This paradigm is continually evolving, so I update it frequently before tournaments. Last update was October 16, 2019.

This sheet has two sections: a short biography and my policy debate paradigm. If you have questions about any of the following, please ask.

Bio:

I have been involved with debate in various capacities since 1983.

My background is primarily in 2 person policy debate (NFL/NDT/CEDA), with 4 years coaching students competing in NFA-LD (policy). I have judged approximately 1 LD value debate, and 2 NPDA debates, all of which happened over 15 years ago.

I competed for Detroit Catholic Central (Redford, Michigan) and Butler University (Indianapolis, Indiana). I coached at Indiana University (NDT/NFA-LD) and Westminster College (NFA-LD).

My most recent experience with debate at the college level was judging for Miami University, mostly when Steve Mancuso coached there (2004-6).

From 2016-18 I was a frequent judge of Public Forum debate on the High School circuit in Michigan.

Besides debating and coaching, between 1992 and 2017 I taught Argumentation and Debate courses at Indiana University, Westminster College, and Wayne State University.

Policy Paradigm:

Left to my own devices, I tend to be a loose policy maker interested in evaluating the risk of doing/supporting the resolution against the risk of not. Any net advantage is enough to vote AFF. But that's just my default setting.

My firm position is that the paradigm I use to evaluate the round is up for debate, and I give a lot of leeway as to what it might end up being. If you want to argue for a paradigm, my preference is that you do it clearly and do it well.

If a paradigm isn't debated, I assume that means the debaters are in agreement about what's happening in the round. In that case, I try to fit with what I see as the paradigm that the debaters adopt. So, in a LD-Policy round where the debaters obviously are working with a fairly standard Stock Issues paradigm, I go with the flow. If both teams want to perform, then go ahead and perform -- I'll sit back and enjoy the show.

Please note that, despite my personal belief that I'm open to performance debates, I usually get struck by performance teams. As a result, I haven't seen a lot, but I have voted for and against performance AFFs and NEGs. I actually like a lot of what the performance turn in debate has done for the activity, although it's not the world that I competed in myself.

I've been known to vote for some pretty weird stuff (I ran some weird stuff, too -- at least what counted as weird in the late 1980s). Exotic is not a problem. Incomprehensible, not so good. I generally gag on completely internally inconsistent and contradictory positions, unless that's somehow what the agreed upon paradigm requires or allows.

There are NO inherently wrong arguments, and debate is where counter-intuitive arguments should be tried and tested. What matters to me is not whether an argument is wrong or right, but if it is made well (or not).

I can handle speed, but keep in mind that it's been a decade since I've sat in the back of the room. If I get lost, the problem isn't the speed -- it's my unfamiliarity with a position, or an acronym, or a buzzword. I'm open to being educated -- but it helps if you clarify a term the first time you use it.

As for the K, I'm fairly well versed in critical theory, having taught it at the MA and PhD level for 15 years. I'll leave it up to you to decide what that means. The chances are that I've read more Foucault, Butler, Derrida, Zizek, Burke, etc., than college debaters have.

Whether T is a voter is up for debate. I will assume that it is a voter if no one contests this.

A dropped argument is conceded, but the quality of the dropped argument is what matters most in the decision calculus. If someone on the AFF literally says "the DA is not unique," but then moves on to the next point and doesn't provide any rationale, evidence, or anything else to support that claim, then there's not a lot there if the NEG drops that "argument." Yes, it was conceded, but it was a blank assertion with no apparent meaning -- so conceding it was meaningless. And it didn't open the door for the next AFF speaker to suddenly provide the rationale or evidence and argue that since uniqueness was conceded that the NEG had no right to new arguments on the position. The addition of rationale makes it a new argument to which the NEG can respond (or can ignore if it's made in the rebuttals -- see the following paragraph).

Unless you can make a persuasive argument otherwise, I will ignore new arguments and drop them from the flow. To me, a new argument is a claim made in a later speech that is not connected to a position argued in a constructive. After the constructives are over, a connection must be made at the first opportunity to address the position. The connection is key: a line of argumentation can, and should, evolve and grow over the course of the debate. "No new arguments in rebuttals" does not mean "you have to repeat yourself in the later speeches." As long as the link is clear and does not seem abusive I will allow it to stand in a rebuttal.

Last point. If most or all of the above makes no sense to you, don't worry about it. It probably made a lot more sense 20 years ago when I developed "my paradigm." At least, I hope it did. Do what you do, and do it well. My job is to evaluate the round, not dictate it. Ask questions before the round and I'll do my best to answer.

Public Forum Paradigm:

Dexter will be the first tournament of this type that I have judged this format, but I do know a bit about the activity.

I expect the debaters to set the pace of the round at a level with which all are reasonably comfortable. If one team is speaking way too fast for the other, then that team should slow down.

I abide by the dictate that the debaters need to address a "lay judge," but the definition of this term is, in my opinion, relative. I (and the other judges present, if applicable) are your audience. You need to adapt to us. I'm not going to try to think like someone else -- whether that's someone who has less or more expertise than I. I will do my best to keep my own preferences from playing a role -- and after being involved in debate for most of the last 35 years, I'm pretty good at this. But I don't personally believe complete objectivity is possible or desirable. I have a perspective. Without that I would not be able to engage you, the ideas, the evidence, or anything else. But I can be convinced by arguments that fall outside of my perspective. If I wasn't open to that, I wouldn't be involved with debate.

Debate is a game. We generally work within certain assumptions about good and bad ideas, but these can be challenged by credible and persuasive arguments. The amount of work you need to do to make a persuasive argument varies depending on how much it goes against common assumptions about something. For example: most would say that causing an increase in nuclear proliferation is a bad idea. But you could challenge this idea with evidence -- and, in this case, there's a lot of credible research and analysis you can cite that makes this case -- and I could be persuaded by that evidence that proliferation is actually good. But since it seems that, on balance, proliferation causes an increased risk of nuclear war, you'd have to have some pretty strong support to challenge this idea. In other words, "counter-intuitive" arguments DO have a place in debate; indeed, testing such radical ideas may be one of the most important things academic debate can do.

I suppose you can advocate a paradigm if you want to, but I really don't expect you to.

I will flow the round, and do expect that the debaters will, in some fashion, do this as well. It's up to you, but if you fail to answer an argument because you didn't make a note of it, that's your problem.

As I see it, this is what argument theorists call "value debate." It asks whether a course of action is a good idea, not whether it should be adopted. That's why the resolution could argue for maintenance of the status quo (which would not be "adopting" a policy, but sticking to the present course). This brings its own "paradigmatic" assumptions, including the idea that whichever team defends the status quo will have presumption. A case needs to be made against doing what is already happening; if it "ain't broke, don't fix it." In most resolutions, the CON will be defending the status quo, as most resolutions call for a different course of action than what's happening now. But it could be the PRO who defends the S.Q. For better or worse, this is something inherent in public forum debate. (By "having presumption" I mean the team who, before the round begins, is winning -- as in "the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.")

But this cannot be the case when the resolution only engages values without connecting them to a policy (as in "competing values" resolutions - like "Resolved: That justice is more important than mercy.") In that case, I'll give the presumption to the CON. That's a fairly arbitrary decision, but I believe that someone has to have presumption or there's no basis for a debate. Since I can see no good way to determine who should have presumption in such a case (and if someone can provide a good rationale for doing it otherwise, I'll happily change), then I'm going with the "AFF started this, so they've got to justify that action by making a case" logic.

The other issue that arises from being value debate: arguments that can only be justified by advocating a plan aren't within the scope of the round. I'll ignore them.

Debating the meaning of a term in the resolution (aka "topicality") only seems relevant if the term could reasonably be interpreted in multiple ways and that how it is defined relates to the focus of the resolution. To me, the AFF "right to define" only means that the AFF gets to make the initial statement about how the terms should be interpreted without spending time justifying the use of that definition -- the NEG can challenge that definition in favor of another if they provide good reasoning and/or support. If the AFF definition(s) is/are challenged, the AFF can defend with their own support, or concede the NEG definition. Note: neither the AFF nor the NEG are required (or even expected to) define any of the terms if they so choose.

If you have questions, ask!

Hello Everyone! My name is Beth Fowler and I am an historian and Senior Lecturer at Wayne State University. I am looking for clear, concise contentions supported by solid and specific pieces of credible evidence that builds to a persuadable argument. I also want debaters to listen carefully to their opponents arguments, and to be able to address them clearly rather than simply reiterating their own points. Use the cross-examination to ask probing questions about opponents’ evidence and arguments, and the summation to clearly explain how the argument your team built is more persuasive than your opponents’ argument.

I have been in the debate world for 7 years as a head coach, a public forum debate and forensics speech student, a judge, and a state board member.

In a round I prefer road mapping (organized speech pattern), evidence, and follow-through. DO NOT road map outside of speaker time. You are in public forum, not policy, don't steal extra time. If you do a road map outside of the speaking time, I will take speaker points. Don't scream in the crossfire, be nice to each other. Please keep track of your own prep time- I will only give you an indication as to when you have used all of it. Framework is for policy, you shouldn't need it in pf unless it's paramount to your case (hot tip: it's not).

During crossfire be civil. Per NSDA rules, judges are not supposed to be voting based on crossfire, so I will only take comments in crossfire into consideration if it is brought up during a timed speech before the final focus. (Exception to this would be statements from grand crossfire.)

I hate writing down my RFD's so I will likely just do it verbally. I am a scientific and statistical judge- that being said you have to follow through with impacts to win. Laying down 5 warrants and pieces of evidence and not following through on why it should matter to the judge will NOT win you the debate, be sure to ALWAYS bring through your impacts and weigh them against your opponents.

FOR DEBATE: I generally look for the team that best carries their own contentions all the through the round while continually showing how they defeat their opponents contentions.

I also place an emphasis on competitive manners. Be polite to each other while competing.

Please don't tell me when to start my timer. That's my job as a judge, not your job as a competitor.

FOR FORENSICS: I listen closely for speakers and performers who vary their vocal tones. No matter which event you do, change it up throughout your performance or speech. That gives our brains a chance to reset, which allows them to stay interest in what you're saying. Make us interested in what you have to say.

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)

My name Is Robert Reilly

I look for a clear and substantiated case supported with evidence. I believe that most debates are won in the strength of your arguments and your detailed and specific rebuttal against your opponents arguments.

I don't like uneccesary quantifications. I also don't like unwarranted agressiveness or rude behavior in round. Debaters should win and lose with class. Thank you.

- Be respectful of our opponents.

- Please speak at a moderate pace. Do not speed read.

- Make your case and make it very clear to me.

- Pretend I know nothing about the topic and you must

EDUCATE ME ABOUT THE RESOLVE.

- Clearly state your sources including the publication, author and date.

- Think of Crossfire as volleying back and forward with questions from one

team to another. You may ask a follow-up or for a clarification of an answer.

DO NOT make a speech ending with a rhetorical devise like, "isn't that true? or

"do you agree?"

- DON'T LIE OR MAKE UP FALSE/FAKE EVIDENCE!

- During the Summation and Final Focus speeches clearly state why you believe

your team is winning.

1. Talk about how & why your impacts are greater.

2. Tell me the contentions, evidence and impacts that you

believe you have blocked in your opponents case.

- Pretend that you are presenting to a Town Hall meeting with an audience of

50 to 100 citizens and you're trying to persuade them to follow and adopt

your side PRO or CON of the Resolve as the policy that they (the majority)

will vote for.

- Smile a lot, have fun, after the round is over even if it was super intense;

thank you opponents for being an excellent team that pushed you to be better.

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.

I’ve been coaching for West Bloomfield High School and judging for 7 years. I do not like to intervene and put my personal opinions into the debate. It is up to the debaters to decide how the round will go and to back up their claims through sufficient evidence and reasoning.

DECORUM

Above all else, you are learning and growing as debaters. Any abusive or overly competing behavior does nothing for the educational activity that debate is intended to be.

I do not like when debaters cut each other off during CX. This is a time to understand your opponents case, how are you going to do that if you won’t let them finish their response to the question YOU asked? Keep it down to questions, this is not time to argue. I prefer you address your opponents'caseinstead of addressing them directly.

SPEED

When I'm judging, I don't get to ask you clarification questions in the round like your opponents do, so -- above all else -- prioritize being understood by ME and not just trying to read fast so you have more on the flow. Remember, for me to flow it, I have to be able to listen to and understand what you're going for; prioritize clarity over speed.

Do NOT spread (speed-read). Anything over 300 wpm (look up a video for reference) is "speeding". It's not like I can stop you from speed-reading, but I only flow the things I can listen to AND understand, not just the remnants of things you vaguely enunciated at 10000mph. I don't care if you've disclosed your entire speech verbatim; if you can't read that speech in a way that I can understand without me looking at your disclosed speech doc, you'll have a tough time with the flow.

SPEECHES

Please signpost your arguments! "Signposting" is stating what argument you're responding to before you start responding to it. It helps to organize and understand what you say for both your opponents and the judge.

Cross-examinations: I have always thought CXs were the most important part of any debate round, so listen closely. If you or your opponent say something in VERY stark contrast to your case, that goes on my ballot. Essentially, anything that raises a big red flag goes on the flow. This, however, does not happen often and can be arbitrary since there's no definitive scale for what's considered "in stark contrast" to a case. Thus, your best bet is to mention anything from CX that's of importance in a speech as soon as possible to ensure it gets on my flow.If you ask good questions & are polite here, I typically give high speaks.

STYLE

I'm a mix of Tech and Truth judging. Tech means judging exclusively on what's said in the round; Truth means judging based on how true your args are to the real world. I think any good judge should consider both -- it can prevent debaters from substantiating args that are exceedingly unrealistic but also holds debaters accountable for making realistic args (or at the very least, bringing them up at the appropriate time).

I fact-check any and all "Truths" before I use them in a decision. If it's highly controversial, out of date, or not concrete enough, I just don't use it in voting and default to whatever you told me in the round. In other words, unless you literally have me trembling in utter fear about being nuked to extinction/pandemic'd to oblivion/whatever, I'm probably going to factor in the more realistic impact.

THEORY & Kritiks

Preferably not in PF... Theory/Ks maybe, but it should be topical and relevant by the time you bring it up. I would vote for theories/kritiks if they're outstandingly clear, but I should be shaking in my boots at the mere thought of not voting for your theory/K.No tricks whatsoever-- they're super abusive and I'm not voting on that.

PET PEEVES

Please do not say "Judge, we've won this debate," because you don't know that.

When you are done with your speech, let me know by saying some variation of "we urge a (pro/con) ballot" or some indicator that you are done. Otherwise I might just think you are taking a long pause.

TLDR

Don’t be an abusive jerk and you’ll be fine.