Judge Philosophies
ANDREW PEPPERS - LAC
n/a
Abby Reeves - MSU
n/a
Abigail Matz - DBU
n/a
Adamaris Tello - LEE
n/a
Adrielle Sloan - HPU
n/a
Ahleysha Lee - BPCC
n/a
Alexander Carwheel - DBU
n/a
Amy Sanchez - LEE
n/a
Angelina Bawi Tha Chin Par - DBU
n/a
Angie Quiroz Ordonez - ACU
n/a
Anna McFetridge - WmCarey
n/a
Anna Wooten - MSU
n/a
Anna Foweather - SMU
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.
Arianna Tello - LEE
n/a
Arlin Birkby - TAMU
*** Note some of this paradigm is for policy/PF and does not apply to IPDA for Lee College (Mendoza) That said, I am open to having CX crossover in IPDA. Anything goes.
disclosure/email chain:Arlin.birkby777@gmail.com
A lay decision means you probably won't like the decision. Additionally, if there is an evidence indict by the end of the round but I am unclear on how I should vote and I call for the evidence and the indict is falsified, then I will intervene for the other team.
- Don't spread unless you send a speech doc. Check your word count, if your below 250 wpm then you should be good, I still have the right to call clear tho and I will unless you send a speech doc.
When sending a speech doc send an actual doc, don't just send screenshots of the cards and the files that you're reading; send full text. If your reading paraphrased text of cards thats fine but just be ready to send them at an instant when your opponent calls for them.
- I love theory debate, i will hack for paraphrasing/dates/disclosure theory so long as you explain it okay and show an actual instance of them breaking the interpretation.
please don't read non case specific overviews that are like 1 min long and hard to flow, if its a disad just call it a disad.
No offensive overviews or disads if second speaker because you have a structural advantage. If you do run this and your opponents run theory on you for doing this by summary i will still vote off it.
i do believe that cross is binding, that said, I won't flow it but will remember what was said
----Lincoln Douglas----
- More of a traditional judge
-Tech over truth majority of the time-just make sure your arguments are well warranted
I'm fine with theory or K's as long as it's not frivolous. I really dislike aff K's so if there is a topicality shell I am inclined to vote for it provided there are reasonable TVAs
I understand performances so long as they are well warranted and somewhat topical. I won't down you for running a non topical performance but will if somebody reads a topicality shell against you and is somewhat decent at it.
If you're going to read a K make sure you explain the alt very clearly and to respond to any impact turns, terminal defense on the alt is also pretty much the death knell if you are lackadaisical in your responses. Don't be surprised if I vote on a presumption argument.
-if your going to spam tricks at least be ethical. no hiding trick texts in the cites of a card in a doc. if you do i wont down you for it but if they run theory for you doing it i will vote off it.
-Do flesh out your arguments with warrants and analysis
General stuff
give me a simple road map, if its just the good ol "our case their case" or "down their case" for first rebuttal then you can hop right in without one.
i like narrative based arguments that start at the top of every speech, just make sure not to spend too much time on them because i won't vote on them unless they are offense and are explained as so.
framework-please don't read these in pf, frameworks (more often than not) don't have offense and do not contain a ROTB, meaning even if your opponents drop it i can't vote for you solely based off of framework. Only read this if you add in some weighing under your framework like a prereq or something and then that might be something to consider. I always default cost/benefit framework.
blips-an argument must have at least a warrant in it, assertive blips are not arguments and thus can be ignored within the round. if your opponents read blips just point it out and tell me. For example saying "pharma will always market so marketing NU" is not an argument. However, saying "pharma always has an profit incentive to market so marketing NU" is an argument. The difference is in the warranting.
Evidence Ethics
Here is a list of my preferences when it comes to evidence. These are things that I think would be great norms for the community to set, and practices that I will reward with increased speaker points.
-
Quote evidence directly when it is first presented. I will not vote against you for paraphrasing. But, I will vote on the paraphrasing theory shell if argued persuasively (and I am predisposed to vote for it).
-
Level an evidentiary challenge against opponents who are misusing evidence. I will reward correct evidence challenges with a W and block 30s. Please do this if your opponents are lying about their evidence.
If both teams fail to ethically represent evidence in the debate, no team will get higher than a 26, neither side gets to tell me that their evidence is better, and all arguments become your own analysis, without cards."
Prep
Tell me when you start and stop prep, I am fine with flex prep as long as both teams are as well. If your timer goes off at the end of your speech and cuts you off, you may finish your sentence. I don't flow anything that goes over 15 seconds. ( barring extenuating circumstances such as wifi outages)
SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS
30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.
29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.
28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.
27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.
26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.
25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.
Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.
Ashlyn Eizel - BPCC
n/a
Ben Harvey - MSU
n/a
Brianna Young - DBU
n/a
Briona Robinson (she/her) - BPCC
n/a
Bryan Taylor - WmCarey
n/a
Charles Culliford - LAC
n/a
Chloe Cook - LTU
n/a
Christopher Diaz - DBU
n/a
Claire Green - MSU
n/a
Cole Fairchild - MSU
n/a
Conner Morrow - WmCarey
n/a
Courtnae James - LSUS
n/a
Cyara Darby - LTU
n/a
Daniel Mathis - WmCarey
n/a
Daniel Wilkerson - LAC
n/a
Daniel Maxwell LastName451 - TAMU
n/a
Danielle Kofink - ACU
n/a
David Castellanos - DBU
n/a
Devesh Sarda - LSUS
n/a
Diana Weilbacher - ACU
n/a
Dominic Ragusa - MSU
n/a
Dwayne Byrd - LEE
n/a
Dylan Branca - MSU
n/a
Elena Foster - LEE
n/a
Eli Brown - MSU
n/a
Emily Dowd (they/them) - LSUS
n/a
Emma Jaramillo - MSU
n/a
Erick Aguilar - ACU
n/a
Eva Villamor - LAC
n/a
Gabrielle Wright - UCA
n/a
Giovana Corona - LEE
n/a
Hannah Barnett - ACU
n/a
Hannah Stanton - DBU
n/a
Ismael Ramirez - LEE
n/a
JULIETTE ESLAYED - LAC
n/a
Ja'i Dantzler - UCA
n/a
Jack Van Dyke (He/They) - UARK
n/a
Jackie Garcia-Torres - ACU
n/a
Jacob Rosas - LEE
n/a
Jacob Neal - MSU
n/a
James Junkin - MSU
n/a
Jasmine Forck - LSUS
n/a
Jasmine Strickland - UCA
n/a
Jocelyn Garcia Torres - ACU
n/a
Jodeyah Mills - ACU
n/a
Jorgianna Bowman - LEE
n/a
Josephine Moore - LSUS
n/a
Josh Mehaffey - ACU
n/a
Julie Welker - HPU
n/a
Kaleb Schmidley - LSUS
n/a
Kason Watkins - LEE
n/a
Katelyn Sims - HPU
n/a
Kaylee Cowles - LEE
n/a
Keelen Stiles - WmCarey
n/a
Keith Milstead - SMU
Kendra Parker - MSU
n/a
Khaled Algahim - LSUS
n/a
Kierra Thomas - LEE
n/a
LANA JOLLY - LAC
n/a
LCU-Camille Allgood* - LAC
n/a
LCU-Noel Martin - LAC
n/a
LSUS-Cooper Johnson - LSUS
n/a
Landon Ryden - SMU
n/a
Landon Richter - BPCC
n/a
Lane Atwood - DBU
n/a
Lee-Aiden Barajas - LEE
n/a
Lee-Giovanni Garcia - LEE
n/a
Levi Grubbs - LSUS
n/a
Levi Cook - DBU
n/a
Lexie Pape - LEE
n/a
Lilliane Blessing - LEE
n/a
Lilly Corbin - LEE
n/a
Liz Roa - UCA
n/a
Logan Weaver - MSU
n/a
Logan Lechner - MSU
n/a
Lorenzo Barrera - SHSU
n/a
Luke Thurmon (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Madeline McClatchey - LSUS
n/a
Mari Manning - LAC
n/a
Matthew Cook (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
McKenna Crain - LAC
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.
Melody McDaniel - LEE
n/a
Micah Bolden - LSUS
n/a
Michaela Nunn - MSU
n/a
Mimi Nguyen - LEE
n/a
Mollie Champlin - LSUS
n/a
Nicholas Madison - WmCarey
n/a
Nick Schott - ACU
n/a
Nicolas Hrechko - LSUS
n/a
Param Thakkar - LSUS
n/a
Pennelope Wilson - UCA
n/a
RUBY GROSS - LAC
n/a
Rachel Slocum - LAC
n/a
Robin-Anne Weeks - WmCarey
n/a
Ruben Capetillo - LEE
n/a
Rylee Mahon - ACU
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.
Sarah Thompson - WmCarey
n/a
Sean Ye - MSU
n/a
Selene Rojas - LEE
n/a
Shanisha Ford (She/Her) - LSUS
n/a
Shelton Gibbs - ACU
n/a
Shona Bhowmick - LEE
n/a
Shree Brown - DBU
n/a
Sophia Graham - SMU
n/a
Sophie Barrentine (She/Her) - UARK
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.
Taylor Harrison - ACU
n/a
Thomas Thurner - MSU
n/a
Ulysses Ramirez - LEE
n/a
Vaughn Androlowicz - SMU
n/a
Vinay Bolugoddu - LEE
n/a
Waleed Nawaz - DBU
n/a
adriana colon - LEE
n/a
sofia vega - LEE
n/a