Sheard,+Robert

Durham, North Carolina (formerly at Pinecrest HS, Southern Pines, NC)
 * Robert Sheard**
 * Director of Speech and Debate at Durham Academy**

I'm not entirely sure why I'm adding myself here because I'm primarily a Public Forum and Extemp judge, and there really should be no need for paradigm statements in those events. But on the rare chance that I'm judging you in LD, you might be able to glean something about my judging beliefs from this.

Public Forum is not LD or Policy. Any attempt made by students to turn it into a different event will meet with harsh resistance from me. If you forget the ideal of an open "public" forum, with citizen judges (and you make a mistake by assuming such a judge is unqualified simply because he or she doesn't coach debate), you're missing the point of this event.

PF isn't supposed to be fast; it isn't supposed to be jargon-laden; and it isn't all about "the flow." Sure, you have to make good arguments (claim, warrant, impact), but we're not officiating basketball here. There's no objective scoreboard and you don't win points because an opponent "drops" one of your contentions if it was a stupid contention in the first place.

And don't freak out when your judge doesn't take copious notes. It's only a 35-minute round. Intelligent people can remember your major points in such a short format without having to write them down. You may actually be better off with judges who listen attentively rather than trying to transcribe every word you say. I, for example, do take notes, but don't do a traditional flow.

I vote off the totality of your arguments in the round. It's your responsibility, however, to define the weighing mechanism I should use for the round. If you don't, you're rolling the dice regarding what I see as most significant. If you define it for me in the round, I'll use your weighing mechanism. I try very hard not to argue your case for you (or your opponents'). In other words, I'm judging based on your arguments, not the ones I think you should make. Judge intervention's always an issue in PF and I try very hard to resist it.

Be clear, be logical, be respectful. Don't shout each other down in crossfire; that's pointless and unprofessional. Don't talk to your partner during your opponents' speeches. It's rude and that's what your prep time is for.

Yes, speaking ability matters. It's not everything, but it's part of persuasion, whether you like to admit it or not. (That's why I think LD and Policy have been lost to the dark side. There's nothing inclusive or public about the way national-circuit LD and Policy are practiced.) Anyone of average intelligence should be able to appreciate a PF round. If such a viewer can't understand what's going on, the debaters are at fault, not the audience member.


 * This is vital**: you better bring every source you use in a round, not just citations or the cards you've cut. If I think you're playing fast and loose with evidence, I'll ask to see the original source before I sign my ballot. If you're unwilling or unable to produce it, I may not count it. Anyone falsifying evidence or taking material out of context to change its meaning will be dropped automatically. This is currently PF's biggest plague and the only way to stop it is to bring every piece of evidence you use and be prepared to show it to opponents and judges.