:

In most of the PF debates I've seen, framework is not argued properly, and it has become an unnecessary 10 seconds of everyone's speech time. If a framework is not mentioned, I assume I should vote for the team attempting to do the greatest good for all people (general utilitarianism). If you want to provide a framework that tells me to vote for the good of America, the poor, the few, etc. tell me, and my ballot will assume that framework unless argued against. If you do not want to contest your opponent's framework, you don't have to. If the framework goes uncontested after the first constructive on either side, I don't need you to extend it through to your summary and final focus.

I think you can tell me whether my ballot has any actual meaning in the world. Does my ballot have a real world impact as soon as I vote? I would also entertain a framework that tells me to vote for the team that provides the best education/practice of skills because my ballot does not impact real policy.

Evidence Sharing:

Public Forum evidence sharing rules are dumb and unclear.

Any evidence read/cited in the round must be made available to the opponent upon request. Teams ought to be able to find and electronically share their evidence very, very rapidly. If the time spent finding a piece of evidence is beyond 90 seconds, I will begin taking prep away from the team asked to provide the evidence. The lack of prep time CANNOT be a reason to deny a team the chance to see their opponent’s evidence.
If a team simply cannot produce their evidence or is out of prep time to find it, it will be dismissed.
Time spent reading the opponent’s evidence must be timed in some way, either as prep time or while another speech/crossfire is underway.

Kritiks:

PF has not evolved to include Kritiks, from what I've seen. I don't think it should evolve in that direction. Four minutes doesn't really allow you enough time to make a good case for a Kritik like argument, and I think Public Forum should really be about developing real-world skills.

Word Choice:

I started to say “y’all” instead of gendered pronouns, but I don’t think what you say outside of your speech or cross-ex should be a reason to lose the debate; unless the team is clearly sexist/racist/etc.

Conduct:

If you enter the room while someone else is talking, I will hold a vendetta against you forever. I’m okay with everyone acting casual and having a good time. I always enjoyed the debates I had against my friends and with judges that I knew. Don’t be afraid to roll up your sleeves, loosen up, and wear whatever. I'll be happy if we are all comfortable and relaxed.

Congressional Debate

My ballots are typically short and include whether you've made an appeal to ethos, logos, or pathos. I try to judge congressional debate as interactive original oratory. Therefore, you should be hold yourself in the role of a senator and making the most appropriate appeal. I judge based on persuasive your speech was in relation to the other debaters, but also how well you held to the appeal you thought was most important on the topic. Make sure you're reading the entirety of the legislation, and speaking to the legislation as written and not the top line idea. Please cite your evidence or at least introduce your author.

Politics is a cut-throat world. I find it humorous that most of the congress rounds I've watched have devolved into this utopian atmosphere where you find a way to make sure everyone can give a speech. I do not like to reward students for being cordial in a competitive event. The presiding officer has the responsibility to give everyone fair and equal opportunities to speak. The other competitors can strategically use the rules of order to be more competitive. If you are consistently overriding the rules to allow multiple Pro speeches in a row, you are not doing anyone favors.

You should be preparing speeches for multiple legislation per round. If you missed your opportunity to speak on the one legislation you had prepared, that sounds like your fault. I also think there are plenty of pieces of legislation that are debatable on both sides, so if you can't play the devil's advocate on lop-sided legislation, you are not "playing the game".

Each speech should have clash. Rebuttal (with a direct reference to the senator who made the argument) is an example of clash. Adding nuance to another senator's point that was on your side is clash. If you are rehashing the same points, you are not clashing, and will not be rewarded for doing so. As the author of a bill, or first speaker on the bill, I evaluate your positive clash by seeing whether you have introduced all the major talking points on your side. I think you can introduce the talking points briefly, and allow other legislators to add evidence.

I think it is very difficult to judge the presiding officer. So long as the presiding officer is staying organized, and doesn't make mistakes, they typically do well. I think presiding officers hold the responsibility of encouraging good debate. They do not have to entertain every motion to postpone the rules and allow the last person to speak if the previous speeches on the topic have only been rehash. Given that presiding officers typically do well, I think it should be a competitive appointment. Unanimous decisions for who should be PO typically mean the kids know who the best in the round is.

For all points of order, I try to use Robert's Rules of Order. I'm no expert, but you should be: http://www.rulesonline.com/index.html

Policy Debate

Speed: You do you. I’m pretty good at following arguments if you’re clear and do work signposting. I have experience debating in front of flow and lay judges so I understand any experience level. Some speeds are impossible to follow unless you have a speech doc; don’t go that fast. I don’t think I ever want to get in the habit of flowing on my computer so you will most likely see me flowing on paper.

Theory: I’d vote on theory if it was dropped. Everyone has to lose on condo at least once in their life. If you’re going to make theory the only thing left in the debate, it needs to take up all of your time and you need to do a good job explaining why they’re abusive. Condo is really only abusive if there is more than 1 of each argument, but I can see either side. I’d still vote on condo (in some cases) if the neg met that interpretation but dropped condo.

T: I really only like watching T if the aff is clearly untopical, or if it’s a Kritikal affirmative. I evaluate the analysis of abuse the same as if it were theory. I don’t mind you putting T in the 1NC if you think it would be a viable 2NR option. I went for “T quid-pro-quo” on the Latin America topic quite a bit, but I knew it was really silly. I can also justify T if it is purely for laughs.

CP/DA: 99% of the time these were my go-to arguments in high school. Go for anything here! Extra bonus if you have aff specific arguments. I don't have too much experience going for politics as the Neg. I always went for PC isn't real as the aff and winners win. It's hard for me to vote on an unquantifiable influence token. I am willing to evaluate the evidence and determine my opinion of politics in the round.

K: Don’t read things that you haven’t done background research on. I read the security k and cap/neolib k throughout high school because I read a ton of books about them. I wrote a 25 page research paper on reevaluating American capitalism during my senior year of high school. I have background with any queer theory/gender/sexuality arguments you might have. Other than that, I’m not very familiar with most arguments, but if you do a good job explaining it, I’ll vote on it. Anything is fair game if it isn’t absolutely absurd. Coming from a background with little experience against the kritik, I can sympathize with the teams that freak out when a Kritik is read against them, but I won’t vote for them if they don’t answer the argument. If you can teach me new things, I’ll be happy.

K Affs: I really don’t understand the purpose of Kritikal affirmatives that don’t have a plan text. Most of the time I just hear implications of what voting aff means without getting a concrete answer. You should have a reason to vote aff, and I’m not sure what the reason is without a plan. I’ll vote for you if you do a good job explaining it. I have a litany of ways I’d scrutinize performative arguments that come from my background in interp. Go for what you do best.

Performance arguments: Most of my high school success came from Humorous Interpretation, where I qualified to the NIETOC twice. While I don’t think this will affect how you debate, it should make you think about how you read any performative arguments in front of me. I have been a 2A, 2N, and double 2s. I had a different partner every year in high school. I was mostly self-taught in policy, and my coach advised me to do a lot of silly things. I was part of the only policy team our school had. Therefore, I understand if you aren’t familiar with certain arguments or have limited backfiles, because I was in the same boat. I always preferred judge philosophies that were broke up into categories after the intro; therefore:

Offense vs. Defense: I feel like there are scenarios where the neg can win if they only have defensive arguments at the end of the debate, but don’t make that your priority. In that instance, I would evaluate that scenario as the world is better without the aff. Yet, I’d vote aff in that scenario if they proved benefits outweighed the cost.

Flashing/Prep/CX: Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves the computer/email is sent unless there is a clear computer malfunction. Otherwise, it’s just inefficiency on your part. Don’t steal prep time. I am alright with tag team cross-ex, but don’t take all of your partner’s time. Cross-ex is a good opportunity to elaborate on arguments that have been/will be made.

Word Choice: I started to say “y’all” instead of gendered pronouns, but I don’t think what you say outside of the 8/5 speech or cross-ex should be a reason to lose the debate; unless the team is clearly sexist/racist/etc. I’m okay with some cussing, but don’t make it like you’re talking to your best friend. If the other team reads an argument against you for cussing, I’ll laugh and vote for it if it is good.

Conduct: If you enter the room while someone else is talking, I will hold a vendetta against you forever. I’m okay with everyone acting casual and having a good time. I always enjoyed the debates I had against my friends and with judges that I knew, because it was fairly laid back. Don’t be afraid to roll up your sleeves, loosen up, and wear whatever. If you can make me feel comfortable, I’ll be happy.

Bonus points: I like people that express Spartan pride. Make good jokes and puns while speaking. Dance at any appropriate time during the debate. Make a reference to someone you know from Las Vegas. My dad is a magician. If you can do a relevant magic trick, I’d be amazed.

Lincoln Douglas:

I am predominantly a public forum judge and a former policy debater. I'm still learning the nuances of Lincoln Douglas, but hopefully, I can provide you with a clear paradigm. Most importantly, I want you to debate in whatever manner you feel comfortable debating. I can adapt.

I'm very much a "flow" judge. I don't care about the things I know about the topic outside of the round, I hope to be completely tabula rasa. If a team says the sky is orange, and it goes uncontested, I will vote assuming the sky is orange. If your response to "The sky is orange." is "That just doesn't make sense, because it's not." I do not want to be the one who does the work for you to assume that because it is not orange it is blue.

I strongly believe that teams should time themselves and call out their opponent when it is "time". If you say you want to use 30 seconds of prep, I will not tell you when those 30 seconds are up, unless you explicitly ask me to be your timer. I will just keep running your time.

In Lincoln Douglas, I think it is important for each side to present a value and value criterion. If one side has the two, but the other side does not, I will assume I should follow the uncontested value and value criterion.

I am familiar with most philosophies from either my policy experience or the classes I took in college. I'm not a huge fan of advertisements of nihilism, but could be persuaded to understand that some life events are inevitable or needed.

Am updating this for NSDA Districts March 2024; hopefully by mentioning that fact it will force me to keep this updated fairly regularly J

Background/ experience, overall/this year: I have extensive experience as a former competitor, coach, and judge over a time period of like 4 decades or so :) I am comfortable judging in all formats, Policy. L-D, Public Forum, etc. Have judged hundreds of rounds over those years, frequencies vary year by year, but a decent amount these past several years so I am not “rusty.” (More on that in a second here). Judged and coached mostly at the high school but also a bit in college; much more in Policy and L-D than P-F but not unfamiliar with that format. The full gamut from state champions, national champions , TOC qualifiers all the way down to “junior high pre-novice,” the full gamut.

This year I have judged a very few LD and PF rounds, can count on one hand, but have not judged any Policy rounds. I have kept myself up with the topic, though, so I’m not completely uninformed; still, consider that especially with respect to the next section.

One thing which I would argue follows necessarily from the above, but which I ought to make explicit—given the above, I will not participate in, and do not believe it to be acceptable, the “flash-drive-sharing WITH THE JUDGE” of speeches/evidence during the round. It’s okay with the other team; I will ask for ev. after the round if I need to clarify any specific question that I have about it, but, I will not engage in that practice. FYI fwiw and the entire “Online” thing over the past several years has made things very challenging; now that we're largely out of that, the "regular rules" of in-person, all-in-the-same-room debating should apply.

For the rest of this, maybe this very brief one-paragraph “intro” will be all you need to know. In a conversation with a very-experienced (college) debate coach and judge, former debater and all that, he said something that I ought to start out with, and maybe by saying this I can spare the rest of all of this, or you can spare the reading of it. He said, “Most judges are ‘normal scientists’.” I guess that most are, many debaters (but maybe not as many debaters as judges!!!) are as well, and I guess that I am too, “writ large” admittedly. Still, I have spent a lot of time with those who arenot, there are plenty of them out there even if that’s only a result of the “law of large numbers,” I believe that sometimes they bring up points which need to be addressed, and, for those who would like to know exactly where I stand on those issues and how and where I draw the borders of “normal science,” well, you can read the rest of this. Or just stop here, or read it selectively, any way is fine with me. People always tell me when I start writing like this, though, “You should write a book,” and some of these topics do need book-length treatment, so maybe I should do that, and maybe this is a start.

Here goes

Judging style, ”in round” preferences/”rules.” In any debate, I hold that debaters have to “get the arguments for that round into that round.” Falling generally under the broad category of tabula rasa, that means I will listen to “anything” BUT that “anything” has to recognizably be presented as an argument in that particular round. Note that I mentioned above that I haven’t judged any Policy rounds this season. At this late point in the season, there are likely tons of things that “everyone”/most everyone might take for granted. I will still hold that that needs to be brought, formally, into that particular ground. To use examples from this year's Policy resolution, but they can be cross-applied to all forms of debate: "Projected dates of Social Security 'insolvency'?" Get that evidence into this round!!!! "Poverty level, regional variations thereof?" Get that evidence into this round!!!!! —intothis round!!!!! I would say the same thing if I’d judged 65 rounds on this year’s topic, the fact that I haven’t only underscores what I just said above. People who look at my flows after rounds sometimes see them as almost stenographic records of the rounds; I am glad that people can look at them and say that. Still, at the beginning of each and every round, those flows are blank sheets of paper, everything that gets written on to them is/was brought up in that round. If you want me to vote on it, get it into the round!!!!

“Paradigm” properly understood and more fully discussed, and some other important terms and concepts: I am comfortable with most paradigms properly understood. I ought to emphasize the “properly understood” there, and will do so in a second, but, most debates fall naturally into, and can be fully debated and judged within, one or even several of the major paradigms. Debating exactly which one, a/k/a a “Theory Debate,” is generally unwise, as most debates (most “legitimate” debates!!!) tend to fall naturally into a given paradigm, a “best fit” of sorts, so to try to argue these is generally unwise (caveat above was/is the word “legitimate” and more on that in a bit); generally, there’s a way that the arguments have been put forth that “makes enough sense that it ought to be followed through with.” [ …-> Define the word “gene” in genetics or medicine—“it depends but it fits where and how you’re using it”]

While theory debates seem to have gotten their starts in Policy, it seems like they're creeping into other forms of debate. I am not a fan of that, as they haven't gone well in Policy, but, to weigh in on one of what I guess are several or even many that may be circulating in LD (or BQ, possibly), and just one of what may be many, I would basically concur with a notion that an LD resolution (all resolutions, I would say) is "propositional." There are many discussions about that, as I see online if not in actual rounds; note that that does not necessarily impose the ridiculous burdens which many have taken that to mean, but, basically, if push comes to shove, I will agree with that notion.

Terms/concepts: The above does need to be unpacked in certain important places, and doing so fully would require a book-length exposition. (Gee, really??!!! In debate theory??!!!!) Taking one term above, and another “concept,” and addressing those two here, and the other “elephant in the room” in a separate section below: Term--“Legitimate” (or “legitimate debate/ legitimate argument”)—here I would mean the old-fashioned “blue socks” type of argument, and while I am guessing that those are out of fashion (yay!!!!!) I will still mention that here, if only to give you a sense of what I mean by “legitimate”—that is, “germane” or “non-non sequiturs.” Into this I would also add the old (hopefully old!!!!) tactic (if it even rises to that!!!) of a 1NC (or even 1AC!) reading like an Aesop’s Fable then unpacking it into (pseudo) Voting Issues in their later speeches. Absent said unpacking being a necessary interpretation, I would not consider that to be “legitimate.” So, those are extreme, but, well, just to get these out there. (I would be in very high spirits if many current debaters or even judges or even coaches had no idea what I was talking about there!!!!)

Back to “Paradigms,” Part Two: I will say something similar—albeit not that far out!!!—about “paradigms,” properly understood. A “paradigm” is something that can be used as a backdrop for a round to be judged/decided, I guess that s fairly well known but doesn’t hurt to make that explicit. (“You know, ’paradigm’ was a pretty good word in the English language until I got hold of it!!!!”—Thomas Kuhn). As such—as such—some things that are sometimes considered “paradigms” are actually not. “Tabula Rasa,” still listed on some JQPs as a “paradigm,” is not—it just “indicates what will get onto a judge’s flow” figuratively or literally speaking. Similarly, I’ve seen still listed on a JQP “recently” “Games Playing”—may do a good job of describing the activity as a whole, but, there is no way to use that to pick a winner or loser and/or make a decision whatever way one wants to say that!!! (Fairly easy to figure out why, if you think about it). So, again, circling back to where I started “way back when” :) --just debate a round in a/the paradigm into which it seems to be falling, the odds of a round becoming a truly apples and oranges issue is virtually nil as one side will almost certainly say something (even if they didn’t mean to!!!) that could subsume their arguments into the other side’s paradigm.

Now on to the elephant in the room. You could see this coming as some of the above cannot be fully unpacked without it (…some of the above, anyway!!!!!...)

Critical arguments/ Kritiks/critiques etc. Of course, could not not get to these !!!!!

Likely—or at least hopefully—one could see some points that I’d raised in the above sections as already starting to address some of this. Hopefully, if one understands these arguments, which anecdotally I have observed is …is …is --not all that common in the debate community

Truly this requires a book-length exposition, and this isn’t the right place for that. So, just a few “Generalities” here, “generalities” which would stand up to further scrutiny but which can’t be fully covered here:

--At their best, critiques/Ks/ critical arguments can be said to be “debate at its best, the true summit of this activity.” At their worst, they call into serious question whether this activity ought to be allowed to continue. The difference is that great; the facts of the matter have it where most of the time it’s the latter that occurs, not the former. Part of this is (probably) because…

--“Your idea is so far off that it is not even wrong!!!” Here that proverbial appellation is often apt. Every indication is that most debaters don’t understand these arguments, certainly these arguments properly understood. Many debaters (seem to) think that they do, but (again anecdotally, albeit a significant anecdotal amount thereof) from: the way(s) that these arguments are run in rounds; the places they are put into rounds and the ways that they get extended; after-round confabs that involve “Comments and RFD” discussions with debaters and coaches; plus “debate-tournament-situated” but non-directly round-related conversations with coaches, judges, and debaters –I get the very real—and very disconcerting—sense that most people in the debate community do not really have the most basic understanding of these types of arguments, properly understood. Not good, especially as this all has been perpetuated for a very long time…

--..a silver lining in this very dark cloud is that precisely because (most) debaters do not know (seem to not know) what they are talking about when it comes to critiques/Ks/ critical arguments, they “fail” (miserably!) in what they are attempting to do, fail so miserably that they sometimes (oftentimes!) collapse into other types of ("normal science") debate arguments, and, thus, can become issues in the round/voters in those ways, not in the ways that they were initially intended, but, still, “dysfunctionally” [in its literal meaning!] debatable in a given round. A "felix culpa" of sorts. Almost certainly not as effective as if the team had run other arguments instead of their pseudo-Ks!!!! Still, in a given round, they might (might!) “work,” inelegantly that that might be. So, my advice (and more on this in a second!!!) is, “Don’t run them, but if you do, just try to apply them to the arguments that’re in the round as it progresses and ‘monkey at a typewriter who knows some basic spelling and grammar rules of said-typewriter’s language’ you might crank out a meaningful argument or three.” (Again, more in a second here)

Affirmatives? Well, given the above, maybe this will make sense!!! “Critical cases?” “Sure!!!! As long as they’re topical!!!!!” (!!!????) “As long as what you’re saying can map on to the resolution in an affirmative sense,” I’m okay!!!!! [As part of what I was getting at earlier w.r.t. “understanding,” one of the ways to tell if someone understands something (as opposed to just “regurgitating” it) is “if they know it when they see it.” What I just said above is a perfect—THE perfect!!!- example of something in debate theory, it’d be a great test to use to see if people know what they’re talking about or just “parroting.”]

Given what I said above, I’ll say the following, and that serves as a good segue into my next (and final!!!!) major point here. Given what seems to be the case about critiques/Ks/critical arguments in the debate community, I believe that pedagogically “we”/the debate community ought to say/do two things with regard to them, with regard to the way it/”we” engage the students/competitors regarding them. (Well, okay, “Three” things, but the first one is “a priori” and that is “stop voting for them whenever possible and, most certainly, whether win or lose don’t give them 28.5 speaker points in those rounds!!!!”) One, I would say that if the debate community is going to continue to use these types of arguments and teach them to new and future debaters, it is requisite on the debate community to mention that “these ideas in the forms we are presenting them to you are ‘not correct,’ this is not really what So-and-So was really saying, the ways that these arguments get used in debate rounds are inappropriate 98 times out of 100, so before we go any further we need to add that in.” Tell the debaters that “what we are telling you sounds really cool and erudite and esoteric but it is not correct!!!! “ I believe that is requisite, and is probably (probably!!!) most important of all, but also I would add this one as well. Two, “Fun as they are, big-headed as you might get by sounding like you know something about these ideas, in almost all cases there are better arguments to run in given rounds, that most cases have non-critical arguments that are better than these (pseudo-) critical ones.” SO, even if these, by happy accident, somehow get “shoehorned” in, even if you can fit square pegs into round holes, you are better off trying other approaches, “Good Old Fashioned Debate Arguments “ (“GOFDA “???) This then seems like a good place to segue into that. Now I'll get to my last and final major point (“and there was much rejoicing!!!”)...

“Good Old Fashioned Debate Arguments” (“GOFDA”?) Hey, after all this, a long-overdue return to the point I made WAY above, namely, “normal science.” You know, there’s nothing wrong with actually discussing issues that pertain in some meaningful way to US arms sales abroad; to how those arms sales affect issues of war and peace / conflict and avoidance / population welfare or detriment; how we can engage in thought experiments and forecasts about how various proposals would/could/reasonably might affect those aforementioned matters; and “work” that it involves discussing all of the above using expert evidence and rational analysis. Wow, what a concept!!!!! Pardon the tone here and Yes most debaters are or can be “normal scientists” and maybe that gets boring, maybe you’d like to try other approaches just for kicks or maybe it’s just too much work, BUT, well, that’s what this activity does or can do “well” and there’s nothing wrong with that!!!! When done well, there is SO MUCH benefit to that that it’s hard to describe, explain. Don’t know if I even want to get started but various research that has indicated (old research!!! Not as sure this would hold true today!!!) that the knowledge and understanding of a topic that one gains from debating a HS policy debate topic for a season is roughly equivalent to writing a Master’s thesis on that topic (!!!!!!); that one can nerd out and watch a C-Span program with various past and present Undersecretaries of State or Defense or Ambassadors or Fellows at think tanks and sometimes see and hear that same level of analysis in a high school debate round (!!!!!)—what is wrong with that???!!???!!!!! So, if you are preparing arguments, I would say for any tournament but certainly for a season-ending one, but also certainly for me—“GOFDA”

Yes, each one of the above really needs book-length treatment, and maybe sometime I will give them that. For now, though, I believe I will just sign out

###