First and foremost, I believe that debate is a speaking event, and that the debaters need to speak clearly to be understood. Speakers need to present their ideas and back up the ideas with solid evidence and reasoning. The goal of debate is to persuade the judge that your interpretation or perspective of the resolution is the best of the two options.

If the debater cannot be clearly understood, in other words he or she is practicing speed talking and the opponent is not able to keep up, then it is not a fair debate as the opponent is not able to respond to the speaker's arguments. A debate must have a back-and-forth on key ideas and should not be one-sided. Debate is about the quality of the arguments, not the quantity of arguments or evidence.

With that said, I also believe that all arguments need to be supported with sound evidence. Evidence needs to support the arguments, and those arguments need to support the overall thesis or position. In other words, the cases need to be organized and flow smoothly from one idea to the next, but all arguments need to be relevant to the debater's position. After the first prepared speech, there should be clash as the debaters go after their opponent's arguments.

I determine the winning side based on which side has provided the best support of his/her arguments and also explained why the opponent's arguments are not as sound.

Hi! I am a former speechie who is getting my degree in History & Political Science at Bradley University. I have been judging since 2019, and I am an assistant coach at Glenwood High School.

When judging events that are primarily acting, I believe that strong characterization, fluid blocking, and emotional impact are essential. In partner events, I prefer a partnership that is balanced and has natural chemistry. Extra factors I consider are the believability of the actors performances, creativity, and memorization.

When judging events that are primarily public address, I believe energy, fluency, and eye contact are essential. I also consider the effectiveness of movement, gestures, and emotional appeal. In events that are limited prep, I weigh content and speaking ability equally.

When judging debate, I expect a civil, structured debate that is well-researched. I don't mind spreading, but your words should be clear and understandable. In partner events, I prefer a partnership that is balanced and contributes equally. I give heavy consideration of framework and value/value criterion, but I won't accept framework that is unfair or abusive. Evidence and scholarly opinion is essential.

In any event, I will never allow discriminatory behavior or hate speech.

However, overall, I am pretty relaxed judge. I don't bite and am more than happy to be accommodating.

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.