P.F. Paradigm

While I believe every good argument is backed by solid evidence, as a judge I'd prefer a well-thought-out, logical argument backed by strong examples and evidence over a case that is just straight cards. Below you'll find four important points about my judging (point d will not effect how I vote in the round).

a)I am more likely to vote for a team that spent time genuinely educating themselves on the topic in preparation for the tournament.

b)The team that communicates their knowledge of the topic the best will probably win over a team that is pretending to be experts on the topic.

c)A crafty argument is not the main thing I'm looking for, but it is icing on the cake.

d) Asking for evidence and completely stalling the round, while the other team is fumbling around for their evidence, is my pet peeve.

I coach debate as an extracurricular, but I teach AP Lit during the day. Your ability to clearly communicate your argument is as important as the argument itself. Speed is fine, but spreading is ineffective.

Great logic is just as important as great evidence. Avoid card dumping.

If a convincing framework is not provided, I default to cost-benefit analysis. If you have a framework, be sure to explain why it's important.

Extend your arguments, please.

I will the flow the round. Please signpost.

If you must do an off-time road map to calm your nerves before you begin your actual speech, I get it. But it's really not necessary unless you're doing something atypical.

You guys have put a lot of work into preparing for this tournament, and you're now here on a Saturday working hard and putting yourselves out there. Regardless of how the round goes, you have earned my respect.

Background: I debated PF at Auburn High School. I have a BS in Economics from Auburn University and am working on my MS in Economics at Portland State University. This is my fifth year judging. I'm a flow judge. I judge the round based almost purely off of what is left on the flow after final focus. This means that I value clear voters and good line by line very highly.

Crossfire: I do not flow crossfire. Any points made in crossfire must be brought up in a speech for me to weigh it in the round. If debaters are rude during crossfire it will be reflected in their speaker points.

Evidence: If debaters cannot produce evidence in less than a minute, I assume that they do not have the card. I will ask for cards after the round if I am not clear on the intentions of the author or believe that the card was miscut.

Coaching Experience

University of Alabama: Graduate Assistant (Individual Events) 2003

The Altamont School: Director of Forensics 2004-2008

Colorado College: Director of Forensics 2008-2011

University of Alabama: Alabama Debate Society Director 2016-present

Background

I competed as an individual events student in high school and college. As a professor of argumentation and rhetoric, I believe that individual events help students master delivery skills and debate helps students master argumentation and analytical advocacy. Thus, delivery skills will not factor into my decision. Even speaker points will be awarded based on clarity of argumentation, strategic decision making within the round, and the ability to contextualize evidence within the framework of the debate. I've been coaching debate for about 15 years on both the college and high school circuits. The best debate for me is heavy on the analysis. I want to hear how evidence interacts with the arguments you are making, and how it fits contextually. I can flow quickly, and will interject (once) with "clear" if I can't understand you. Even though I flow it, I am much more apt to decide on arguments that are explained to me, so don't fly through the analysis in an attempt to cover as much as possible.

Preferences

1. Evidence: Evidence must be accessible without delay during and after the round. If I call for evidence, I expect you to show me what you showed your opponents in round, with the card in context and the original source available. I will intervene if I determine the evidence is miscut, misreferenced, or misleading in the context of the round. This intervention typically means I disregard the evidence in my decision-making. It can have an effect on speaker points as well.

2. Overviews: There is a growing trend in Public Forum to run terminal defense and overarching turns as overviews in rebuttals. In most cases, this seems like lazy debating to me. I would much rather you put this on the flow where you want it to be, in response to your opponents specifics arguments. For me, this represents a depth of analysis that comes from listening to your opponent and making good strategic decisions as opposed to hoping their arguments fit your favorite blocks. It would be unwise to leverage these "mini-contentions" or large offensive overviews, particularly in second rebuttal, as voting issues in front of me. On the flip side, I will happily vote on well positioned turns that specifically address arguments on case.

3. Consistency: The summary and final focus are what makes Public Forum a uniquely educational debate form. Having to pick the most important arguments and address them in two minutes means highlighting the critical thinking necessary in advanced argumentation. Thus, I appreciate consistency in strategy from summary to final focus. Doing less extension and more weighing in final focus is always okay, but I do not want to vote on things in final focus that were not in summary.

4. Crossfire: I love to see debaters use crossfire strategically. No one wins debates in cross, and the best thing you can do is try to understand where your opponents are weak and strong. Being smart and civil will help your speaks.

5. Voting: In terms of defense, I'm sympathetic to the first speaking team, particularly if no indication is given in the second rebuttal as to what the second speaking team is going for in summary. Don't extend through ink, and don't extend cards if your opponents "drop" it but still answer the argument your are using it to make. In my favorite debates, teams weigh well and tell me how to evaluate offense and terminal defense in the context of the round. If I am left without this analysis, I will vote on the most offense within a net benefits paradigm. I enjoy impact analysis that evaluates magnitude, probability, and timeframe. Of these, probability is the most important. If left to my own devices, I will vote to save 20 people for sure over 20 million from an improbable (ie. with lots of defense) nuclear scenario.

6. Alternative Advocacies: Kritiks are valuable additions to debate education. If you want to run a K in PF, I am happy to listen to and evaluate it, but you must have strong links to the resolution, the activity, or your opponents' actions. While I will vote on a priori theory, I prefer you engage your opponents case within their framework if you wish them to engage in yours. In my experience, judges (myself included) tend to intervene for the sake of fairness in framework debates. But for me, unexpected argumentation is not unfair or abusive. It makes debate a worthwhile educational tool.

*I'm always happy to talk over my flow and RFD with debaters after I've turned in my ballot.*

-I am a lay judge; so don't speak too fast.

-Define all terms.

-Be polite.

-Carry all evidence through all speeches.

I am a former Public Forum debater from Vestavia Hills High School in Birmingham, AL, where I competed for four years. My biggest requirement for a round is that all debaters are civil and that you use your time to not only address your opponents but also to appropriately incorporate your judge into the round (e.g. make good eye contact, tell me why I should vote for you, etc).

Be mindful of your time limits for each part of the round - time yourselves but not your opponents. If you ask to see someone else's evidence, then you can do that using your prep time following a speech or crossfire. Crossfires are also a time to ask and answer questions, not just make statements or present new evidence. Make sure that you're also asking appropriate questions, not loaded questions or any that begin with "Do you agree...".

When you speak, I'm fine with speed but not spreading, so please make sure to watch just how fast you speak. I also expect for all debaters to provide internal links for their contentions and subsequent evidence; I shouldn't have to consider how to connect your arguments and evidence, it should be provided to me. And make sure that you're using your speech time appropriately; for example, a summary speech should not be a second rebuttal but should actually summarize the main points of the round.

I debated for 3 years at Auburn High School in Public Forum. I graduated in 2018.

I am a flow judge. No spreading. Teams may frontline in summary and rebuttal. If something is not in your summary, it will not be weighed in final focus.

I do not weigh any arguments made in crossfire, but speaker points can be deducted if a team is unprofessional.

I weigh impacts under a cost/benefit analysis unless another framework is given and I am convinced to weigh under said framework. Your voters must be quantifiable and directly weighed against your opponent's in final focus in order for me to vote fairly.

The main things I focus on for speaker points are:

Thorough understanding of evidence and arguments (no card dumping)

Clear, calm presence in speeches and crossfire

Organization and signposting down the flow

I flow rounds. Alerting me to clear contentions and off time road maps assists me in completing my flows. I am absolutely not capable of flowing if you SPREAD, in fact, if you choose to SPREAD, I will stop flowing and listen. I prefer to hear you present your arguments verses reading your prepared material. The documents will provide me the name of your source when I review before making a final decision. I favor up to date resources as changes happen daily, when presenting your argument I focus on the year of the evidence to include in my flow. Cross fires should be civil. I generally look to typical speech characteristics when determining speaker points, such as speaking with clarity and articulation. I also consider the general characteristics of giving a speech such as how you present yourself through your demeanor both individually and as a team, as well as with your opponents.

I debated varsity PF for Auburn for two years. I’m currently a senior at Auburn University studying Industrial Design.

I prefer clear, cogent, and coherent argument. If a point is valid, give logical and empirical argument to support it. Don’t spread.

I value the framework and the flow, so if you bring up a point in crossfire (which I don’t flow) bring it up again in a speech. Be nice.

My experience in debate is primarily based in coaching. I have coached with both Middle School and High School teams in public forum. For me every part of a round is important, although I weigh the rebuttal, summary, and final focus speeches above the constructive. I particularly look for the ability to create strong clash between the strengths of your case and the weaknesses of your opponent's case throughout the round. I do not flow crossfires; however, I will note how well you defend your case or attack your opponent in crossfire.

I am a former PF debater and a current debate coach for a team that does mostly PF.

1. I do not mind fast speakers, but don't lose precision because you're trying to talk fast and impress me. I'd rather hear several hard hitting phrases from a slow talker than rambling from someone who is spreading.

2. I vote on what carries through the flow from beginning to end, so try not to drop arguments and pick them back up in the last speeches.

3. Crossfires are my favorite part of a round because they require a special nuances. I also believe a lot of ground can be covered in grand crossfire when it is done correctly. There's a fine line between assertive and rude, so please stay on the assertive side. Also, please be sure to maintain alternation of questions.

4. Finally, I believe final focuses are meant for the big picture. Don't worry about restating evidence, and don't bring up new evidence unless it was asked for in the grand crossfire. Tell me why you won and say it like you mean it!

I am okay with any speed.

Speak your contention very clearly at the beginning of your points, I prefer off time roadmaps.

Time yourself and tell me loudly when you are starting.

Keep your own prep time, inform me that you are taking prep and tell me how much time was taken after.

Know all the speech times so we can avoid confusions and get through the round fast.

If a coin flip is required, the debaters will flip and decide and inform me after which side they are on and speaking order.

No preference on desk arrangement or how CX is done.

I am the debate coach at Paul W. Bryant High School. I have been coaching and judging Public Forum for 4 years.

Don't go too fast. While I am pretty good at note-taking, I cannot judge you on things if I miss them while you are speaking.

I don't care for off-time roadmaps and usually disregard them.

Decorum is very important in debate. Do not be rude to your opponents or your judge. Do not argue with the judge's decision after the round has concluded. I want to give you feedback and it is usually best received with an open mind and not while you are defensive.

Don't reveal your personal political affiliation. While I do my best to stay objective, it can put you at a disadvantage with some judges if they disagree with your political stance.

Lay judge, so don't speak too fast.

Be polite.

Explain all terms.