Judge Philosophies
AJ Edwards (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Abbey Barnes (she/her's) - USM
not as dumb as I look
Abbi Jose - LSUS
n/a
Abby Albin - UU
n/a
Addy Koneval - Whitworth
n/a
AhLana Ames - Whitworth
n/a
Alayna Dalgleish - LCC
n/a
Alex Brehm - LCC
Bio: I have been the Director of Forensics at Lower Columbia College since 2016. I coach a little bit of everything, but prioritize IPDA, Platform, and Limited Prep.
IPDA: I coach and judge a lot of IPDA. I love this event. Some preferences that I have in this event include:
- IPDA debaters should prioritize effective communication. Keep the pace reasonable and limit your use of jargon. I'm generally not receptive to Ks in IPDA.
- Though the IPDA Constitution and Bylaws do not explicitly require the use of sources, I believe that good arguments are supported by evidence.
- I'm a sucker for thorough framework. Leave no ambiguity about how the resolution is being interpreted and what each debater needs to do in order to win.
- The wording of the resolution is important, and the way that the debaters agree to interpret it is important. Expect me to revisit the res and framework for the round after the debate has finished. I will make my decision after carefully considering which side has better upheld their burden. Be sure to read the resolution carefully and make sure that your advocacy is in line with what the resolution is asking of you.
- Treat your opponent with respect - they are a human person and this activity is hard.
Other forms of debate (Parli, BP, LD): I don't coach a lot of debate outside of IPDA, but still enjoy when I have the opportunity to judge other formats. Some common thoughts that apply across any non-IPDA format:
- At the end of the day, I'm an IPDA judge - I prefer style and language that is approachable. But I'm also not going to tell you to reinvent your style on my behalf. I'll engage with any style of debating as long as it flies in your format and your opponents find it accessible.
- The farther I get from my comfort zone, the more I appreciate clean framework and clear signposting. You're helping me out a lot if you give me clear verbal cues about your organization. The better I understand your arguments, the more likely you are to get my ballot.
- Otherwise, my judging philosophy for other formats of debate is largely in line with my IPDA philosophy.
Limited Prep: I coach and judge a lot of limited prep. Some preferences I have in these categories include:
- The spirit of these events is that they are delivered with limited preparation and limited notes. When making a close decision, I will prioritize competitors whose examples and attention grabbers do not seem canned or over-rehearsed. Keep your notes to a single notecard in open divisions.
- In extemporaneous, please be careful to answer the full question. Your question is not a general prompt, but rather a specific inquiry that you are asked to respond to. Answer the question, cite good sources, and structure your speech well... you'll end up near the top of my rankings.
- In impromptu, it is important that your interpretation of the prompt is not too much of a stretch, and your examples are reasonably in line with your interpretation. Reusing examples is fine, but fully memorized content does not belong in this category.
- I'm happy to give whatever time signals you want - just ask before the speech :)
Platform: I coach and judge a lot of platform speeches. These were my favorite categories to compete in. Some preferences here include:
- Across all platform categories, I'm interested in evidence. Cite lots of credible sources.
- I'm interested in actionable solutions and smart implications. I've been known to bump a speaker up in my rankings if I'm particularly moved by solutions/implications.
- Time matters... but it's not everything. If your speech goes over time, I'm probably breaking ties in your opponent's favor... but I'm not automatically dropping you to the bottom of the round.
- I will always consider evidence, structure, argument, and delivery when making my ranking decisions. In a competitive round, I will additionally consider originality of topic, scope of impact, and creativity when making tough choices between well-matched competitors.
Interpretation: I don't coach much interp, but I do judge it somewhat often. Some philosophies include:
- I don't need to see trauma to give you my 1. Please care for your mental health while engaging with raw, emotional topics.
- Authenticity matters. I want to believe your character(s), and I want to believe the connection that you have to your performance.
- Good interp makes an argument. I don't need you to solve world hunger in your interpretation, but I still want to hear some advocacy.
Alex Gibson - BPCC
n/a
Alexandria Walker - NSU
n/a
Ali Richard - Jeff State
n/a
Amber Latson - BPCC
n/a
Amea Thompson - VSU
n/a
Andrew Franklin - ETBU
n/a
Andy Orr - CoSI
As a communication instructor, I believe the purpose of this activity is to prepare students to critically think and engage others in a meaningful way. Ergo, students should deliver arguments clearly with emphasis on effective communication. I am convinced that a few well-developed arguments can prove to be more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments.
For constructive speeches, try to address arguments individually. However, grouping is absolutely fine too. With the final rebuttal speech, avoid line-by-line and instead provide a summary of voting area that address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches.
On Policy & Fact Debate:
For organization, sign post your tag lines, and give your citation clearly. Let us know when you have finished quoting material before your own analysis.
Avoid oral prompting or interrupting your partner as much as possible. I consider it to be rude and disrespectful toward your partner. Additionally, part of this activity is learning to work as a team and depending on another person for your success. This is an essential skill in life and you would never use verbal prompting in a business meeting, sales pitch, or political speech. Therefore, it really has no place in an activity designed to create in students those skills.
On Value Debate:
Value debate is by definition, a meta analysis of a topic. The first level of that debate is the overarching value. Students should present and defend a value that has been carefully chosen to have a non-absurd and debatable counter value e.g. capitalism vs. socialism and not freedom vs slavery (forces the opponent to be morally repugnant).
Wonderful debates can occur on by debating value level, but they rarely will win the debate because people (smarter than us) have discussed philosophers, implications, etc. and we still have no concrete answers.
Criteria are the next level of the meta debate. Again we could have a wonderful discussion on the merits of act utilitarianism vs. the categorical imperative, but it would not settle the issue, nor would it persuade the judge on either side of the resolution (although you can win a round by default if your opponent is not able to effectively articulate their value or criterion). Criterions are most useful if treated separately as a test of your contentions rather than a policy-type mechanism for achieving a value.
Your contentions are the real heart of the debate and should be the main focus. Claim, warrant, and conclusion are essential to every argument and can be contested on each or every one of those tenants. The key in value debate is to provide context after giving your argument as to how it affects the criterion and proves your case & value.
On Debate Theory
I have no preference in terms of philosophical, theoretical, or empirical arguments as long as they contain the three parts to make them an argument. Be sure that each part is present: claim, grounds, and warrant. Use this strategy: a. I say.....(claim) b. because......(grounds & warrant) c. and this means.....(impact)
I would find it difficult to vote for a kritik in general, and it would be extremely unlikely in a value round. First, there is already so much to cover in a limited amount of time; I dont think one can do the kritik justice (in other words, I am not often convinced of their educational/rhetorical value because we simply do not have enough time to reach that goal). That being said, if there is an in-round instance prompting a performative kritik, I think there can be a direct link made to education and the ballot being used as a tool.
Second, these arguments by their nature avoid the proposed topic. Thus, they skew preparation time when run by the affirmative and are seemingly a method of last resort when put forward by the negative. Moreover, in a value debate, a kritik provides no ground (or morally reprehensible ground) on which to make a counter case. Thus, the only way to rebuttal is to argue against the philosophical grounding (which leads to a muddled debate at best) or the alternatives which makes it a de-facto policy debate (and is contrary to the purpose of value debate).
The only stock issue that is a default voter is inherency. If the status quo is already addressing the problem, then there is no reason to prefer the plan. Harms and significance are at best mitigations. If you win those arguments, there still is no reason not to do the plan. Solvency and advantages must be turned to become voters. You'll need to prove the plan causes the opposite effect. However if you mitigate either of these, you'll need to pair it with a disadvantage or counter plan to give me a reason not to try the plan.
Each off case position must have a good structure and be complete in its construction (I wont fill in the blanks for you). Additionally any off case argument needs a clear under-view when it is presented (not just in the rebuttals) indicating how it fits into the round, and how I should consider it in my vote.
I prefer debate theory responses to be the first counter/refutation against an argument. In essence, they are a reverse voting issue, and do not easily fit into a line-by-line. Take a few moments and tell me the theory story, then (just in case I don't buy it) get into actually refuting the opponent's arguments.
Anthony McMullen (he/him) - UCA
Experience: Competed for the University of Arkansas (2000-05); Coach at the University of Central Arkansas (2007-present). Most of that experience is in IPDA. While I appreciate and am happy to participate in other forms of debate, I'm an IPDA purist at heart and that governs my philosophy. I'm also a licensed attorney and spent seven years working for the Arkansas Court of Appeals. My job involved reading arguments with real world consequences. As such, while I am willing to vote for any well-reasoned argument, I'm a policymaker judge more than anything.
Delivery: I'm not a fan of speed. If I am judging a form of debate where that is the norm, I'll accept the burden of listen to rapid-fire delivery. Otherwise, don't do it. I often listen to podcasts at 1.5x speed. That's fine. Because it is a debate, I can probably listen to you at 2x speed and be fine. Anything faster, and you risk losing me. I find spreading unethical. Don't do it.
Speaker Points: Pretty arbitrary, especially if the ballot does not contain a rubric. If it is an IPDA round, I will have traditional criteria in mind: delivery, courtesy, organization, tone, logic, support, CX, refutation. In each category, you start with a 3 in each category. An average debater will receive a 4, a good debater will receive a 5. I won't go less than 3 in a category unless you "earn" it. Low point wins are a thing.
Case: The affirmative has the burden of proof, and the negative has the burden of clash. Failing to meet those burdens is an automatic L before we reach the rebuttals.
As a policymaker judge, I would prefer to give a win or loss based on the merits/demerits of the resolution itself, especially if it is form of debate where you get to choose the topic. I'll vote on topicality, but if it is close, I'll give the affirmative the benefit of the doubt. (If you are going to run T, I'm big on framer's intent.) I'm willing to vote on a K, but again, I would rather vote on the merits of the resolution itself. Like topicality, the affirmative will get the benefit of the doubt if it is close.
I flow the round. By the time we get to rebuttals, tell me why you won. Put out any fires created by your opponent's previous speech if necessary, but please don't go line by line. I'm very big on impact calculus, especially if the criterion is cost-benefit analysis, comparative advantage, or something similar.
Evidence: First, quality over quantity. Better evidence will always beat more evidence. Explain why your evidence supports your case. I do not enjoy rounds where debaters dump numbers and stats without context. Second, source presses are a waste of time unless (1) your opponent makes a spurious claim or (2) you have evidence that contradicts your opponents. If the only argument you have against an argument is that no source was provided, you will lose that argument unless you tell me why the lack of source is important.
Topic Disclosure: I'm not a fan of it, but I recognize that I'm in the minority. If the resolution is fairly straightforward and affirmative's interpretation is in line, I will not entertain an argument that the debate was unfair due to a lack of disclosure. If the resolution is metaphorical or otherwise vague, you should probably disclose.
While I will not punish a debate who does not disclose, I will DQ a debater who gives a false or misleading disclosure. At the same time, I believe that the affirmative is entitled to use the prep time as they see fit. If you plan takes you in a different direction, you are entitled to change your mind (especially if the negative pressed you for disclosure before you started prepping your case). But be reasonable. Doing so with twenty minutes of prep left is okay. Doing so with ten minutes left isn't.
NPDA debaters: I miss points of information. Please use them.
Anthony Copeland - LTU
n/a
Ashley Hale (she/her) - LTU
n/a
Ashlyn Jones - UU
n/a
Austin Robison - BPCC
n/a
Autumn Wibright - VSU
Baylee Seeman - MSU
n/a
Ben Smith - MSU
n/a
Ben Murray - UU
n/a
Benjamin Freasier - LTU
n/a
Beth Voss - BPCC
n/a
Blakely Rudolph - Whitworth
n/a
Braden Ishee - USM
n/a
Branden Roller - MSU
n/a
Brendan Hecht - UU
n/a
Bri Miller - Whitworth
n/a
Brianna Harperhoward - NSU
n/a
Byron Arthur - Dillard
n/a
CJ Parrish (he/him) - UCA
Caleb Starkey - UU
n/a
Caleb Atkins - UU
n/a
Cameron Hodge - Jeff State
n/a
Chance Earp - NWACC
n/a
Charis Murrey - UU
n/a
Christian Parks - VSU
n/a
Coby Bennett - UU
n/a
Cole Franklin - ETBU
n/a
Coley Matthews - ETBU
n/a
Collin Bell - ETBU
n/a
Corben Stephens - OKBU
n/a
Daniel Giorello - Whitworth
n/a
Daniel Davis - Jeff State
n/a
Daniel Garrison - Dillard
n/a
David Sheilley - UU
n/a
David Issacs - LSUS
n/a
Devanie Carattini - UU
n/a
Eli Stroud (they/them) - UCA
Elisabeth Cason - BPCC
n/a
Elizabeth Bone - Whitworth
n/a
Emilie Vann - OKBU
n/a
Emma Waite - SMU
Emma Busby - OKBU
n/a
Erika Hein - LCC
n/a
Ethan Hofer-Cassianni - MVC
n/a
Ethan Arbuckle - LSUS
n/a
Felicia Gaston - MSU
n/a
Gabrielle Lamura - VSU
n/a
Gage Brookman - MVC
n/a
Glenn John Cervantes - LCC
n/a
Grayson Harris - UU
n/a
Gregorie Confer - MSU
n/a
Halle Garner - UU
n/a
Heaven Sheppard - Jeff State
n/a
Iyanna Marshall - USM
Don't ground shift, don't spread, impact it out.
Jack White - USM
n/a
Jacob Farrell - Whitworth
n/a
Jared Thomason - OKBU
n/a
Jasmine Brossett - NSU
n/a
Jason Rogers - WmCarey
n/a
Jay bourne - Cumberland
n/a
Jennifer Igo - BPCC
n/a
Jennifer Lawrence - BPCC
n/a
Jerika Edwards - Dillard
n/a
Jessica Cobbs - BPCC
n/a
Jonathan Brown - BPCC
n/a
Jonathan Bridenbaker - VSU
Joseph Boone - VSU
Josephine McDonald - CoSI
n/a
Joshua Hendricks (they/them) - USM
Joshua Rogers - WmCarey
Joshua D Rogers Paradigm
Joshua Rogers
B.A. Classics, Ph.D. Linguistics
Director of Forensics & Latin Teacher - Presbyterian Christian High School (Hattiesburg, MS)
Forensics Head Coach - William Carey University
Experience:
Oratory and Communication experience in High School
Discourse and Communication theory in Undergrad and Graduate work
Teaching Speech and Debate since 2015
Basic Judging Paradigm:
I will judge the flow
I want substantive arguments and clash
Weigh your impacts at the end
Bad sportsmanship leads to reduction of points
Don't talk down to the judge
Public Forum: Give evidence, cite, analyze - don't just restate claims three ways. I encourage Neg, don't just rebut, build a world in which you can win.
Lincoln Douglas/Policy:
I attempt to be tabula rasa, but when no decision-rule calculus is provided, I default to understanding and applying morality arguments. I tend to see the debate in an offense/defense paradigm.
I default to competing interpretations on Topicality, and reasonability on all theory. If you define value and criteria, stay with your parameters.
I am fine with speed, but clarity is key.
I would like to be on your email chain (jdrogers @wmcarey.edu) so I can look at cards that your reference in cross-examination.
LD Note: I tend to view the value/value criterion debate as less important than substantive arguments. Impacting your arguments is incredibly important. Cheap shots / tricks are not the way to my ballot (because: reasonability). I also will not vote for an argument I don't understand based on your explanation. I will not read your case later to make up for a lack of clarity when you spread. If I can't flow it, it's like you never made that argument.
Policy: I like to hear clash on evidence. Evaluate evidence since you have it in front of you. But more important, outline and build a plan. Explain how and why it works.
Don't give me outrageous impacts, we all know the world COULD end. Show how the plan results in impact, not just slippery slope.
Neg feel free to build Kritic if you can, always enjoyable.
I would like to be on your email chain (jdrogers @wmcarey.edu) so I can look at cards that your reference in cross-examination.
Josiah Ssempa - PHC
n/a
Joy Smith - BPCC
n/a
Justin Durbin - Cumberland
n/a
Kaitilyn Strickland - MSU
n/a
Kaitlin Skinner - USM
n/a
Kara Taylor - LTU
n/a
Kathryn Defatta-Baratinni - BPCC
n/a
Katie McKenzie - LTU
n/a
Kaylee Tegan - CoSI
DEBATE
My debate philosophy is quite simple, I prefer clear, structured arguments about the resolution. I dont enjoy spending the entire round hearing arguments about framework and definitions unless ABSOLUTELY necessary to the round. I also prefer quality arguments over a mass quantity of arguments. I prefer speeches that are slow and easy to understand rather than overloading your opponent and judge with fast arguments. I tend to not vote on dropped arguments unless it is absolutely necessary in the round. With organization, signposting contentions and on-time, brief road maps are preferred.
Most importantly, I expect all competitors to be respectful and civil when debating. I will not tolerate rude competition.
IE
For individual events and speeches, organization is very important. All parts of a speech should be easily identifiable. I am listening to the content of a speech as well as the delivery. Is there eye contact with the judge and audience? Do you know your speech well? Speeches should not be over the time limit.
Keaton Studdert - SMU
Kelvin Thomas - Jeff State
n/a
Kendrick Kruskie - LTU
n/a
Kyarin Patterson - ATU
n/a
Kylie Bennett - LAC
n/a
Landon Johnson - Dillard
n/a
Lauryn Craine - MVC
n/a
Lee Anne Moore - BPCC
n/a
Leia Smith (She/Her) - LSUS
n/a
Leslie Salley - LSUS
n/a
Leslie Alexander - BPCC
n/a
Libby Gear - ETBU
n/a
Logan Weaver - MSU
n/a
Lori Welch - Whitworth
n/a
Luke Carter - OKBU
n/a
Macy Dammen - LAC
n/a
Marcus Jordan - MSU
n/a
Marilyn Persley - BPCC
n/a
Matt Smart - LTU
n/a
Matteo Mauro - MSU
n/a
Matthew Gedeon (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Megan Smith* - LTU
n/a
Melanie Lea - BPCC
n/a
Melissa Bertolone - BPCC
n/a
Merry Ashlyn Gatewood - UU
n/a
Michelle Barnickel - BPCC
n/a
Mickayla Stogsdill - UU
n/a
Mike Ingram - Whitworth
UNLIMITED...POWER!!!!!
Mike Eaves - VSU
Procedurals:
T-I have no artificial threshold on topicality. I will vote on abuse. Typically, cross x checks back on T.
Ks-framwork is paramount and the alternative. Please do not run "Vote Neg" as the sole alternative. There
should be more thought on the alt.
Speed. I have a high school and college policy background. I coached CEDA from 93-00 and coach NPDA, parli style
from 01-present
Counterplans--PICS are fine. Agent CPS are fine. In the end, I am tabula rasa and will default to impact calc to resolve plan debate
Das--uniqueness is key. Internal links are important. Please watch double turning yourself in the 2AC. I do not like performative contradictions and will vote against them
Performance/Project-I am progressive and liberal here. Run it and defend it. If you are on the other side, debate it straight up. A counter-performance is a legit strategy.
Have fun. I dislike rude debaters. I will vote on language abuse if a team calls it (ex: sexist, racist, etc lang)
Mitchell Sadler - OKBU
n/a
Miura Rempis - MTSU
Mo CampBell - MTSU
n/a
Myrah Guthrie - UU
n/a
Nhan Pham - NWACC
n/a
Nick Bitterling - UU
n/a
Olivia Bolin - Whitworth
n/a
Patrick Richey (he/him/Dr.) - MTSU
Meh. I've judged a few rounds. I hate rudeness and disrespect in rounds. Keep it nice and cordial. Don't BS me. I like cats!!!!
Paul Monahan - UW
n/a
Phoebe Lim - LAC
n/a
Rachel Robinson (she/her) - LTU
n/a
Rachel Mihalko - UU
n/a
Reagan Gosselin - LCC
n/a
Rebecca Korf - Whitworth
Bears.
Roishene Johnson - BPCC
n/a
Roy Galindo - CoSI
n/a
Samuel Stettheimer - UU
n/a
Samuel Peek - OKBU
n/a
Sanjay Phillip - Whitworth
n/a
Sarah Shirley - VSU
n/a
Sarah Richert - USM
n/a
Scot Loyd - OKBU
n/a
Scott Morris - UU
n/a
Seth Blair - UU
n/a
Shonda Miles - BPCC
n/a
Sian Fox - UCA
Sierra Boudreaux - LAC
n/a
Sonya Harvey - MSU
n/a
Stacey Black - BPCC
n/a
Stephanie Provenzano - LSUS
n/a
Steve Garcia - LTU
n/a
Steven Turner - BPCC
n/a
Steven Barhorst - MTSU
Sydney Collier - OKBU
n/a
Tayler Havard - ETBU
n/a
Teresa Jones - BPCC
n/a
Travis Walker - Whitworth
n/a
Trevor Trappier - OKBU
n/a
Trinity Baugh - LAC
n/a
Zavoun Watts - Jeff State
n/a
anuj dutta - Cumberland
n/a