Hess,+Scott

I judge primarily Public Forum Debate. I have an ongoing concern that the types of Debate remain distinguishable and true to their roots. Public Forum debate assumes that the style would immitate citizens discussing an issue of importance to the community in a public setting, perhaps a town hall meeting. Speakers would be articulate, formal, and respectful. They would speak at a rate that their audience could understand without straining. They would use no jargon. They might define terms, but they would not lay down any RA's or burdens or framework.

I am a former defense attorney. I want to see evidence that the resolution is true or false. Issues about the quality or timeliness of the evidence are relevant. I also want people to understand Public Forum Rules. For example, it's perfectly legal to continue to bring in new evidence throughout the round, just don't make new arguments when you're opponent has inadequate time to respond. Understand the purpose of cross-fire. It's a time for clash and sparks. It is not a good time to ask the opponent to clarify every contention. That simply opens the door for them to solidify their arguments.

Evidence includes, but is not limited to analysis, sound logic, empirical data, historical examples, parallel situations, and statements by authorities. I like to see "turns" on the evidence, although teams should avoid using the terminology. Debating should showcase a clever, well-prepared, and educated mind. I want to see a depth of evidence, meaning lots of preparation and "cards" to respond to many contingent arguments. All of these issues relate to my desire to see diverse and relevant evidence. That is what would win a debate in a "town hall" meeting, and that wins the debate in the rounds which I judge.