Klyman,+Kevin

//Kevin Klyman's Public Forum Paradigm//:


 * __TLDR__**: I am a flow judge with an open mind.

__**How I Make My Decision**__: When evaluating each argument I use the following criteria: (a) the argument is explained well enough for me to understand it; (b) both the warrant and the impact are in the summary and the final focus*; (c) it is weighed; (d) it is cleanly extended; and (e) it is responded to. The easiest path to my ballot is to tell me how to evaluate the round with the five criteria for each argument in mind. Go beyond numbering voting issues, explain to me how your arguments prove the resolution true or false. Go beyond restating your arguments, really engage in your opponents responses by reading new evidence, explaining how the responses aren't responsive, or outweighing their turns. The only thing more persuasive than four pointing an argument is to see someone respond to all four responses. Go beyond using weighing buzz words such as magnitude/probability/timeframe/reversibility, really tell me why the resolution is still true or false even if your opponents win all of their arguments.

I default to an offense-defense paradigm to evaluate rounds. This has a few implications for how I make my decision. First, I love turns, especially if they are not just blips in the rebuttal. I will happily just vote on your opponents' case if you turn each of their arguments and extend those turns. Second, if you only extend defensive arguments and your opponent extends one offensive argument I will vote for them even if they do not point that out. Third, I understand what terminal defense is but if you want me to disregard an argument because you made a terminally defensive response you should tell me explicitly that it is in fact terminal and warrant that claim.

Above all, I try not to intervene. I do as little work for you as possible, I flow very well, and I put a lot of thought into my decision. I judge because I like doing it and I think Public Forum needs more flow judges that want to be there.


 * I try to only evaluate arguments that were made in both the summary and the final focus. There are several exceptions to this rule. First, both teams may extend defensive responses from the rebuttal to the final focus, however, I highly prefer them to be in the summary and I am likely to feel that they are new if they come from the second speaking team. Second, the first final focus can make some new responses to new arguments made in the second summary but be reasonable about it.

I try and fail to come into each round as a blank slate, meaning that I try to disregard my biases. If you want to argue that Hillary Clinton's election will lead to nuclear war be my guest.
 * __Argumentation__**:

I am in favor of unconventional argumentation. As a debater I frequently made arguments about nuclear war and extinction. I am happy to vote for big (albeit unrealistic) impacts as long as there is a solid link chain. I will vote for any type of argument, including critiques, performances, plans, theory, etc. However, my experience with evaluating these kinds of arguments is limited, so they must be articulated and weighed clearly.

I am probably comfortable with most speeds that will be reached in a Public Forum round, but if you are going too fast I will try to let you know. However, if you go slower I am on balance more likely to vote for you. Jargon is good as it usually helps me understand what you are saying. If it stops being helpful my expression will let you know.

I am not in favor of violent argumentation. I will not vote for racist, sexist, homophobic, or other oppressive arguments, and I might intervene against teams making them. Examples include "women like it rough," "there are no racist laws since the Civil Rights Act," "illegal immigrants do not deserve constitutional protections" and the like. A surefire way to ensure that I vote against a team making an oppressive argument is to say: "As a judge you have an ethical obligation to vote against arguments like these because they exact violence on people that you are supposed to protect in this space." Usually I'll try to do that work on my own, but a reminder never hurts.

During the round evidence should be exchanged quickly and often. Evidence will be exchanged off of prep time, but the team reading the evidence will need to take prep to do so unless they read it during a speech or crossfire. If a team does not have a piece of evidence available I will disregard it. I will call for evidence after the round in four scenarios.
 * __Evidence__**:

First, if during the round a debater tells me to look at specific evidence I will ask to see it. If the evidence is misrepresented I will reevaluate the argument that the evidence relates to as though it had never been read, which likely means that I will no longer be comfortable voting on that argument.

Second, if you cite a piece of evidence that I have read and it is blatantly misrepresented I'll want to see it to see who has the correct interpretation. For example, if a debater reports the wrong date for an event for which I know the correct date, provided that the date matters for the argument and the argument is made a voting issue, I'll need to see the source. In this case, do not be tempted to falsify the date on the evidence, I will google it to make sure that what you gives me matches the actual evidence.

Third, I'll call for a piece of evidence if it's obviously false. For instance, I might want to read evidence that states that during the round global nuclear war broke out and everyone outside of the room is dead.

Fourth, if there is a "tie" I will ask for evidence from both teams. (This occurs when neither team weighs any of their arguments, extends clean offense, or has an obviously bigger impact.) If either team has misrepresented evidence pertaining to their key arguments I will vote against them. If each team has a similar quality of evidence I will intervene in the best way I can.

Although this is thorough it does not mean that I often call for evidence; on the contrary, I set strict guidelines so that I do not call for evidence when it is unreasonable to do so, reducing the probability that I intervene.

__**Speaker Points**__: I will reward debaters for clarity, kindness, humor, tech skill, strategy, teamwork, persuasion, topic knowledge, and genius. Here is my scale: 30 - You were amazing, I will remember your performance six months after the round, you should teach students how to debate forever. 29 - You were great, I was impressed by your performance, but not overwhelmed. 28 - You were good, but there is room for improvement. 27- You were below average. 26 - You were not so good. 25 and below - You said something offensive.

Tautology: defined by Wikipedia as "repeating the same concept or assertion using different phrasing or terminology...while obscuring the lack of evidence or valid reasoning supporting the stated conclusion."
 * __Pet__ __Peeves__**:

Don't give ambiguous impacts. It is very difficult for me to evaluate impacts like "more war" or "a one standard deviation decrease in corruption" because I don't know what they look like in the real world. Instead tell me which war will be caused or what law will be passed or prevented as a result of the corruption. On the other hand, I love impacts that are contextualized, meaning that a lot of time is invested in explaining how they manifest in the world.

Do not make ambiguous extensions. Extend the last name of the evidence that you are using to make your argument (that is how I flow the evidence). An argument is barely in the summary on my flow if you just talk about the ideas behind the contention without extending specific warrants, evidence, and impacts.

Just ask if everyone is ready, don't do the "opponents, judge, and, of course, my beautiful partner Graham."

Don't call me judge, or my judge. Calling me "you" is fine.

Weird analogies will make me think less of you.

I competed in Public Forum for Evanston Township High School, mainly on the national circuit. Here's proof: [] (I'm the second speaker on the second speaking team). I graduated in 2015, and have coached at debate camps since then.
 * __My Background__**:

If you have questions feel free to ask me anything before the round. If you have an issue with my decision feel free to talk to me.