Judge Philosophies
Aadarsha Kunwar - USM
n/a
Adam Naiser - LEE
n/a
Adam Pendergrass - BSU
n/a
Adeeb Abdul Taher - SMU
n/a
Adley Fry - Marshall U
n/a
Adrian Alvarado - LEE
n/a
Alex Cadena - Cal State LA
n/a
Alex Watt - BSU
n/a
Alex Orvis - A-State
n/a
Alex Dale - PelState
n/a
Alexander Carwheel - DBU
n/a
Alexis Farino - DBU
n/a
Alicia Cooper - Whitworth
n/a
Allison Winter - UF
n/a
Allison Hurst - BSU
n/a
Amelia Little - ACU
n/a
Amie Clark - GCU
n/a
Amy Barrentine (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Amy Knight - MSU
n/a
Amy Fountain - MSU
n/a
Andrew Kinnell - MSU
n/a
Angel Rios - MSU
n/a
Anna McFetridge - WmCarey
n/a
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.
Arastus Allen - Park
n/a
Arjub Koinkar - MSU
n/a
Armani Welch - ORU
n/a
Arthur Guillosson - Cal State LA
n/a
Arty Cabeza - Cal State LA
n/a
Asahi Lama Sherpa - MSU
n/a
Ashley Sepulveda - PLNU
n/a
Ashley Singh - UCMO
n/a
Ashlynn Cechowski - UF
n/a
Athena Shead - UTK
n/a
Audrey Shank - LTU
n/a
August Williams - MTSU
n/a
Ayden Reams - PLNU
n/a
Ben Pyle - UA
n/a
Ben Mann - Lewis & Clark
n/a
Ben Voth - SMU
Treat your opponents with affirming respect. Pursue the educational value of debate as an ethic. I have judged debates for over 30 years in various formats. I look forward to hearing your voice on this matter. I like good research and good delivery.
Ben Chambers - Marshall U
n/a
Benjamin Shoptaw - UARK
n/a
Bennett Johnson - Whitworth
n/a
Bianca Ochoa - Fresno State
n/a
Bob Alexander - BPCC
n/a
Brandon Knight - WmCarey
Compete with dignity.
Brandon Davis - Harding
n/a
Braylon Moloney - UTK
n/a
Brenna Betts - MSU
n/a
Brennan Schiltz - DBU
n/a
Brian Ta - Cal State LA
n/a
CJ Miller - UCMO
n/a
Cade Hamilton - LRU
n/a
Caeley Melton - MSU
n/a
Caitlin Asbury - McK
n/a
Caleb Stubbs - UU
n/a
Caleb Starkey - UU
n/a
Cam Moore - Denison U
n/a
Cameron Thoele - LSUS
n/a
Camille Allgood - LAC
n/a
Caris Gray - LEE
n/a
Carlos Bonilla - Cal State LA
n/a
Carson Davis - ATU
n/a
Charles Wilhite - PelState
n/a
Charlize Jackson - BPCC
n/a
Chelsea Blanchard - Idaho State
n/a
Christina Smith - A-State
n/a
Chuck Rogers - MSU
n/a
Cooper Johnson - LSUS
n/a
Cora Raub - HPU
n/a
Courtney Pace - TCC
n/a
Daniel Davis (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Daniel Wilkerson - LAC
n/a
David Anzola - MSU
n/a
David Dillon - ATU
n/a
Dayhath Marte-Herrera - WmCarey
n/a
Deb Teressa - Whitworth
n/a
Dennis Taylor - Marshall U
I have been judging debate for almost 40 years.
My initial experience was in policy debate. While I can flow fast speakers, I don't like it. Ultimately, debate is a communication activity, and I should be able to understand the arguments easily.
I like a lot of clash. I expect both sides to go down their opponent's flow and clash with the arguments made, especially in initial rebuttals.
I have voted about every issue imaginable over my career. If you have a persuasive topicality argument, make it. If you have a persuasive kritik, present it. If you have a great impact story, tell me what it is. I might vote any or all of the above - and a lot more.
One thing I will not do: Make your argument for you. It doesn't matter if I see a real problem with a debater's argument; if the other side doesn't address it - and tell me why it's important - I'm not going to vote it.
One thing I don't like to do: Figure out how your argument responds to your opponent's argument(s). Tell me clearly to what you're responding and how your argument responds to your opponent's argument(s).
Diana Weilbacher - ACU
n/a
Dorian Hunter - ATU
n/a
Doug Fraleigh - Fresno State
JUDGING PHILOSOPHY..DOUG FRALEIGH FRESNO STATE (he/him/his)
Background
Co-Director of Forensics, Fresno State. Co-Director, Fresno State Prison Debate Program. Competed in policy debate for four years for Sacramento State and coached policy at UC Berkeley, Sacramento State, Cornell, and Fresno State. Also coached and judged NPDA, IPDA, LD, and individual events. For the past two years, the Fresno State Barking Bulldogs have competed in IPDA.
Overview about debate genres
My judging philosophy originated as a policy debate paradigm. It applies equally well to LD. Based on the NPDA rounds that I have judged post-COVID, it is my belief that NPDA has evolved into policy debate with a new topic every round. And every team had evidence, so it seems that the community has performatively overturned the "no evidence rule.
I think it would be nifty if IPDA remained an alternative for students who are new to debate or would rather debate in a format where there is less emphasis on speed and the arguments are more real world, especially given that there are plenty of policy-like options for students who would prefer that type of debate. In IPDA rounds (especially novice) I will give more weight to delivery and be less flow-centric than in other genres of debate. That said, I have not judged an IPDA round east of Reno, so it will be an adventure to see how IPDA is developing across the country.
What Should You Know About How I Judge?
- I am not opposed to any genre of argument. In IPDA, there is less time for constructive speeches (and only a single constructive in one-on-one debates), so arguments that require extensive development may not be the best choice. I will judge based on the arguments that are presented in the round, rather than my general familiarity with a position.
- I flow debates and the line-by-line arguments are important. However, I may not be persuaded by a very minimally developed argument (e.g. T is an RVI, fairness), even if it is dropped.
- I am not looking for speed in IPDA. It could benefit you to briefly explain the story of your argument, especially if it is a major position you plan to go for in rebuttals.
- Theory arguments are ok, but I do not look forward to them with the enthusiasm that some of my colleagues do.
What Can You Do to Earn Speaker Points?
- Clash with your opponents arguments is essential. I am very impressed when debaters make on point answers and less impressed when the round looks like competing persuasive speeches. Debaters who extend arguments (explain why their arguments prevail on contested issues) earn top-tier points.
- Although debaters are not supposed to read evidence in IPDA, paraphrased evidence from credible sources is very convincing to me.
- Organization is very important. Be very clear and signpost where you are on the flow as you move through the debate. For example, instead of just saying you are on the case or the disad and mashing all your arguments together, identify the specific argument you are rebutting or extending. If I am trying to figure out where you are, I am wasting cognitive resources that could be better spent listening to your argument.
- Good delivery is a plus. It is also a good idea to slow down a bit and emphasize the most essential arguments in final speeches, e.g. when you are advocating for how I should put the round together.
- Be enthusiastic about your arguments, but when interacting with others in the round, err on the side of chill. The chance to travel with your squad, debate with your partner (in team IPDA anyway), and compete against other colleges is a privilege; have fun and enjoy the journey.
Procedural Considerations
- Tag-team cross-x is all right. When speakers are prompted by their partner, the speaker needs to follow up by making the argument in the next speech and that is what I will flow. I listen carefully to cross-x and promise not to check real or fantasy sports scores until prep time starts.
- I do not want to adjudicate what happened before the round started.
Policy Resolutions
- For me, the round usually comes down to case vs. disads and counterplans. It is often a good negative strategy to refute case (even with analytics), rather than concede a case with massive impacts. However, I rarely give aff a 0% risk of any advantage and am unlikely to vote on presumption alone in the absence of any offense. The same principles apply to disads; it is strategic to minimize the links and impacts, but I rarely give neg 0% risk. I can be persuaded that more probable arguments, such as lives saved or human rights protected, outweigh an infinitesimal risk of nuclear war. I like the debaters to argue for how I should balance the arguments, but in the absence of such arguments (or if the explanation is very limited), then it is up to me to put the round together.
- On T, neg is most likely to win when they do a really good job explaining and defending their standards (blips not helpful here if you are seriously considering going for T in your last rebuttal) and explaining how their definitions meet the standards for T better than their opponents.
- Counterplans can be a very good strategy, but they should be explained in the same detail as an affirmative plan. (Affirmative permutations also need the same detail, dont string together three or four permutations without analysis or explanation.) Your CP needs to be non-topical and competitive.
Fact and Value Resolutions
- The affirmative should explain why they are classifying the resolution as fact or value and advocate criteria for judging the round.
- The negative is welcome to dispute the affirmatives classification and/or criteria. My default is that non-policy resolutions which contain a subjective term like best or more important are value resolutions not fact.
- In neither side clearly wins the resolutional analysis issues, my default method for resolving the conflict is which teams vision for the round promotes a more educational and equitable debate.
Dozier Smith - MSU
n/a
Drew Lorenc - Whitworth
Just Drew It.
Dylan Clark - PLNU
n/a
Eddie Carmona - Cal State LA
n/a
Elanor Israel - UA
n/a
Elena Foster - LEE
n/a
Elias Perry - LEE
n/a
Elijah Jarrell - UTK
n/a
Elise Scudmore (they/them) - USM
n/a
Elizabeth Friedman - DBU
n/a
Ellison Lyons - MSU
n/a
Emily Stewart - UTK
n/a
Emma Basch - Tulane
n/a
Emma Noble - MSU
n/a
Erik Hovlid - McK
n/a
Ethan Shuler - UU
n/a
Eva Villamor - LAC
n/a
Evan Smith - UF
n/a
Evan Thomas - UCA
n/a
Ezekiel Nail-Clemmer - UAMONT
n/a
Finn Spoerl - Lewis & Clark
n/a
Gabe Corbin - Marshall U
n/a
Garrett Crabtree - McK
n/a
Gavin Michau - UARK
n/a
George Urling - Marshall U
n/a
Gil Carter - UF
n/a
Gissele Martin - PLNU
n/a
Gracie Vincent - McK
n/a
Greg Valencia - Fresno State
n/a
Hailey Mormon - MSU
n/a
Hannah McCarty - DBU
n/a
Hannah Fewkes - Tulane
n/a
Hannah Fewkes - Tulane
n/a
Harmonie Winters - UTK
n/a
Hayley Cahoon - Idaho State
n/a
Hengel Zelaya - Harding
n/a
Holli Seitz - MSU
n/a
Hunter Lawson - MSU
n/a
Iz Stokes - Denison U
n/a
Izanna Stoddard - BSU
n/a
Jack Van Dyke (He/They) - UARK
n/a
Jack Helms - Denison U
n/a
Jack McDonnell - UU
n/a
Jacob Rose - MSU
n/a
Jacob Adams - MSU
n/a
Jacob Davidson - Jeff State
n/a
Jacob Little - UU
n/a
Jacob Causey - ATU
n/a
Jacob Little - UU
n/a
Jacqueline Maldonado Martinez - UARK
n/a
Jada Tolbert - McK
n/a
Jade Vasquez (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Jaden Harmon - LSUS
n/a
James Laky - PLNU
Im a parli debater at heart but in my twelve years Ive dabbled with all four major styles we
practice in the PacSW region (IPDA/TPDA, NPDA, LD, BP)
Tl;dr: Give me impacts and tell me why they outweigh your opponent. If you dont, Ill have to
do the work and you might not like the results.
K Debate: I love a good K. Consequently, that also means I hate lazy Ks. If there are major
components like Thesis, ROB, or any unique solvency then it will be very easy for your
opponent to non-unique the link level of your K. Solvency is the most important area of the K
and the most historically undercovered. Tell me how to sequence the K against case and theory.
If you dont; Ill probably weigh them equally and it will be easy for your opponent to win on
probability. Winning framework wont guarantee a win if you lose the rest of your K.
Theory: As a competitor, I was a theory hack, but that doesnt mean Ill vote for you just
because you run a spec sheet. I default to reasonability unless you say the words competing
interps. I wont ignore RVIs but I have a pretty high bar for voting on them. I dont mind if you
run Theory as a time tradeoff but you shouldnt mind if your opponent calls you out for doing so.
MG theory is pretty much my favorite but it follows the same rules as theory out of the LOR
Case: Case debate seems like a lost art to me sometimes. Leverage your uniqueness, warrant
your links, and terminalize your impacts. I love the cross-application of arguments from one
sheet to another. I evaluate counterplans as an opportunity cost disad, and perms as theoretical
tests of competition.
Speed: I can track with speed and have no fundamental issue with it; however, I do have a
fundamental issue with debaters losing access to rounds, so if you can speed, great. But if your
opponent cannot, pay attention to that because I will be.
Impact Calc: Without impact calc, youre practically guaranteeing that I have to intervene in the
round in some way. I typically prefer probability to magnitude, but Ill vote on any calculus as
long as you give me reasons to prefer.
IPDA: While I typically find myself being a primarily tech over truth style judge, I understand
the purpose of IPDA is to be a more persuasive form of debate, so I will tend to be looser on my
expectations for mechanics (though not on my desire for a clean flow.) That said, if you tell me it
is a policy, you need to have a plan. With solvency. And advantages. Most of my ballots in IPDA
tend to come down to framing arguments. If youre telling me how I should vote and that youre
doing that thing best, youll probably win my ballot. I do not flow cross-x.
What I would like to see: Be creative and weird! I dont know what happened but when I was
debating, we ran advocacies based on Star Wars and My Little Pony and Starcraft and Lovecraft.
Ive won rounds on the argument that Finland doesnt exist. Im in no way saying you have to be
outlandish but please take the chance on running arguments in a way besides the most obvious
path.
Bottom line: debate is a game. Be gamey. But be fair and fun.
James Tipton - UA
n/a
James Farmer - PelState
n/a
Jane Goldman - Tulane
n/a
Jane Anne Carroll - ACU
n/a
Janice Chambers - MSU
n/a
Janine Wilkins - Park
n/a
Jared Semke - LRU
n/a
Jasmyne Jackson - McK
n/a
Jason Rogers - WmCarey
n/a
Jeff Peterson - GCU
n/a
Jeffrey Glassheim - MSU
n/a
Jennifer Lopez - UARK
n/a
Jerry McCauley - LEE
n/a
Jess Perez - DBU
n/a
Jessica Rogers - MTSU
n/a
Jodeyah Mills - ACU
n/a
Jodi Ann James - ORU
n/a
Joe Blasdel - McK
Section 1: General Information
I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University. After three years studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree (NPDA, LD, and IEs) and have been doing so ever since.
In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues). I am unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments.
On trichotomy, I tend to think the government has the right to run what type of case they want as long as they can defend that their interpretation is topical. While I donât see a lot of good fact/value debates, I am open to people choosing to do so. Iâm also okay with people turning fact or value resolutions into policy debates. For me, these sorts of arguments are always better handled as questions of topicality.
If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised. The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion. If youâre calling multiple irrelevant POOs, I will probably not be pleased.
Iâm not a fan of making warrantless assertions in the LOC/MG and then explaining/warranting them in the MO/PMR. I tend to give the PMR a good deal of latitude in answering these ânewâ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ânewâ PMR arguments.
Section 2: Specific Inquiries
Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given).
Typically, my range of speaker points is 27-29, unless something extraordinary happens (good or bad).
How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be âcontradictoryâ? with other negative positions?
Iâm open to Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for voting for them than your average judge. I approach the K as a sort of ideological counterplan. As a result, itâs important to me that you have a clear, competitive, and solvent alternative. I think critical affirmatives are fine so long as they are topical. If they are not topical, itâs likely to be an uphill battle. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K.
Performance based argumentsâ?¦
Same as above.
Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?
Having a specific abuse story is important to winning topicality, but not always necessary. A specific abuse story does not necessarily mean linking out of a position thatâs run; it means identifying a particular argument that the affirmative excludes AND why that argument should be negative ground. I view topicality through a competing interpretations framework â Iâm not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an âaverageâ threshold. I donât vote on RVIs. On spec/non-T theory, I have a âhighâ threshold. Unless it is seriously mishandled, Iâm probably not going to vote on these types of arguments.
Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? Functional competition?
All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay). I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I donât have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized.
In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?
All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework.
How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
I tend to prefer concrete impacts over abstract impacts absent a reason to do otherwise. If there are competing stories comparing impacts (and there probably should be), I accept the more warranted story. I also have a tendency to focus more heavily on probability than magnitude.
Joey Barrows - Dark Horse
I competed for three years in LD and one semester in Parliamentary debate. I was primarily a case debater and did not run many critical arguments. I try my best to vote strictly on the flow and have voted for K's even though I don't particularly like a lot of them. I have a tendency to lean towards the K not having an ability to solve whatever the harms are (if that's what is being claimed). Aside from that, I think I am pretty straightforward in most positions. I am not incredibly fast and I flow on paper, so if I say "slow" or "speed" and you do not adjust then you risk the chance of losing me. Please ask me any necessary questions before the round to clarify something you don't understand here or to address any of the things I did not mention. Thanks!
John Mikolajcik - TCC
n/a
John Netland - UU
n/a
John Aduroja - MTSU
n/a
Jojo Kaler - MSU
n/a
Jon Smith - A-State
n/a
Jonas Lansford (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Jonathan Gonzalez - Cal State LA
n/a
Jonathon Stoneback - Idaho State
n/a
Jonny Locke - MTSU
n/a
Joseph Miller - LTU
n/a
Josh Camtugan - LEE
n/a
Josh Young - BSU
n/a
Josh Foreman - MSU
n/a
Jotham Jordan - TCC
n/a
Joy Reger - MSU
n/a
Julia Morrison - MSU
n/a
Julie Welker - HPU
n/a
Justin Hamilton - DBU
n/a
Kacie Hoch - BSU
n/a
Kai Welch - SUBR
n/a
Kajsa Dunn - ORU
n/a
Kameron Dowling - SUBR
n/a
Kate Rooney - DBU
n/a
Katelyn Sims - HPU
n/a
Katelyn Ah Puck - DBU
n/a
Katie Mullins - UU
n/a
Kayla Lowery - IND
n/a
Keith Milstead - SMU
Kenneth Butler - TCC
n/a
Kim Dial (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Kimberly Truong - LEE
n/a
Kiril Yakovenko - LRU
n/a
Kyla Hunter - MSU
n/a
Kyle Smith - UU
n/a
Lance Allen - McK
I competed for Mckendree for 4 years and have been coaching since 2013. I try to open about most any arguments that are placed in front of me. I am pretty good with speed, but clarity is important, because Im not as good as I used to be. I will say clear or speed if Im not getting enough. I am open to most any critical arguments; I just need it to be explained and impacted effectively. I am open to performance based args as well, again impacts are important and should be obvious to me and to opponents.
When it comes to topicality, I do not require in round abuse, but it helps. Competing interps is the best way get ahead as an Aff. You should be able to explain why your interp was best.
CP: I generally think pic are bad, but Im ready to hear that debate in round. And, in some specific cases a PIC can be warranted. Any type of competition is acceptable to me in CP.
I usually start evaluating a round on the procedural items and then make my way to case. I think that DA come last because even if I win 100% solvency of the AFF there is a chance I link to the DA or K. If I link, then I evaluate the off-case impacts. To be clear, I should never have to make the choice about where I need to go to evaluate. Debaters should be framing their offense for the judge.
I think that in most cases the easiest thing to default to is terminal impacts. I tend to weigh them first. Systemic impacts are next. Again, I feel uncomfortable making the choice as to what come first, I really want the debate to tell me what needs to be weighed and why.
Make the rounds as clear as possible for me. An arg you know best and can explain best to me is you best route to my ballot.
Lara Taylor - MSU
n/a
Lee Taylor - WmCarey
n/a
Leo Shohet - Tulane
n/a
Levi Cook - DBU
n/a
Lexi (Alexis) Douglas (she/her) - LRU
n/a
Liam Boardwine - MTSU
n/a
Lily Coats - MSU
n/a
Lindsey Brown - BPCC
n/a
Linley Brown - LEE
n/a
Liz Roa - UCA
n/a
Logan Brady - WmCarey
n/a
London Cooper - SUBR
n/a
Lora Cohn - Park
n/a
Lorenzo Nivellini - Denison U
n/a
Lori Welch - Whitworth
n/a
Luis Zelaya - Harding
n/a
Luke Thurmon (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Ly Nguyen - LEE
n/a
Lyeneal Griffin - WmCarey
Lyeneal Griffin, M.F.A.
Assistant Coach, William Carey University
I will judge the flow. Please make sure that your arguments are clear and intelligible. This is important to me. Weigh impacts.
Neg, refute and build. Weigh impacts.
Draw your arguments from quality source material. Equity, inclusivity, and diversity in your evidence is a plus. Be clear on the scope of your resolutions. I like to review sources.
Be respectful. Bad sportsmanship will lead to a reduction of points. Do not talk down to your opponents or judge.
Maddie Fritz (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Madelyn Allison - Jeff State
n/a
Mads Williams - ACU
n/a
Makayla Crownover - TCC
n/a
Mandi Hesby - Idaho State
n/a
Marah Chance - MTSU
n/a
Marcel VanDerWel - UU
n/a
Markie Whitney - UA
n/a
Martin Robinson - Park
n/a
Mary Lyle - UCA
n/a
Maryweather Jacob - MSU
n/a
Matt Kimbel - UCMO
n/a
Matt Peaple - MSU
n/a
Matthew Gedeon (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Matthew Cook (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Matthew Campos - HPU
n/a
Mauricio Rullan - SMU
n/a
Maya Ordonez-Landsberg - Denison U
n/a
Meera Mohammad - McK
n/a
Meeyah Davis - ACU
n/a
Megan Smith* - LTU
n/a
Megan Veilleux - LSUS
n/a
Megan Dial (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Melissa Vega - Cal State LA
n/a
Melissa Holguin - Cal State LA
n/a
Micah McGee - UU
n/a
Michael Shirzadian - Marshall U
n/a
Michael Ifeanyichukwu - Jeff State
n/a
Michael Isaac - UCA
n/a
Molly Albritton - MSU
n/a
Naomi Andrews - TCC
n/a
Natalie Cavallero - Fresno State
Debaters: Please don't spread. If I can't understand you, I can't judge you.
Nathan Nuulimba - UU
n/a
Nathan Cooper - WmCarey
n/a
Nathaniel Hosmer - PLNU
I've been debating and coaching for about 10 years (NPDA, IPDA, BP, and LD). You can run any argument you want in front of me provided you give a good justification to do so and explain it well. In general, I prefer debate on the rez, if you run a K it had better be a well-structured one or I will likely vote it down. Tell me why you won and give me impacts!
Nazif Manaj - Belmont
n/a
Nick Massey - MTSU
n/a
Nick Randall - Lewis & Clark
n/a
Nicodemus Gabel - MTSU
n/a
Nik Treziok - MTSU
n/a
Niraj Pandley - Whitworth
n/a
Noah Jones - ORU
n/a
Noah Hensley - DBU
n/a
Noah Todd - PHC
n/a
Nolan Brechteo - MSU
n/a
Nyla Jones - MSU
n/a
Olivia George - Idaho State
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!!!!
Philip Ojo - DBU
n/a
Philip Sharp - Nevada
Phil Sharp- University of Nevada-Reno
Phoebe Lim - LAC
n/a
Prasanna Rijal (she/her) - USM
n/a
Rachel Currie - LEE
n/a
Rainey Page - A-State
n/a
Rebecca Pool - UCA
n/a
Riley Haller - LSUS
n/a
Riyanna Kennedy - LEE
n/a
Rocco Hicks - A-State
n/a
Rowan Dooldeniya - ACU
n/a
Ruben Capetillo - LEE
n/a
Ryan Van Mouwerik - PLNU
n/a
Ryan Wagy - UU
n/a
Ryan Wind - BSU
n/a
Ryan Wagy - UU
n/a
Ryann McClure - LTU
n/a
Ryder Evans - GCU
n/a
Rylee Walter - Whitworth
I don't like moths.
Ryleigh Green - Belmont
n/a
Rylon Rowe - SUBR
n/a
Sabrina Becker - PelState
n/a
Sabrina Duff - LSUS
n/a
Salome Staton - UAMONT
n/a
Sam Rudderow - Lewis & Clark
n/a
Sawyer Smith - MSU
n/a
Scarlet Villarreal - GCU
n/a
Scott Twining - GCU
n/a
Sean Ye - MSU
n/a
Sean Bell - LTU
n/a
Senen Perez - Cal State LA
n/a
Seung Ho Jeon - A-State
Sharlee Rogers - MSU
n/a
Sidney Glastetter - DBU
n/a
Skye Gordon - Whitworth
n/a
Sloan Berry - MSU
n/a
Sofia Smith - MSU
n/a
Sophie Barrentine (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Stephanie Haro - Cal State LA
n/a
Steven Barhorst - MTSU
Sydney Crank - UCMO
n/a
Tabitha Keylon - UU
n/a
Tamil Kayode-Adele - ACU
n/a
Tanner Brown - LSUS
n/a
Tara Rambarran - LEE
n/a
Taylor Sullivan - MSU
n/a
Teagan Rice - TCC
n/a
Tengis Murunbaatar - Whitworth
n/a
Thaddeus Stringer - ACU
n/a
Ting Chen - MSU
n/a
Toni Rutledge - PLNU
n/a
Trakevious Thompson - WmCarey
n/a
Trey Mitchell - Idaho State
n/a
Tricia Cebotari - Whitworth
n/a
Tricia Cebotari - Whitworth
n/a
Ty Young - UAMONT
n/a
Tyler Redmon - Belmont
n/a
Tyler Dunning - PHC
n/a
Tyler Powe - MSU
n/a
Valarie Duncan - ORU
n/a
Vinell Venga - MSU
n/a
Vitor DeSilva - MSU
n/a
Wes Orr - ACU
n/a
Will Jackson - Jeff State
n/a
Wyatt Miller - UAMONT
n/a
Zach May - Jeff State
n/a
Zachary Knowles - Park
n/a
Zo Leatherwood - UU
n/a
Zoheir Hamid - MSU
n/a