Judge Philosophies
Aadarsha Kunwar (he/him) - 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
Amelia Little - ACU
n/a
Amie Clarke - 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
I competed in IPDA for the University of Arkansas (20002005) and have coached at the University of Central Arkansas since 2007. Most of my experience is in IPDA, and that shapes how I evaluate rounds. Im also a licensed attorney and spent seven years working for the Arkansas Court of Appeals, where my job was to evaluate arguments with real-world consequences. I consider myself a policymaker judge, which means I approach the round as if Im deciding whether the resolution should be adopted in the real world based on its practical merits.
General Philosophy
I strongly prefer to decide rounds on the merits of the resolution. However, if a debater shows that fairness or structure has been meaningfully compromised, I will evaluate theory or procedural argumentsbut the bar is high. Theory arguments must be clearly structured (interpretation, violation, standards, and voters) and well explained. I default to reasonability over competing interpretations and expect to see real, round-specific abuse rather than abstract or hypothetical violations. One conditional advocacy is fine by default, but multiple conditional worlds require strong justification. If theory restores fairness or protects the structure of the round, Ill vote on it. If it feels like a technical trap, I wont.
Impact Calculus and Rebuttals
Final speeches should focus on impact calculus. Dont just extend your argumentscompare them. Tell me why your impacts matter more. If you're arguing that your world is bigger, faster, more probable, or more ethical, make that analysis explicit.
No new arguments in rebuttals. You may extend previous claims and bring in additional evidence to support them, but entirely new arguments or impacts introduced for the first time in the final speech will not be considered.
Delivery and Organization
Speed hurts more than it helps. Think podcast at 1.5x speedthats about as fast as I can comfortably process. I wont vote on what I cant understand, and in forms of debate that discourse speed and spreading, I will penalize it even if I catch everything. Id much rather hear three strong, developed arguments than six rushed ones.
I do flow the round, but I care more about clarity, structure, and impact comparison than technical line-by-line coverage. Pointing out that your opponent dropped an argument is fine, but that by itself wont win the round on its own. You must explain why that dropped argument matters within the broader context of the debate.
Framework and Evaluation
Weighing mechanisms are not required. If you think one helps you frame the round, feel free to offer it. If not, I will default to a preponderance of the evidence standardwhichever side provides the more persuasive and well-supported world should win.
Cross-Ex and POIs
I listen to cross-examination and Points of Information and consider them part of the round. However, these tools are most effective when used to set up your next speech. If you get a key concession or back your opponent into a corner, make sure you follow up on it and tell me why it matters.
Topicality and Disclosure
I will vote on topicality when it is well explained and clearly tied to fairness or ground loss. I give the affirmative the benefit of the doubt when their interpretation aligns with framers intent. If the resolution is straightforward, no disclosure is required. If the resolution is metaphorical or unusually vague, disclosure is encouraged. While I wont penalize a team for failing to disclose, I willdisqualify a team for giving a false or misleading disclosure.
Kritiks
I am open to kritiks, but dont assume Im fluent in the literature. Please walk me through the link, impact, and alternative in clear, accessible language. Im more receptive to kritiks that challenge real-world assumptions or harms than to those that only critique debate as an institution. While I still prefer to vote on the merits of the resolution, I will evaluate a K if it is well-developed and contextualized within the round.
Evidence
I value quality over quantity. A well-explained statistic or quotation is more persuasive than a long string of uncontextualized data. Paraphrased evidence is fine as long as it is accurate and clearly connected to your claims.
Professionalism and Courtesy
Debate is a competitive activity, but it should also be respectful. You dont need to thank me profusely or perform gratitude, but I do expect debaters to treat each other with courtesy. Rudeness, sarcasm, or dismissiveness toward your opponent will hurt your speaker points and my impression of your argumentation.
Humor is welcome when appropriate. If the topic is lighthearted, a well-timed joke or clever phrasing can enhance your presentation. Just keep it respectful, and dont let humor become a substitute for substance.
Final Thought
Your job is to help me write a ballot. I appreciate smart choices, organized thinking, and meaningful clash. Help me understand your advocacy, show me why its preferable, and do so with clarity, strategy, and respect.
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
Audrey Shank - LTU
n/a
August Williams - MTSU
n/a
Ayden Reams - PLNU
n/a
BSU-Allison Hurst - BSU
n/a
BSU-Izanna Stoddard - BSU
n/a
BSU-Josh Young - BSU
n/a
Ben Pyle - UA
n/a
Ben Mann - Lewis & Clark
Hi! I'm the assistant director of forensics at Lewis & Clark College. My background is over 12 years of experience in college debate, including coaching roles in NPDA, NFA-LD, IPDA, and BP. A few general principles on how I evaluate debate are below:
- I view debate as comparative access to comparative impacts. Demonstrate to me that you best access the most important impacts of the debate, through framework/sequencing control, links, and an articulated impact story, and you have the easiest pathway to my ballot.
- I'm a flow judge and prioritize content over delivery. Typically, I give speaks based on argument quality and strategic decisionmaking.
- Yes, I'm comfortable with spreading if your opponent is. Please slow down a bit for tags and when moving between positions, and signpost clearly. If you're going too fast for me to flow, I'll say "slow." If your speaking isn't clear, regardless of your rate of delivery, I'll say "clear." Please accommodate your opponent if they can't follow you.
- Yes, you can read T and other procedurals in front of me, just sequence them properly (such as a priori).
- Yes, you can read Ks, critical affs, unique arguments, or even reject the resolution on the aff in front of me. However, I'm also open to framework and other responses to these arguments. The K lit needs to be in your argument: I won't fill in gaps that aren't present in your speech.
- No, don't be unnecessarily disrespectful to your opponent or judges, either through in-round behavior or argument types that actively disparage marginalized populations. Who you choose to be in the round matters more than W/L, and this behavior will at minimum impact your speaker points.
I judge primarily out of tournament need and may be in different formats round-to-round. Ultimately, I'm format-agnostic and invested in the educational/skill benefits that come from different styles of debate. If you have a format-specific question for me, you can reach me at bmann@lclark.edu
Ben Chambers - Marshall U
n/a
Benjamin Shoptaw (He/Him) - 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
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
Cora Raub - HPU
n/a
Courtney Pace - TCC
n/a
DBU-Noah Hensley - DBU
n/a
DU-Cam Moore - Denison
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 believe debate is a communication event. It also is an exchange between human beings, not just an argument between sides of a thought experiment or a game.
I do not like high speed. Why? I think it makes debate less accessible to students and judges and the skills debate teaches less transferable to other settings.
If, at the beginning of the debate, your opponent requests the debate be held at a moderate pace, I expect you to honor their request. What does that mean? Two examples: Don't gasp for air between long utterances, and don't speak several octaves above where you normally speak because you are talking so fast.
If, during the debate, you are overwhelming your opponent's or my ability to process information, we may say SPEED. By the same token, if you're speaking is not clear to either of us, we may say CLEAR. Please adjust accordingly if either of us says SPEED or CLEAR.
I have judged debate events off and on for almost 40 years. For my first 15 years, I judged policy debate and only occasionally value debate. More recently, I have judged rounds of COLLEGE IPDA Debate (most), Lincoln-Douglas Debate, and NPDA Debate (least) and HIGH SCHOOL Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, and Extemp Debate.
Ultimately, I judge holistically - the better debater or debate team wins the round. This almost always is the debater or debate team that carried the debate on my flow. In that very rare case when it is not, it is because I consider effective communication in deciding which debater or debate team won and in assigning speaker points.
In a policy debate, I generally look to stock issues; in a value debate, I generally look to which side best upholds the value(s) presented; in a fact debate, I generally look to which side persuaded me by a preponderance (best, not most) of the evidence - at least if no one offers a better way of analyzing the debate.
I learned debate when counterplan theory was a bit different and there were no kritiks. But I am generally aware of current theory on these topics. I do expect you to explain them clearly (especially the kritik) and establish a clear link to the AFF case and plan. Importantly, I'm not an expert on every critical lens that challenges status quo thinking.
I do try to come in with an open mind. As a result, I will listen to and potentially "vote" any issue you raise.
I prefer for debaters on both sides to address the topic and clash thoughtfully with the other side's arguments.
I expect debaters to both make arguments and use reasoning and evidence. Rarely is one by itself enough.
I dislike spreading. Identify major weaknesses in your opponents' arguments and flesh them out for me. Presenting a lot of one-sentence arguments in the hope your opponent can't respond to all of them will not help you win my ballot.
I dislike when a debater gives me the name of some expert or a statement and expects me to fill in a lot of blanks. If you're cross-applying "the Smith card" tell me what to cross-apply on it and why.
I expect debaters to summarize clearly why they won.
In IPDA debate, I do consider the relative ground each debater has to operate in, so it may not be a good strategy for an affirmative debater to attempt to unfairly narrow the ground for a debate. If a debater does a lot with a little ground, they are more likely to win my ballot than a debater who does a little with a lot of ground. Similarly, I find some IPDA topics to be pretty one-sided - and I'll vote for the debater who moved my original thinking the most.
I judge on what I hear. I won't read a card after the round absent an allegation of fabrication or mischaracterization or the language contained on the card is a major issue.
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 three 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 NDT/CEDA debate, but 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.
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 some debate formats anyway), and compete against other colleges is a privilege (this is especially true at nationals); 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 policy rounds.
- 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, don't 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 issue, 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
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
Gisselle 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
n/a
Jack Van Dyke (He/They) - UARK
n/a
Jack Helms - Denison
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 (She/Her) - 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 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 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
LSUS-Cooper Johnson - LSUS
n/a
LSUS-Tanner Brown - LSUS
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
Logan Brady - WmCarey
n/a
London Cooper - SUBR
n/a
Lora Cohn - Park
n/a
Lorenzo Nivellini - Denison
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.
MTSU-Marah Chance - MTSU
n/a
MTSU-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!!!!
MU-Michael Shirzadian - Marshall U
n/a
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
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
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 Ifeanyichukwu - Jeff State
n/a
Michael Isaac - UCA
n/a
Molly Albritton - MSU
n/a
Naomi Andrews - TCC
n/a
Natalie Cavallero - Fresno State
IPDA judge looking for strong organization, solid delivery & kind participation. I will judge with an open mind on a blank slate, so bring your arguments and support them well! 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
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 Todd - PHC
n/a
Nolan Brechteo - MSU
n/a
Nyla Jones - MSU
n/a
Olivia George - Idaho State
n/a
PLNU-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!
PLNU-Toni Rutledge - PLNU
Toni is big on sources to back up the claims made and warants offered, with current sources.
She is also big on eye contact and not just reading from notes, to help in training for real life skills.
And if she cannot hear and understant you, she cannot accurately evaluate the debate or event, and especially due to speaking too quickly. This might also extend to making technical debate philosophy points rather than focusing on the resolution.
Please avoid rudeness, disrespect of partner and or opponant, and she also values professional dress and appearance.
Speaking style and politeness are both important, as is organizational layout and formatting. Clarity is often key.
If you want to get a better idea of the resolution focus you might look to Skip Rutledges comments on the 5 core elements of debate in his judging philosophy in FTN. So strategically this might mean, arguing the resolution might be more effective than exploring issues extraneous to the core of the resolution.
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 Myers - UCA
n/a
Riley Haller - LSUS
n/a
Riyanna Kennedy - LEE
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
SMU-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.
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
TCC-John Mikolajcik - TCC
n/a
Tabitha Keylon - UU
n/a
Tamil Kayode-Adele - ACU
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
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
UCA-Evan Thomas - UCA
n/a
UCA-Liz Roa - UCA
n/a
UTK-Athena Shead - UTK
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
Zoe Leatherwood - UU
n/a
Zoheir Hamid - MSU
n/a
john thompson - A-State
n/a