Baron,+Rob


 * Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, and In-State IE Coach ****, **Eagan High School (MN), 2004 - 2012


 * Assistant Professor of Communication ****, ** Austin Peay State University (TN), 2012 - Present

My only real paradigm for Congressional Debate is that I see it as a debate event and a speaking event second. I //do not// want to hear a series of well-polished mini-oratories about each piece of legislation. I //do// want hear a substantive and serious discussion of the issues at hand. Congressional debaters that can leverage evidence in their speeches, engage with their fellow competitors’ arguments, and speak extemporaneously will earn the highest points on my score sheet.
 * Congressional Debate Paradigm **

PRESIDING OFFICERS: I always consider including presiding officers in my final rankings. That being said, doing a poor job of acting as a presiding officer will harm your scores and your place in the final rankings. I’m fairly familiar with Robert’s Rules of Order. Making obvious parliamentary mistakes or abusing the power of the presiding officer’s position will harm any PO’s scores.

I've judged Public Forum Debate for the last 12 years. This means that I've seen Public Forum grow in to being the activity that it is today. Every season I judge dozens of rounds at both the local and national levels. I am equally comfortable in both realms. A few fundamental beliefs guide the way I judge a Public Forum Debate round: 1) Public Forum is its own activity, and shouldn't be treated as either Policy or LD Lite. 2) Public Forum should be as rigorous a format of debate as it older siblings. 3) Public Forum should be accessible. This means that everyone from circuit debate judges to your grandmother should be able to make sense of your round. Despite what a lot of people seem to think, these are not mutually exclusive. I think a good Public Forum round should engage in a substantive, rigorous and critical discussion of the resolution at hand while, at the same time, be watchable. I think the goal of a Public Forum round is the debate the resolution at hand. That doesn't mean that you can't be creative in how you approach the resolution, just make sure you keep the resolution in mind. I'm not big on game playing, but outside of that, I'm willing to listen to any argument in a round.
 * Public Forum Debate Paradigm **

I think card calling and “evidence sniping” are cheap ways to try to win a round. That being said, it is up to you whether or not you ask to see your opponents evidence in round. If you stop the general progress of the debate round to do so I'm going to count it against your prep time. Also don't ask me to look at evidence at the end of the round, if you didn't present your concerns to me during the debate I'm not going to consider it after the fact. Similarly, don't expect me do your work in the round for you. If you make an argument you have to extend, impact, and weigh that the argument for me to care about it in the round.

If you want to go really, really fast then I think you're in the wrong activity. That being said, I'm not opposed to a reasonable level of speed in a PF round. The key for me is clarity. If you're going too fast and I can't understand what you’re saying, then I'm not going to flow your arguments. If I'm not flowing your arguments then you're in trouble in the round.

I’m less experienced with LD, but I still feel comfortable judging the event. Many of the things outlined in my PFD paradigm still apply here. I’m willing to listen to faster rate of speaking compared to PFD, provided that it’s clear. I vote exclusively based on the issues, criteria, and weighing mechanisms put forth in each round (I have no preconceived notions about what wins a debate). Debaters should be prepared to weigh the round and give me specific reasons to vote for their side.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt; line-height: 1.5;">Lincoln Douglas Debate Paradigm **

<span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">If I'm judging a Policy Debate round something has gone horribly, horribly wrong.
 * <span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif; font-size: 8.5pt;">Policy Debate Paradigm **