FTN - Judge Philosophies

Tournament Time: 1:58 AM Central

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Ballot Review Results

Judge Philosophies

ACU-Annah Samdi - ACU

n/a

ACU-Hannah Johnston - ACU

n/a

ACU-Laura Carroll - ACU

n/a

ACU-Sam Mahony - ACU

n/a

AK-Rakin Nasar - AK

I was a Policy debater at Torrey Pines HS and I debated for Wake Forest University. I graduated college in 2018, so I haven't debated in a while and I've been out of debate for most of that time.

That being said, read whatever you want. In highschool I went for policy args i.e. the politics disad, counterplans, etc. In college I've gone for the K in like 80% of my 2nrs I'm a 2N and I've been a 2N for my entire career.

I can keep up with tech, but I prefer to look at debates that are focused on central themes. I dont think cheap techy wins are good examples of that. That being said, don't be sloppy. I really appreciate spending my mental energy thinking about arguments instead of searching for them. You want me spending more time thinking about your arguments. I presume all your arguments are horrible until I get time to actually think about them.

Kritiks: Love em, they gotta be really smart though. Be especially clear about what your argument is. Earlier in college I leaned heavily on the cap k in various iterations, but i am familiar with many different types of kritiks. The more specific the kritik is to the aff, the better. Specific answers to the particular kritik/alt as well as a strong defense of the 1AC is a good way to win as aff. Please explain the alt in the 2NR. I will not drop the alt for you, if you plan on doing that please make that decision as decisive as possible in the 2NR. A lot of framework debates are silly. Justify your impacts and give me reasons why they have misrepresented their impacts. High theory, go for it, but I'll probably need some good explaining. Don't turn it into a game of who dropped what, please have a compelling and thought provoking thesis.

Conditionality is aite. ill vote either way if im convinced.

Topicality Some of my favorite debates were T debates, but since I am not familiar with the topic I don't have a good pulse of what good debates on this topic look like. I'll be more likely to take T seriously if you invest a lot of time on it in the block. Give me what debates look like in your definition of the topic. A case list and what neg ground comes with that case list are helpful for both sides to have. I don't know why certain affs are good or bad, so you have to do some more work impacting the relevance of your case list.

Theory go for it, but I will only take it seriously if you spend quality time on it. if it becomes a 2NR/2AR thing, don't just read off your pre-made block, contextualize it to the debate.

Counterplans The benchmark for a good counterplan is a good solvency advocate. I love the advantage counterplan and impact turn strategies, please do it well though. There are a lot of moving parts in those debates, so keep it well-oiled and clean. I went for sketchy PICs throughout my career, but that means I expect PICs to be extremely well executed. That being said, affs don't messit up. You just have to win a couple of arguments to beat cheating counterplans, don't feel overwhelmed. If you got the confidence to end a 2AR in 2 minutes, go for it.

Disads go ahead, read em.

Framework Ive been on both sides in my career, I read non-traditional affs and ive gone for framework. Please read whatever you want. Generic policy debate good/bad is not what anyone should be arguing. Your interpretation for framework needs to resolve some of the offense of the affirmative. Topical versions of the aff that resolve the advantages of the aff and the disads on framework are a good idea. Specificity is the most important thing in these debates.

Tell me why debating about the cases your interpretations include make us better people. You gotta show me how debates look within your case lists. I am not easily convinced with the argument that "they are so unpredictable that we don't have any specific arguments against them, and that proves offense on framework." In general, a world with only generic debates is a boring place to be. I like nuanced and well-informed debates, I think that both sides are trying to achieve that. If you think that world view is wrong, please try to change my mind in a compelling way.

Have fun, don't be rude, get lots of sleep.

If you got a specific question please feel free to ask me!

Abbi Arbuckle (she/her) - ACU

n/a

Adamaris Tello - LEE

n/a

Alayna Ruiz - Weber

n/a

Alexander Carwheel - Patriot Debate

n/a

Alexandria Ritchie - ACU

n/a

Aliyah Carr - GCU

n/a

Amie Clarke - GCU

n/a

Angelina Hitson - CSCC

n/a

Anna McFetridge - WmCarey

n/a

Areeb Shaukat (he/him) - USM

n/a

Audrey Mae Taylor - UU

n/a

Austin Keefe (He/Him) - UARK

n/a

Ayden Reams - PLNU

n/a

BPCC-Christian Monday - BPCC

n/a

BSU-Allison Hurst - BSU

n/a

BSU-Izanna Stoddard - BSU

n/a

BSU-Josh Young - BSU

n/a

BSU-Mackenzie Mosell - BSU

n/a

Brian Culver - Cumberland

n/a

Brianna Merryfield - Cumberland

n/a

CJ Parrish - UTK

n/a

CSLA-Justice Goon - Cal State LA

n/a

Caleb Spires - CSCC

n/a

Carley Perry - NSU

n/a

Carson Davis - ATU

n/a

Cas Schnell - LSUS

n/a

Catron Coty - McNeese

n/a

Charles Culliford - LAC

n/a

Chloe Fresne - LSUS

n/a

Chris Guo - SMU

n/a

Cisco Soto - UTK

n/a

DU-Cam Moore - Denison

n/a

Daniel Davis (He/Him) - LSUS

n/a

Daniel Anderson - NSU

n/a

Daniela Gomez-Delgado - MTSU

n/a

Danielle Kofink - ACU

n/a

Danielle Sanson (she/her) - BPCC

n/a

David Mott - UTK

n/a

Devesh Sarda - LSUS

n/a

Diana Weilbacher - ACU

n/a

Diana Ramirez - NAU

n/a

Diego Moreno - LEE

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.

Dylan Clark - PLNU

n/a

Eli Brown - MSU

n/a

Erin Swift - NAU

n/a

Esther Rolsma - UU

n/a

Ethan White - GCU

n/a

Freya Steed - Lewis & Clark

n/a

Greg Gorham - GCU

Grey Chadsey - NSU

n/a

Haley Atchley - CSCC

n/a

Holden Hargrave - UAMONT

n/a

ISU-Ashley Lynne - Idaho State

n/a

ISU-Jett Smith - Idaho State

n/a

Isaiah Tiemann - Patriot Debate

n/a

Ivan Markevych - BSU

n/a

Izzy Mejia-Aveledo - UU

n/a

JFCC-Ava Elliott - Jeff State

n/a

Jack Van Dyke (He/They) - UARK

n/a

Jacob Neal - MSU

n/a

Jacob Little - UU

n/a

James Wood - Patriot Debate

n/a

James Crews - USM

n/a

Jane Anne Carroll - ACU

n/a

Jared Semke (he/him) - LRU

n/a

Jay Villanueva - Nevada

I have 14 years of debate experience. I have 2 years of high school LD, 1 year of Policy, and finished with a year of Senate. In college I competed in NPDA, LD, IPDA, and BP at the University of Nevada, Reno. I am experienced in debate, so don't be afraid to run technical arguments. That said, I prioritize accessibility, so if your opponent cannot handle spreading, you should make a meaningful attempt to not spread or be incredibly clear. I will make it a voting issue if presented as a theory argument. That said, the interp, standards, and voters need to be fleshed-out and time must be dedicated to it if you want me to vote on it.

Quickly: For speech events, I evaluate based on how much evidence you use, how well memorized/performed it was, and your speaker's triangle, depending on the event of course.

Pronouns: She/Her

I plan on judging high school and college debate. Please refer to the appropriate section. Thank you!

--------------------------------

LD: Connect your contentions to the (V)alue and (C)riterion. Probably should justify your V and C as the most important/relevant V and C for the RESOLUTION. You can use an analytic, but carded evidence to uphold your V & C would be stronger. You can run your case like a Policy case, but keep it in the format of LD (Value Net Bens through the Criterion of Cost Benefit analysis for example). You can run Ks, just connect it back to your V and VC. You can run whatever really, just justify the argument to me. I'm still not used to hearing CPs in LD, but go for it! I have Parli, Policy, and college LD experience, I can keep up. Be nice to each other.

PF: The only high school debate event I never competed in (before BQ was a thing). Be straight-forward. You have evidence, tell me why it matters. Be nice to each other. I often default to preponderance of probability (more likely than not).

Policy: Run whatever (K, DA, CP, Aff-K, Performance, Topicality, Theory, etc.) butbe inclusive. Arguments need to connect logically between cards. Don't make leaps in claims. Have links and internal links for Neg. Be nice to each other.

--------------------------------

NPDA: I competed in NPDA for 4 1/2 years at UNR. I will be upfront by saying that I was not nationally competitive. I did not do well at NPDA (Nats) nor NPTE and have difficulties flowing Elim 2 and beyond at either tournament. That said, I can keep up with most and usually flow on paper.

Here is how I evaluate the round:

T/Theory comes before the K unless there's enough work on why the K should come first. I default to competing interps. If you believe the T/Th to be abusive or problematic, I will vote on an RVI for both equity and education. Don't waste my time spreading out your opponents with 3 T/Th and collapsing to the under covered one. That said, I'm more likely to vote the argument down and not the team on an RVI. So at least it's not a one-shot kill(?)

Ks are an important part of critical thinking, and thus important to education. However, I also believe that in a world where the resolution is the only guaranteed point of research, and where Debate should be about having equal access to good education, you need clear links to the resolution. This includes Aff Ks. I think performances face a unique problem in this case. I say, contextualize your perf to debate or the world around us and explain why it's a more pressing issue than the resolution if your perf is not topical. Give your opponents options to compete against your performance. Disclosing your perf at the start of prep could easily resolve competitive equity claims for me.

The second part of Ks for me are Solvency. I have a hard time buying K solvency. Unless it's rooted in fiat, K solvency often sounds like it's some high theory, PoMo, Ivory Tower analysis that I can't wrap my head around without having prior knowledge on the subject. That said, I try to be tabula rasa, but I obviously have my knowledge bases. I understand Security, Borders, EcoFem, EcoSec, Queer Args primarily, although not exclusively.

RoB/RoJ: I think these are fine, except when you're aff and you also run a Plan alongside the K. Just because your read "PT: The res" does not mean you are doing the res. Unless you are. If you are just saying it to answer back a Theory Interp by saying, "we did read a PT" without actually integrating it into your K args, then you're just wasting your time in my opinion.

Also, give me reasons why your RoB/RoJ is preferable, even in the PMC/LOC.

CP/DA: On the perm, is it feasible to do both? Is it preferable to do both? What are the advantages of doing the CP alone (the DA that goes with it)? What are the DAs of doing the CP and the Aff? What are the ADVs of doing the CP and the Aff?

ADV: I need a clear link story. Internal links are helpful here. Solvency is fine instead of IL. Critical impacts will win my heart, but magnitude, probability, and timeframe are definitely also important. I'll vote on any of the three if you explain why in this round one matters over the others. Or go for all three, whichever.

IPDA:As a competitor, I did not take this event super seriously. I only did this event a handful of times, and they were often collapsed with JV (which proved to be easy Gold). That said, I have had a year of experience judging, including at Nationals (Jan-Dec 2025) and my opinion has drastically shifted.

Framework:Have a clear FW. The Aff should set the FW, but the Neg can rebut if the FW is abusive. Otherwise, the Neg should try to work with the FW that the Aff presented.

1AR:I am not a fan of the two 3-minute Aff rebuttal speeches. They're too short to say much. That said, please at least bring up your own case contentions, even if just the taglines. If you don't, I evaluate it as a dropped arg.

NR: Line-by-line for half the time, crystallization for the other half. Weigh your impacts via magnitude, timeframe, and probability.

2AR:I would argue that this is the most difficult speech in the round. I don't know the "correct" strategy, but I prefer hearing strictly impact weighing with a clear link story to how you reach those impacts. Compare the two worlds of the Aff vs the Neg. This should be much more conversational and less line-by-line.

Don't be rude. Don't attack the opponents, attack their arguments. Be clear in your delivery. Signpost. Have fun. Learn a lot! :D

Jordan Guillot (they/them) - LSUS

n/a

Joshua Tompkins - UARK

n/a

Julian Mackenzie - UCSD

Note:This is all for guidance on what I would like to see. At the end of the day have the debate you want to have, and I will do my best to evaluate it.

Background:Hi my name is Julian Mackenzie, I participated in Speech and Debate for a total of 9 years as a competitor and now I'm a Coach for SDSU.

In high school. I competed for four years in mostly Interp, Extemp, Impromptu, LD, and Pufo for Helix Charter High School. In my senior year, I was a debate captain for my high school team.
I competed for two years for the Grossmont Community College team in NPDA, IPDA and Extemp, where I won top competitor for the 2021-2022 school year.
After that I competed for UCSD for three years in NPDA, IPDA, Pufo, and TIPDA, and I was the President of the team.
Now I Coach and I am the Director of Debate and Limited Prep at San Diego State University. In addition I am also a assistant coach at UCSD.

All formats:

I like Lay debate or fast and Technical debate.
I will take any argument into consideration as long as the argument is backed up by logic or evidence.
Both teams/competitors in your last speech please give me clear voters, so that I can make an informed decision.
Have good clash
Please signpost
Please be as organized as possible tell me exactly where you are on the flow.
Please be respectful to everyone in the round.
Have Fun!

IPDA:

I prefer tech over truth, but I will not accept arguments that are a lie and do not have evidence or some truth.
Present strong, logical, cohesive arguments.
Please speak with a clear and calm pace.
Label each of your arguments.
Avoid technical debate jargon.
Keep Cases and arguments simple and clear

NPDA:

I'm ok with theory/topicality but I think it has to be warranted.
I'll vote on a RVI including time skew.
I love Value and Fact rounds, so please do not define a round as policy if it does not have should in the resolution.
K's work in Policy Rounds, run Phil if it's a value round.

NFA-LD:

Run a good and sound plan
Tricks are great, but please keep them at the top of the case.
I'm ok with theory/topicality but I think it has to be warranted.
I'll vote on a RVI including time skew.
Share your doc with me if you are going to spread, please.
Please have your card doc ready to show your opponent's cards

Speech:

As for speech I judge like any other speech judge on content and performance.
Please do not "can" your speech in Impromptu. If I find your "canning" I will place any off-the-cuff speech ahead of you.
I will not automatically rank you lower if your speech is shorter than 10 minutes.

Kamillyah Evans - LTU

n/a

Kassandra Adame - Cal State LA

n/a

Katie Rockhill (She/Her) - CSCC

n/a

Keith Milstead - SMU

Khaled Algahim - LSUS

n/a

Kimberly Truong - LEE

n/a

LCC-Ada Salazar - Lewis & Clark

n/a

LCC-Kyteo Aguon - Lewis & Clark

n/a

LCC-Rebecca Patch - Lewis & Clark

n/a

LCC_Ella Skelton - Lewis & Clark

n/a

LCU-Camille Allgood* - LAC

n/a

LCU-Noel Martin - LAC

n/a

LCU-Ruby Gross - LAC

n/a

LRU-Anthony Reel - LRU

n/a

LSUS-Cooper Johnson - LSUS

n/a

Lakelan Hammonds - CSCC

n/a

Layla Ned - Patriot Debate

n/a

Leah Hotze - ACU

n/a

Lee-Advita Shinde - LEE

n/a

Lee-Aiden Barajas - LEE

n/a

Lee-Aleyna Lopez - LEE

n/a

Lee-Amanda Foster - LEE

n/a

Lee-Analeah Zamarripa - LEE

n/a

Lee-Anna Orozco - LEE

n/a

Lee-Audrey Jaime - LEE

n/a

Lee-Caleb Reyes - LEE

n/a

Lee-Cesar Rendon - LEE

n/a

Lee-Cyrus Rodriguez - LEE

n/a

Lee-Giovanni Garcia - LEE

n/a

Lee-Isabella Barny - LEE

n/a

Lee-Jarrett Hawkins - LEE

n/a

Lee-Jaylah Mosley - LEE

n/a

Lee-Jodie Hazell - LEE

n/a

Lee-Laura Wells - LEE

n/a

Lee-Pedro Herrera - LEE

n/a

Lee-Tracy Harris - LEE

n/a

Leia Smith (She/Her) - LSUS

n/a

Liam Boardwine - MTSU

n/a

Lowell Van Ness - UU

n/a

Luke Thurmon (He/Him) - UARK

n/a

Lydia Stinnett - UU

n/a

Lyric Newkirk - Patriot Debate

n/a

MSU-Ava Grace Noe - MSU

n/a

MSU-Dylan Branca - MSU

n/a

MSU-Emma Jaramillo - MSU

n/a

MSU-Heaven Favre - MSU

n/a

MSU-Janet Bunei - MSU

n/a

MSU-Kerrick Martin - MSU

n/a

MSU-Le'Jeaha Falany - MSU

n/a

MSU-Liam Nicholason - MSU

n/a

MSU-Summer Ley - MSU

n/a

MTSU-Kameron Scott - MTSU

n/a

MTSU-LB Bourdwine (he/him) - MTSU

n/a

MTSU-Marah Chance - MTSU

n/a

MTSU-Tala Abukhdair - MTSU

n/a

Mack Miles (They/Them) - LSUS

n/a

Mack Burnett - Lewis & Clark

n/a

Maddie Malbrough - BPCC

n/a

Madelyn Allison - Jeff State

n/a

Makayla Crownover - TCC

n/a

Mandi Hesby - Idaho State

n/a

Mary Lyle - UCA

n/a

Matthew Gedeon - BPCC

n/a

Matthew Fraiser - Fresno State

n/a

Matthew Cook (He/Him) - UARK

n/a

McN SU-Morgan LeBleu - McNeese

I was primarily a NPDA debater as a competitor. IPDA is very new to me. If you know NPDA I am one of the few judges that would welcome the cross over in the event. Overall, I like a nice clean debate and don't mind a rules debate. I will listen to any arguments you want to put on the flow as long as you can back them up. I like creative and unique arguments. Have fun and don't be abusive.

Michael Shirzadian - Marshall U

n/a

Michael Thiagasingh - SJSU

This is not my preferred type of debate to judge - as such, I request that everyone participate in the DEBATE aspect of it. Besides speaking clearly and intelligibly, be sure to rebut arguments / signpost / give roadmaps prior to beginning your speech. EXTEND arguments from your first speech.

I flow pretty well and will record almost everything stated. That said, don't give long-worded contention names. Keep them short.

I vote heavily based on the last few speeches - be sure to give me strong voters / reasons to vote.

For all that is holy, DON'T SPREAD.

Michael Isaac - UCA

n/a

Molly Watson (She/Her) - UARK

n/a

Mora Boyd - ATU

n/a

Murray-Ana Moyers - MurSta

n/a

Murray-Jillian Rosa - MurSta

n/a

NSU-Braland White - NSU

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 Mustapha - LEE

n/a

Nathan Nuulimba - UU

n/a

Nathaniel Deckelman - UAMONT

n/a

Neil Pham - Nevada

n/a

Nick Bianchi - UU

n/a

Noah Hensley - Patriot Debate

n/a

ORU-Jacob Fryc - ORU

n/a

ORU-Karl Ashton - ORU

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!

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!!!!

Patrick Vasquez - Denison

n/a

Per Selander - CSCC

n/a

Pragati Gautam - MSU

n/a

Rhiannon Genilla - Fresno State

I am a forensics coach and a graduate student at Fresno State and I competed in IPDA debate.

I value critical thought, respectful competition, and logical creativity. I find value in debaters being reflexive and thinking quickly on their feet. I am more likely to be persuaded when debaters are enthusiastic about their arguments. It is important to clash with your opponent and to develop strong arguments.

Rodney Williams - CSCC

n/a

Ruben Capetillo - LEE

n/a

Ruby Long - CSCC

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.

SMU-Lelin Spriggs - SMU

n/a

Sam Rudderow - Lewis & Clark

n/a

Samuel Harless - MurSta

n/a

Sarah Walker - NAU

Sarah Walker
Director of Forensics and Debate, Northern Arizona University

Altogether, I have about 15 years of experience in a variety of debate types, as a competitor and judge. Most of that experience has been in Parliamentary Debate.

I have a strong background in Rhetorical Criticism and Argumentation, so I am confident I can grasp any K, Plan Text, CP, or perm you bring up. If your speed, technical jargon, or volume make it difficult for me to keep up however, I may give up flowing, and I cannot judge on what doesnâ??t make it to my paper.
Overall, I have most appreciated debates that have been centered on making well warranted, competing arguments. If you can clearly refute the central arguments of the other team, you will go a long way in creating not only a stronger debate, but also a happier judge.

Things you should know:
1) I prefer debates with clash, where the aff plan is the central space for negative arguments. This means:
(a) Plan texts/advocacy statements are preferred over their absence.
(b) As a general rule, the efficacy of the policy/advocacy probably matters more than how one represents it.
(c) Critiques on objectionable items in the plan are preferred. I like specific K links. All Ks have a presumed alternative, which means the aff can always make a permutation.
(d) I have reservations about judging performance/personal politics debates. I likely have at least a workable understanding of your literature, but I do prefer a debate constructed on a rubric I am more familiar with, and I simply have less experience with this style. I am happy to learn, and willing to judge this type of round, but be aware that the argument does still need warrant, and I will still need to be able to flow something. Please make your arguments clear.

2) Miscellaneous but probably helpful items

(a) I view debate as a professional activity. This means you should not be acting in a way that would get you removed from a professional setting. I understand the purpose behind profanity and the showing of pornography or graphic images, but these should be kept to moderation, and there should be a clear warrant for them in the round. As far as I am concerned, there is absolutely no reason for rude, violent, or hyper-aggressive statements in a debate round. Ad hominem is a fallacy, not an effective debate strategy. I will dock your points for it.
(b) When speaking, giving road maps, etc., please speak with the purpose of making sure that the judge heard you. If I canâ??t place your arguments, I am much less likely to flow it. Clearly signposting and providing a roadmap is an easy way to avoid this problem.
(c) I am much more impressed by smart arguments and good clash than I am with highly technical debates. If you drop whole points or arguments in the flow in favor of chasing down one argument, do not expect me to overlook those dropped args.
(d) Evidence is evidence, not the argument itself. Both are necessary to create a good debate. Please remember that evidence without an argument will be hard for me to flow, and thus vote on, and arguments without evidence are rarely strong enough to withstand scrutiny.
(e) I donâ??t grant universal fiat. Saying that something should be done just because you have the power to do it is not a strong argument, nor is it likely to lead to a better debate. Iâ??d prefer you explain WHY and HOW we should enact the plan, rather than simply insisting that it can be done.

3) Clipping Issues: I will stop the debate to assess the accusation and render a decision after the review. While I understand why other people proactively police this, I am uncomfortable doing so absent an issue of it raised during the debate. If proof of significant (meaning more than a few words in one piece of evidence) clipping is offered, it's an automatic loss and zero points for the offending team and debater.

4) Topicality debates: If you truly believe an abuse of the resolution was levied, or if you truly cannot work in the limitations provided, then bring up T. If not, then I am more likely to view a T argument as a distraction tactic. You will get farther arguing ground loss than with an arg about the interpretations of the T.

5) Timing the debate and paperless: You should time yourselves, but I will time to enforce efficiency. I stop flowing when the timer goes off. Donâ??t abuse the timer.

Sean Bell - LTU

n/a

Sebastian Urban (He/Him) - UARK

n/a

Senen Perez - Cal State LA

n/a

Seth Blair - UU

n/a

Shanisha Ford (She/Her) - LSUS

n/a

Shree Brown - Patriot Debate

n/a

Syed Raza - UTK

n/a

TCC-Cole Butler - TCC

n/a

TCC-John Mikolajcik - TCC

n/a

TCC-Kirk Brewer - TCC

n/a

TCC-Rachel Webster - TCC

n/a

TXST-Tyler Cole - TxState

NFA LD/CX/Policy: To boil my judging paradigm in its most simplistic terms, a view myself primarily as a policymaker. My vote almost always goes to the side that present the best policy (AFF) or argues the status quo is better (NEG) or there is a better alternative (NEG). While stock issues certainly plays a role in arriving to a decision, I would NOT go so far as to say the AFF has to win every single stock issue to win my ballot.

On Speed: Dont. Just dont. While many organizations try to be inclusive, this is the one area I find just about every national/state organization (outside of IPDA) proves itself to be hypocritical in doing absolutely nothing to police the practice of spreading, while championing themselves as being an inclusive organization. While some organizations allow judges to call speed or clear, I will not be engaging in such practice. Debate is an advanced level of public speaking. If you are not able to engage in the first principle of human communication (as outlined by Dr. Steven Beebe) be aware of your communication with yourself and others, it begs the question why is one operating on an advanced level when the basics have yet to be mastered? I should not have to tell you when you are speaking faster than what you would expect to see in a normal conversation. I am a human, talk to me like I am a human and not some robot. Ill end with this, I absolutely loathe my states senator, Ted Cruz, but I have to recognize that even a broken clock can be right. Senator Cruz states that spreading is a pernicious disease that has undermined the very essence of high school and college debate. Speed has the potential to cost you the round. If both sides decides to speed read/spread/whatever you want to call it, I am likely to default neg. If you do decide to spread and you don't give me the time or day to write down your tagline you risk your arguments not making it to the flow/influencing my decision.

On Speechdrop: As my stance on spreading may indicate, I place a high value on the public speaking aspect of this activity. As a result, I do not add myself to any speechdrop. I am here to listen to the debate, I am not here to read the debate. The only time I will request to see your evidence is if there are any ethical concerns made by the opponent about how the evidence is being utilized/interpreted.

On signposting: Extending on the ideas from above. Please, please, please signpost. I find many debaters have become accustomed to judges being on the speechdrop and they rely on the judge reading the case instead of hearing the case. If you do not prepare me to listen/flow the taglines, you risk it not making it on the flow/not being evaluated. When flowing I do not write down the author of the evidence, but rather the claim that that piece of evidence is making. When referring to your opponents arguments, it would be wise to refer to the claim and not the author. If you just refer to the author there is going to be a solid chance that I will not know where you are at on my flow.

On K debate: While my educational background is rooted in rhetorical analysis, as a policymaker I find a lot of the rhetorical K debates functionally inoperable in winning my ballot. I can maybe think of 4 times at most that I have voted on the K, and 3 of those times the K centered on spreading. I am not saying you cant run the K, I will listen to it, but strategically you must ask yourself is it worth the time for this judge.

On Disclosure of the ballot: Having been to a great deal of tournaments that have run behind, and having been kept out of my hotel room beyond midnight due to a 1.5+ hours worth of disclosure (despite the fact the president of the organization telling the judges to keep disclosure to a minimum) my stance on disclosure is this as follows. We place strict time requirements for debaters, similar restrictions must be placed on judges/the disclosure process. Until national and state organizations place strict rules/regulations on the disclosure process, and until those rules are adopted at the local level I will not be disclosing the round. At the most I will announce a winner for the round, but outside of that all commentary will be reserved for the ballot. If I find you during the course of the tournament I may come talk to you about the round, and if you see me during the course of the tournament please feel free to ask me questions. However, these conversations will not take place in the same room as the debate to ensure that the next round in the room will not start behind.

UIL/NSDA LD paradigm: When it comes to LD debate I find myself normally more a traditionalist judge. I favor the quality of your arguments over the quantity. With that being said I would prefer that spreading be kept to a minimum, or if possible, not present in the debate at all. In addition to that, I believe that LD debate is centered around the value/criterion debate, as a result, I will not vote on any plan text presented by either side. I also appreciate debaters who treat their value/criterion as a fundamental to not only their case, but also on their arguments against their opponents case. I also believe highly that this event is centered on the competitors ability to communicate, with that being said, roadmaps and signposting every argument is a very effective way of winning my ballot. Please do not read me a list of evidence and dont tell me exactly where you want that piece of evidence. Ill flow the evidence, but I will not assume where you want me to put that evidence on my flow, nor will I speculate how that evidence is supposed to be used in round.

Tanner Brown - LSUS

n/a

Teagan Rice - TCC

n/a

Teddi Hall - Lewis & Clark

n/a

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.

UCA-Ben Henry - UCA

n/a

UCA-Evan Thomas - UCA

n/a

UCA-Liz Roa - UCA

n/a

UCM-Darelle Wabo - UCMO

n/a

UCM-John Wallis - UCMO

n/a

UNT-Adrian Tam - UNT

n/a

UNT-Elisabeth Kiu - UNT

n/a

UNT-Jose Rodriguez - UNT

n/a

UNT-Nicholas Grotberg - UNT

n/a

USM-Jenna Smith (she/her) - USM

n/a

USM-Mario Speech (he\him) - USM

n/a

USM-Riad Benyamna (he/him) - USM

n/a

UTK-Athena Shead - UTK

n/a

UTK-Christina Anderson - UTK

n/a

UU-Anna La Pour - UU

n/a

UU-Philip Avery - UU

n/a

UoC-Justin Durbin - Cumberland

n/a

UoC-Samuel Price (he/him) - Cumberland

n/a

Van Denison - LSUS

n/a

Victor Pantaleoni - Nevada

n/a

WCU-Bryan Taylor - WmCarey

n/a

WCU-Carolyna Bussie - WmCarey

n/a

WCU-Enku Getachew - WmCarey

n/a

WCU-Nathan Hetzel - WmCarey

n/a

WCU-Sabrina Bussie - WmCarey

n/a

WSU-Mark Galaviz - Weber

I remember long ago never to walk in anyone's shadow. If I fail, or if I succeed, at least I lived what I believe.

Waleed Nawaz - Patriot Debate

n/a

Wesley Crissey - Patriot Debate

n/a

Will Davey - USM

n/a

Zoe Leatherwood - UU

n/a

Zoraya Kai - Lewis & Clark

n/a

ivy Ferdowsian - Lewis & Clark

n/a

2025 IPDA National Championship Tournament & Convention