I am a parent judge with experience with high school debate. I competed in TFA CX for four years in high school, back when everything was on paper, competed at out of state tournaments, went to debate camps. Basically, assume that I'm familiar with the structure and rules of high school policy debate (and quite loved it) but that it isn't something I've done in a long time. I spread back then, and am fine with spreading as long as the speaker can be understood. From the rounds I've judged, it appears that it is common to spread incomprehensibly and rely upon the judge (and other side) reading the exchanged speech. (I don't love this approach.)

.I am an attorney, and have some knowledge of intellectual property issues, but will seek to judge the round as if I do not. My baseline is to judge policy using what I consider to be stock issues - I care about solvency, for example, not just adv/disadv.. I will keep a flow. I acknowledge the game-like nature of high level CX but will not decide a round on a dropped issue unless the opponent is able to identify the impact/significance of the drop. While two ships full of evidence passing in the night is a lovely sight, it doesn't do much to settle which ship is better. I get that CX debate relies upon pre-written arguments which are then applied to the immediate debate, but I would nevertheless encourage competitors to directly address their opponent's arguments and to use some of their rebuttals to specifically enunciate why I should vote for them. Point out the conflicts and why you should prevail. Cross-examination is a great opportunity to emphasize/set up the issues with the other side's argument. I expect competitors to be respectful and professional with their opponents.

I have judged a little LD, and really enjoyed the rounds. Many of the same comments made above apply to LD. It is important to me that the sides directly address each other's arguments (and be civil while doing so).

I've been debating public forum at Anderson for 3 years and have plenty of knowledge on the topic already.

PF:

Tech>truth

extend all offense you are going for in every speech

in summary you should be collapsing on one to two arguments

final should be cleaning up the round and make it easier for me to vote if it was a messy round

first cross should be used to either clarify or bring up potential defense (i wont be paying much attention to it anyway)

dont bring up any new arguments or evidence after rebuttal (defense is not sticky)

call the other team out on anything they miss/do wrong dont just let it disappear from my flow

please weigh as much as possible (should be brought up by summary at the latest)

road map before speeches and sign post while your talking please

will give you high speaks based on your organization in your speeches and partner cohesion unless you say something racist, homophobic, etc (if you do ill auto down you)

If you want to run something funny and you actually win it ill vote on it

ill give you auto 30s if you bring me chips/candy/soda

Assistant Debate Coach Dripping Springs High School

VBI Institute Assistan Director of PF (After the round, please feel free to ask about VBI! We would love to earn your attendance! I truly believe we offer an amazing and invaluable camp experience).

2a/1n UH debate 2016-19

email chain- ryanwaynelove@gmail.com

I do not watch the news.

Novices:

I have infinite patience with novices. So just do your best to learn, and have fun; welcome to debate!

Unrelated:

Hegel updates just dropped: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/29/manuscript-treasure-trove-may-offer-fresh-understanding-of-hegel

*UPDATED PF PARADIGM 2/3/25*- I have made some significant updates. This can be founder underneath my "general debate thoughts (pf/ld/policy/wsd)" section.

General debate thoughts (PF/LD/Policy/WSD)As cringe as it is to write, I view myself as a critic of argumentation. This means that any argument you make must be warranted. Absent a warrant your argument is not an argument and I will not flow it.

You do you. But please crystallize the debate. I am infinitely more comfortable voting on well explained, well warranted, argument(s) that were explained persuasively, that took up the vast majority of the time in the rebuttals/Final focus, than I am on voting on a blippy technically conceded argument that was 5 seconds of the final speech. This means I prefer deep debates over crucial issues of clash much more than debates where both sides are trying to spread the opponents thin. In debates where debaters take the latter approach rather than the former, I often times find myself seeking to determine the core "truthiness" of an argument. I often times have a different interpretation of "truth" than others. This means that in debates where little weighing is done for me you may not like how I intervene to make a decision. Similarly, if there is a conceded argument I much prefer you explain why that concession matters in the context of the greater debate being had, instead of just saying "this was conceded so vote for it." Most important to me is how you frame the round. If structural violence outweighs make it clear. If ontology is a pre-requisite to topical discussion make it clear, and so on. I do not want to adjudicate a round where both sides "pass each other like two ships in the night." Weigh your arguments, compare evidence, indict the ideas and arguments your opponents put forth.

Many times in conversations with debaters after the round I will be asked "Well what about this argument?" The debater will then go on to give an awesome, nuanced, explanation of that argument. I will then say "If it had been explained like that in rebuttal/final focus, I probably would have voted for it." If you expect me to vote on something, make it important in the last speech.

Tell me the story of your impact(s); whether it be nuclear war, limits/ground, education, or settler violence. Be sure to weigh it in comparison with the impact scenario(s) of your opponents. In short, do the work for me, do not make me intervene to reach a decision.

Please use cross-x effectively

Please act like you want to be here.

Please be efficient in setting up the email chain, sharing docs, et cetera.

Please know I am only human. I will work hard. But know I am not perfect.

Last but not least, have fun! Debate is a great place to express yourself and talk about really interesting and pertinent things; enjoy your time in debate because it is quite fleeting!

Public Forum:

TLDR: Tech through truth, and truth through tech. I keep a rigorous flow, I appreciate good analytics, and I hate theory in PF. I will not evaluate non-topical/reject the topic kritiks. I will evaluate kritiks that have a strong link to the topic/aff IFthey begin in 2nd constructive. Not earlier/later. I do not care if you sit or stand. If you want to call for a card go for it; BUT PLEASE do this efficiently. Do not try to spread, but going quick is fine. Last but not least.BE NICE.I have, and will continue to, drop teams for being unnecesarily rude, arrogant, or hostile. Passionate crossfire is fine.

Long version: I have judged a lot of rounds in Public Forum. There are a few things that you need to know to win my ballot:

The teams who have routinely gotten my ballot have done a great job collapsing the debate down to a few key points. After this, they have compared specific warrants, evidence, and analytics and explained why their arguments are better, why their opponents arguments are worse, and why their arguments being better means they win the debate. This may sound easy, however, it is not. Trust your instincts, debate fearlessly, take chances, and do not worry about whatever facial expression I have. I promise you do not have any idea where my thoughts are.

Crossfires: Use this time wisely. Use it to clarify, use it to create ethos, use it to get concessions, use it to make their arguments look bad and yours good. But use it. I think answers given in crossfire are binding in the debate. If you get a big concession use it in your speeches.

Framework(s): At this point it's either Util or Structural violence which is fine. If you are going to read a framing argument use it. If both sides are reading the same framework be comparative. I find link ins to framing to be persuasive when well explained. If both sides have a different framework tell me why to prefer yours, or link in, or both. Going for magnitude meta-weighing and structural violence is kind of strange absent good warranting. "Frameworks" that are really just tricks/truth-testing are annoying. I will have a VERY low threshold for your opponents to respond if I suss out you're being sketch with your framing arguments.

Speed: I think PF should be more accessible to the general public than policy. With that being said I have not seen a team go too fast yet.

Theory: Tread carefully all ye who enter here.Disclosure and round reports theory are going to be an auto L-25 unless your opponent is reading some way off the wall argument that is not germane to the topic. In general the more "progressive" the argument the more willing I am to evaluate theory. Any attempts to read theory as a cheap shot victory will mean you get dropped. Reading theory args to "keep PF public" are persuasive to me. So spreading theory is not the worst if your opponents are going too fast. All of that being said theory debate is the debate I LEAST want to see. If a team reads theory against you, you should make it an RVI. It doesn't make sense in an event that is so short speech time wise that a team can read theory and not go for it, but as the team getting theory read on you, you need to make that argument.

Non-traditional stuff/Kritiks: I enjoy creative takes on the topic, unique cases, and smart argumentation. I do think that PF should always revolve around the topic, I also think the topic is broader than most do. Kritiks with a strong link to the topic are really underutilized in my opinion in PF. That being said if this is your strat I only want to see it when the kritik begins in the 2nd negative constructive.

After some less than savory experiences judging performative kritiks/kritiks that do not have a link to the topic I have to say they are a no-go for me. This event is just not there yet for these rounds to have any pedagogical value. I will not vote for blatant reject the topic kritiks in this event.

Argument rankings:

Substance-1

Topical Kritiks-1 (with the caveate that this be introduce in the 2nd negative constructive).

Theory-4

Non-topical kritks-5

Tricks- -10000000000000000000

MOST IMPORTANTLY: I am a firm believer that my role as a judge is to be impartial and adjudicate fairly. I will flow what you say and weigh it in comparison with what your opponent says. Be polite, be friendly, don't waste anyone's time. Speaking honestly, these things are far more likely to influence my mood than whatever arguments you read.

Policy:I have not judged much on the patents topic, I do not know the lingo, I do not know what is considered "topical" by the community. Start slower and work up to full speed.

Slow down in rebuttals. If you are going blazing fast I will miss something and I will not do the work for you on the flow. If you are fast and clear you should be fine. I need a clear impact scenario in the 2nr/2ar.

Argument specific stuff:

Topicality-I am not aware of topical norms, so do not be afraid to go for topicality; especially against super vague plan texts.

Kritiks-I am most comfortable judging kritikal debate. As a debater I debated the kritik explicitly. I say this because I think y'all deserve to know that the finer techne of policy throw-downs are not my strong suit. If you read the Kritik I likely have at least some passing familiarity with your arguments. That does not mean I will hack for you. I expect you to explain any argument to me that you expect me to vote on in a clear and intelligible way. If I can not explain to a team why they lost, I will not vote for an argument.

K Aff v. Framework- I am about 50/50 regarding my voting record. Something, something, the duality of being ya know?

Disads- These are fun. The more internal links to get to the impact the more suss I think the arg is, the more likely I am to believe there is very low risk.

Counterplans-If your strat is to read 900 counterplans that do not really compete I am not the judge for you. Counterplans that have a legit net benefit on the other hand...those are nice. That being said, I have a soft spot for words PICS/PIKS.

Misc- Debate is a game. So if your A-strat is to go for that heg advantage, federalism and 50 states, or cap good, then go for it. You do you. Be polite, be friendly, don't waste anyone's time. Speaking honestly, these things are far more likely to influence my mood than whatever arguments you read.

Any other questions let me know!

LD:

This is the event I am least familiar with of all of the ones I have on this page. I would say look at my Policy paradigm and know that I am very comfortable with any policy-esque arguments. What the cool kids call LARP in LD I am told. For anything else judge instruction and weighing of args is going to be critical. As I have also stated in my policy paradigm I am more familiar with Kritikal args than policy ones, but I think for LD I am a good judge to have if you want to read a plan or something.

That being said I do appreciate debaters using their framing IE Value/standard/whatever to help me adjudicate the round. If you win framing you will probably win the debate when I am in the back of the room, as long as you have an impact as to why your framing matters.

Frivolous theory, RVI's, and tricks are going to be a hard sell for me. Legit theory abuse, topicality, or "T-you gotta defend the topic on the aff" are args I am more than willing to vote on.

Phil arguments are cool but do not assume I have any familiarity with your author. If I do not understand something I ain't voting on it.

San Antonio specifics

Unless both parties agree I do not want to see any spreading.

Do not be afraid to be a traditional debater in front of me. Just be sure you can debate against other styles.

Congress:

I was a finalist at the TOC in this event. This means I am looking for a lot of specific things to rank high on my ballot.

Clash over everything. If you rehash I am not ranking you.

Authors/sponsors: get into the specifics of the Bill: funding, implementation, agent of action, date of implementation. I appreciate a good authorship/sponsorship speech.

1st neg: Lay out the big neg args, also clash the author/sponsor.

Everyone else needs to clash, clash, clash. Specifically reference the Rep's you are refuting, and refute their specific arguments.

Leave debate jargon for other events.

Ask lots of questions. Good questions. No easy questions to help your side out.

This is as much a speaking event as it is a debate event. Do not over-read on your legal pad (do not use anything else to speak off of), fluency breaks/over gesturing/swaying are distracting, and be sure to use intros, transitions, and conclusions effectively.

I loath breaking cycle. If it happens those speaking on whatever side there are speeches on need to crystallize, clash, or make new arguments.

I appreciate decorum, role-playing as congress-people, and politicking.

1 good speech is better than 100 bad ones.

Wear a suit and tie/ power suit. Do not say "at the leisure of everyone above me" that's weird. My criticisms may seem harsh. I promise they are not intended to be mean. I just want to make you better.

Presiding Officer: To rank in my top 3 you need to be perfect. That being said as long as you do not catastrophically mess up precedence or something like that I will rank you top 8 (usually). The less I notice your presence in the round the better.

BOOMER thoughts (WIP):

Outside of policy/LD I think you should dress professionally.

In cross-x you should be looking at the judge not at your opponents. You are trying to convince the judge to vote for you not your opponents.

At the conclusion of a debate you should shake hands with your opponents and say good debate. If you are worried about COVID you can at least say good debate.

You should have your cases/blocks saved to your desktop in case the WIFI is bad. You should also have a flash drive just in case we have to go back to the stone age of debate.

"Is anyone not ready?" is not epic.

"Is everyone ready?" is epic.

The phrases "taking running prep" or "taking 'insert x seconds of prep'" should not exist.

"Taking prep" is all you need.

"Starting on my first word" umm duh that's when the speech starts. Just start after asking if everyone is ready.

PF: PARENT JUDGE!!

Treat me as a lay judge, make your arguments clear and defense is not sticky. Explain your terms clearly and don’t run anything sneaky.

PLEASE do not run theory, K’s, or anything that you would not run against a lay judge.

I will vote based on logic and how persuasive your case is. If your opponent drops, introduces a new argument, or their argument is considered “non-unique” , point it out, that is persuasive for me.

If your case is not easy to follow I will not vote for it.

BE NICE! Rudeness is NOT persuasive.

If it wasn’t clear = EXTEND YOUR CASE! Treat every speech like the beginning of your case and like I have never heard it.

DO NOT SPREAD! SPEAK AT A MODERATE PACE! I WILL NOT UNDERSTAND SPREADING!

If there are acronyms in your case please preface with what they mean.

Keep debate jargon to a minimum!

Summary and Final Focus are the most important speeches to me, restate your case, why it is better, what your opponent has dropped, AND WEIGH!

Ex: if your argument is war and your opponent is humanitarian aid - tell me why the effects of war outweigh the effects of humanitarian aid

Death = good is NOT an argument! Do not run and extinction pos k.

ADD ME TO EMAIL CHAIN: trexlermd@yahoo.com

Truth > tech

(I WILL DISCLOSE AT THE END OF ROUNDS SO STAY PUT!)