Melton,+Jim

By trade, I'm a policy analyst for a federal agency. As a hobby, I am a volunteer coach at Nathan Hale High School, and have been judging since 2006. I debated for 4 years in HS (1986-1990) in South-Central Missouri, where the debate style was stock issues and geared towards persuasion (speed was frowned upon back then), and during college (USMA, 1990-1994), I debated for 4 years in CEDA (back then, it was value-only debate but, from what I understand, it has now changed to a plan focus).

Nathan Hale High School only competes in Public Forum Debate, so I am usually only placed in that pool. In case I get assigned elsewhere, the following lists my specific preferences (by event):
 * Philosophy**

With respect to **Public Forum Debate**, I do keep a flow; however, I don't believe that the intent of Public Forum debate is to focus solely on the flow. Instead, I look for teams to clarify the most important arguments, and discuss how those arguments either prove/disprove the resolution. Put another way, if a speaker (convincingly) tells me that one issue trumps all other arguments, I won't vote against them because they "dropped" the second subpoint on your third contention. Instead, I think good debaters will take the "dropped" argument and show how that idea is the most important. Overall, quality of arguments (as well as quality of evidence and consistency of logic), in my mind, are more important than quantity. Also, becasue Public Forum Debate is intended to be argued in front of any citizen, speak in a manner and at a rate that can be understood by any citizen.

With respect to **Cross-Examination Debate**, I tend to be a mixture between a policy-maker and a stock issues judge. Once the Affirmative establishes a prima facie case (identify a problem that the status quo can't solve or doesn't solve well enough, develop a plan), then I look to whether the plan is a net benefit or a net detriment to society. My preference would be that Negatives clash with the case or offer a counterplan, and then I get to evaluate accordingly. In my mind, jurisdictional issues (which have varied in title and type over the years) are either all or nothing. That is, if Negative teams think that a case is truly non-topical, then I don't expect to hear a discussion on the disadvantages of the plan, because if you truly believe that the Affirmative's interpretation of a word is abusive, then consistency of argumentation should dictate that we discuss nothing else. I tend to follow a similar model for theory and critical arguments -- that is, if the resolution or what the opposing team is doing is broke in such a way that leads to abuse or genocide, we ought not discuss anything else.

With respect to **Lincoln-Douglas Debate**, I tend to be a hypothesis-tester -- that is, the resolution is a statement to be proven/disproven, and the examples you cite either prove or disprove the resolution. Value and Criterion do make it easier for me to compare the importance of the examples; however, I'm not particularly wedded to that. Moreover, I'm not necessarily convinced that Negatives need a case (I was particularly impressed at one tournament when a Negative debater spent all of her time just attacking the Affirmative's case).


 * Speed** is fine, but the issue is typically clarity. If you can't enunciate all of the words that you are reading, then either do some drills to improve your enunciation or speak at a rate in which you can enunciate. If you're unclear, I'll say, "clear", but only twice. After that, I'll stop flowing, and it is up to you to adjust. If both teams don't adjust, I'm more than happy to flip a coin and award zero speaker points to all participants.


 * Evidence** is important, but I also think it is important to question the logic of the argument in the source. That is, just because someone writes it, doesn't mean that it is true (let's face it, we live in a world where everyone can be a publisher, and some things that are published just don't pass the smell test).


 * Manners, ethics, and courtesy** are important to me, and I factor that into your speaker points--so don't swear and don't call your opponents names (act as if I was a potential employer, and you wanted a job).

Finally, I'll disclose based on the guidance issued by the tournament director. If I do disclose, I do so with the understanding that a debate with the debaters will not ensue.

If you have any specific questions, please feel free to ask. Best of luck.