I have been coaching and judging debate for over 25 years. In the 2024-25 debate season, I have mostly judged PF because most of my students want to compete in PF, but my first love is LD. l do not judge policy.

I believe that debate is a speaking event, and that the debaters need to speak clearly to be understood. With that said, I do not believe in speed talking during a debate. If your opponent, or the judge, cannot clearly understand you or take good notes because of your rate of speaking, then it is not a fair debate.

During the debate, I flow the main ideas/arguments, the sources, the reasoning behind those arguments, and the impact of each argument. I like to see clash, so I expect that each argument presented by one side is addressed by the opponent, but also rebuilt. I base my final decision on the flow. As stated above, if the presenter is talking at a high rate of delivery, I may not get the notes on my flow that the debater wants me to use to judge the round.

I am more concerned with the development of arguments. I prefer that the debater provide a roadmap and signposting during the debate to make it easier to flow. I am less concerned about using technical language, as long as contentions are well supported and explained through reasoning.

When making my final decision in debate, I pay attention to which arguments are still standing at the end of the debate. Which side presented solid arguments, had credible sources, and was able to demonstrate the impact of those arguments. I do not base my decision on the number of arguments, but rather the quality of the arguments. Any argument that the opponent drops will be considered, as long as it is a high quality argument.

The arguments that I find most persuasive are the ones that can be supported with credible evidence and the debaters can explain to me how supporting the argument has a greater positive impact than not supporting it. Whether it is in PF or LD, I like to know how supporting the case applies to real life. In LD, that should still be based on a philosophical ideal, and supported with solid reasoning.

During the debate rounds, I do expect students to stand when presenting their cases and rebuttals. In PF, when only the two debaters are doing crossfire, I like to see them stand, but during the Grand Crossfire, I am okay with them sitting. I do not like to see teams sharing their written cases. If teams are sharing their written cases, there is no need to debate. At the end of the debate, competitors should respectfully shake hands with their opponents.

I did speech at Lansing KS 2013-2017... no debate. I consider myself to be a lay judge. I can't keep up with spreading.

I'm a secondary English teacher in the Iowa City Community School District. I have two undergraduate degrees in English/Creative Writing and Secondary English Education from the University of Iowa.

I'm interested in politics/social justice outside of NSDA so I understand issues to a degree. But, the art of the argument itself often confuses me. I try my best to stay on top of it as I flow.

Please feel free to ask me any questions about what I'm familiar with - I won't be offended! I'm here to help you make the best argument and have a good round.

Remember to be respectful to one another! I value civility above all else. :-)

Joe Rankin

Bettendorf High School

jrankin@bettendorf.k12.ia.us

UPDATED: October 4th, 2022

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

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

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

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

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