Adam Enz - IC

n/a

---

Adrian Alvarado - LEE

n/a

---

Advita Shinde - LEE

n/a

---

Aiden Barajas - LEE

n/a

---

Andre Swai - UNL

n/a

---

Angelica Huff - Harding

n/a

---

Ashley Miller-Scully - UCMO

n/a

---

Ashley Singh - UCMO

n/a

---

Ashton RIos - TxState

n/a

---

Beau Burnett - UCMO

n/a

---

Ben Davis - Truman

n/a

---

Benji Baumgartner - UCMO

n/a

---

Berkeley Sizemore - Texas Tech

n/a

---

Brady Reed - Mule Judges

n/a

---

Caleb Wands - UCMO

n/a

---

Cameron Thoele - LSUS

n/a

---

Chanin Paxton - Mule Judges

n/a

---

Christine Rogers - Mule Judges

n/a

---

Connor Bush - Mule Judges

n/a

---

Cooper Johnson - LSUS

n/a

---

Darelle Wabo - UCMO

n/a

---

David Bailey - Mule Judges

n/a

---

Devesh Sarda - LSUS

n/a

---

Douglas Roberts - MoVal

On Tabroom

---

Eduardo Magalhaes - Simpson

n/a

---

Elena Foster - LEE

n/a

---

Emily Unruh - WU

n/a

---

Emily Catanzaro - UCMO

n/a

---

Emily Fraser - UCMO

n/a

---

Ephraim Mensah - LSUS

n/a

---

Ethan Crandall - UCMO

n/a

---

Gilbert Ortega - Texas Tech

n/a

---

Gina Jensen - Webster

n/a

---

Giovanni Garcia - LEE

n/a

---

Hannah Walters - UCMO

n/a

---

Hayden Etter - UCMO

n/a

---

Haylee Weese - UCMO

n/a

---

Hengel Zelaya - Harding

n/a

---

Jackson Specker - Mule Judges

n/a

---

Jahnaya Thomas - UCMO

n/a

---

Jaimie Brinkmeyer - UCMO

n/a

---

James Wood - DBU

n/a

---

Jared Dockery - Harding

n/a

---

Jasmine Forck - LSUS

n/a

---

Jelise Crafton - UCMO

n/a

---

Jenise Cook - UCMO

n/a

---

Jenna Gorton - WU

n/a

---

Jessie Paxton - UCMO

n/a

---

Jillian Humke - Truman

n/a

---

Jodie Hazell - LEE

n/a

---

Joe Moore - UCMO

n/a

---

Joe Devero - UCMO

n/a

---

Joel Martin - DBU

n/a

---

John Sims - UNL

n/a

---

John Paxton - Mule Judges

n/a

---

John Wallis - Webster

n/a

---

Jordan Smith - Ottawa

n/a

---

Jordan Guillot (they/them) - LSUS

n/a

---

Julia Giacomet Thomazoni - Texas Tech

n/a

---

Justin Kirk - UNL

Justin Kirk

Director of Debate at University of Nebraska-Lincoln

20 years judging experience @ about 40 rounds per year

"I believe I have an obligation to work as hard at judging as the debaters do preparing for the debates." Scott Harris

General philosophy Debate is primarily a communications based activity, and if you are not communicating well, your arguments are probably incoherent, and you are probably not going to win many debates in front of me. It is your responsibility to make quality arguments. An argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Evidence supports argumentation, it does not supplant it. However, analytic arguments and comparative claims about argument quality are essential to contextualizing your evidence and applying it to the issues developed throughout the debate. Quality arguments beat bad evidence every time.

I flow every debate and expect teams to answer arguments made by the other team. You should also flow every debate. That does not mean start flowing after the speech documents run out. Cross-examinations that consist mostly of "what cards did you read" or "what cards did you skip" are not cross examinations and do you little to no good in terms of winning the debate. If you have questions about whether or not the other team made an argument or answered a particular argument, consult your flow, not the other team. The biggest drawback to paperless debate is that people debate off speech docs and not their flows, this leads to shoddy debating and an overall decline in the quality of argumentation and refutation.

Each team has a burden of refutation, and arguing the entire debate from macro-level arguments without specifically refuting the other side's arguments will put you at a severe disadvantage in the debate. Burden of proof falls upon the team making an argument. Unwarranted, unsupported assertions are a non-starter for me. It is your responsibility is to make whole arguments and refute the arguments made by the other side. Evaluating the debate that occurred is mine. The role of my ballot is to report to the tab room who I believe won the debate.

Online Debate - everyone is adjusting to the new world of online debate and has plenty of burdens. I will be lenient when judging if you are having technical difficulties and provide ample time. You should record all of your speeches on a backup device in case of permanent technical failures. Speechdrop is the norm for sharing files. If there are bandwidth problems, I will ask everyone to mute their mics and videos unless they are talking.

Paperless Debate You should make every attempt to provide a copy of the speech documents to me and the other team before the speech. Disclosure is a norm in debate and you should endeavor to disclose any previously run arguments before the debate. Open source is not a norm, but is an absolutely preferable means of disclosure to cites only. The easiest way to resolve this is through an email thread for the debate, it saves time and the risk of viruses are decreased substantially through email. I suspect that paperless debate has also led to a substantial decrease in clarity and corresponding increases in cross-reading and clipping. I have zero tolerance for cheating in debate, and will have no qualms about voting against you, assigning zero speaker points, and speaking to your coaches about it. Clarity is a must. You will provide me speech documents to read during the debate so I may better understand the debate that is occurring in front of me. I will ask you to be clearer if you are not and if you continue to be unclear, I will stop flowing your arguments.

Topicality Is good for debate, it helps to generate clash, prevents abusive affirmatives, and generally wins against affirmatives that have little to no instrumental relation to the topic. Topicality definitions should be precise, and the reasons to prefer your topicality violation should be clear and have direct relation to your interpretation. Topicality debates are about the scope of and competition generated by the resolution. I usually default to competing interpretations, as long as both sides have clear, contextual, and well warranted interpretations. If your interpretation is missing one of these three elements, go for another argument. Reasonability is a winnable argument in front of me as long as you offer specific and warranted reasons why your interpretation is reasonable vis- -vis the negative. I vote on potential abuse and proven abuse.

Kritiks Should be based in the resolution and be well researched with specific links to the affirmative. Reading generic links to the topic is insufficient to establish a link to the affirmative. Alternatives should be well explained and evidenced with specific warrants as to the question of link solvency. A majority of kritik debates that are lost by negative teams where they have failed to explain the link debate or alternative adequately. A majority of kritik debates that are lost by affirmative teams when I am judging are ones where the affirmative failed to sufficiently argue for a permutation argument or compare the impacts of the affirmative to the impacts of the criticism sufficiently. I firmly believe that the affirmative gets to weigh the advantages of the plan against the impacts of the criticism unless the link to the criticism directly stems from the framing of the Affirmative impacts. I also believe that the affirmative can usually win solvency deficits to the alternative based upon deficits in implementation and/or instrumentalization of the alternative. Arguments that these solvency deficits do not apply because of framework, or that the affirmative has no right to solving the affirmative, are non-starters for me.

Counterplans Yes. The more strategic, the better. Should be textually and functionally competitive. Texts should be written out fully and provided to the other team before cross examination begins. The negative should have a solvency card or net benefit to generate competition. PICs, conditional, topical counterplans, international fiat, states counterplans are all acceptable forms of counterplans. NR counterplans are an effective means of answering new 1AR arguments and add-ons and are fair to the affirmative team if they are responses to new 1AR developments. I believe that counterplans are the most effective means of testing the affirmative's plan via competitive policy options and are an effective means of solving for large portions of the affirmative. Counterplans are usually a fair check against new affirmatives, non-intrinsic advantages, and affirmatives with bad or no solvency evidence. If you have a theoretical objection to the counterplan, make it compelling, have an interpretation, and win offense. Theoretical objections to the counterplan are fine, but I have a high threshold for these arguments unless there is a specific violation and interpretation that makes sense in the context of competitive demands in debate.

Disads Yes and yes. A likely winning strategy in front of me usually involves going for a disadvantage to the affirmative and burying the case with quality arguments and evidence. Disadvantages should have specific links to the case and a coherent internal link story. It is your job to explain the causal chain of events that leads to the disadvantage. A disadvantage with no internal links is no disad.

Case Debate - Is a lost art. Most affirmatives are a hodgepodge of thrown together internal links and old impact evidence. Affirmatives are particularly bad at extending their affirmative and answering negative arguments. Especially new affirmatives. Negative teams should spend a substantial portion of the debate arguing why the affirmative case is problematic. Fewer and fewer teams invest any time in arguing the case, at the cost of a criticism or disadvantage that usually isn't worth reading in the first place. Time trade-offs are not nearly as valuable as quality indictments of the 1AC. Spend those three minutes answering the advantages and solvency and don't read that third criticism or fourth disadvantage, it usually doesn't help you anyway. Inidict the 1AC evidence, make comparative claims about their evidence and your evidence, challenge the specificity or quality of the internal links.

Evidence - Qualifications, context, and data matter. You should answer the evidence read in the debate because I will read evidence at the end. One of the largest problems with paperless debate is the persistence of reading cards to answer cards when a simple argument about the context or quality of the evidence will do. It takes less time to answer a piece of terrible evidence with an analytic argument than it does to read a card against it. It is useless to throw good cards after bad.

Speaker Points - Are a reflection of the quality of speaking, arguments, and strategic choice made by debaters in the debate no more, no less.

One final note - I have heard and seen some despicable things in debate in the past few years. Having a platform to espouse your ideas does not give you the right to make fun of other debaters' limitations, tell them to die, blame them for other's deaths, threaten them with violence (explicitly or implicitly), or generally be a horrible person. Debate as an activity was designed to cultivate a community of burgeoning intellectuals whose purpose is the pedagogical development of college students through a competitive and repetitive engagement of complex ideas. If you think that something you are about to say might cross the line from argument into personal attack or derogatory statement do not say it. If you decide to cross that line, it is my interpretation of the event that matters and I will walk out of your debate and assign you an immediate loss.

---

Kaeddis Cole - LEE

n/a

---

Kaila Todd - Mule Judges

n/a

---

Kaleb Schmidley - LSUS

n/a

---

Kalia Naylor - UCMO

n/a

---

Katelyn Ah Puck - DBU

n/a

---

Kayla Helms - Mule Judges

n/a

---

Kaylin Evans - UCMO

n/a

---

Ken Troyer - Sterling

n/a

---

Kenyiah Mays - UCMO

n/a

---

Kevin Minch - Truman

---

Kevin Krouse - Simpson

n/a

---

Khaled Algahim - LSUS

n/a

---

Kimberly Truong - LEE

n/a

---

Kodi Ficco - UCMO

n/a

---

Layla Ned - DBU

n/a

---

Lesley Chetti - DBU

n/a

---

Levi Grubbs - LSUS

n/a

---

Lexi Winterbower - UCMO

n/a

---

Lillian Rhodes - UCMO

n/a

---

Logan Michael - WU

n/a

---

Lora Cohn - Park

n/a

---

Lorenzo Barrera - LEE

n/a

---

Ly Nguyen - LEE

n/a

---

Mack Miles (They/Them) - LSUS

n/a

---

Maddie Chambers - DBU

n/a

---

Madeline McClatchey - LSUS

n/a

---

Madelyn Villeda - UCMO

n/a

---

Maguire Radosevic - Truman

n/a

---

Malika Bradley-Ferdinand - UCMO

n/a

---

Mariah Gilmore - Simpson

n/a

---

Marisa Mayo - Simpson

n/a

---

Marley Sands - UCMO

n/a

---

Mathew Nabors - DBU

n/a

---

Maya Szafraniec - KCKCC

I debated for 8 years. In college, I debated mostly parli, some LD and Policy, for Saint Marys College of California. My partner and I dropped in octos of NPDA in 2019. I have been coaching debate both at SMC and at KCKCC since then. In college, My debate partner and I mostly read critical arguments. So Im cool with Ks, and a well-written K will make me happy. Make sure you can explain how you link and how your alt solves. I also know my way around a plan debate, so read whatever draws you. Make sure your Aff is inherent, and have a clear, consistent story through uniqueness, links, and impact. Im also down to hear your CP/DA and think condo is probably good. I would be equally happy to vote on a theory or framework argument as long as you tell me how it wins the debate. I can handle speed, just slow down for your alt/plan and interps and dont use it to exclude people, that will make me fussy.

I also reserve the right to vote teams down for being overtly oppressive (saying something racist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, ablest, Islamophobic, etc.), generally or directed to competitors.

Bring me a chai and you get block 30s

Overall: Read offence. Use more warrants. Do impact calc, the more work you do for me explaining how you win the better your chances are of winning. Be nice to each other.

---

Melody Kreieneder - UCMO

n/a

---

Michael Brockett - Crowder

n/a

---

Morgan Palmer - UCMO

n/a

---

Moriah Eason - LSUS

n/a

---

Noah Smentkowski - SEMO

n/a

---

Noah Rogers - UCMO

n/a

---

Paige Shinn - UCMO

n/a

---

Paul Hood - Mule Judges

n/a

---

Priscilla Grace Huff - Harding

n/a

---

Rachel Currie - LEE

n/a

---

Raine Stugart - UNL

n/a

---

Ray Boessen - UCMO

n/a

---

Samiracle Lee - UCMO

n/a

---

Scott Koslow - Truman

n/a

---

Scott Thomson - Texas Tech

n/a

---

Shane Brewer - IC

n/a

---

Shanna Carlson - ILSTU

Background: I competed in parliamentary and LD debate for Washburn University for five years (2005-2010). I freelance coached and judged for three years. I have taught high school and college debate camps for the University of Texas-Dallas, ISU, and Kyushu University in Japan. I am currently the Director of Debate at Illinois State University.

DISCLOSURE THEORY IS LAZY DEBATE AND I WILL GIVE YOU NO HIGHER THAN 15 SPEAKER POINTS IF YOU RUN THIS POSITION (this means at best you will get a low point win).

I am unable to flow too much speed due to an issue with my hand. I will give you 2 verbal "speed" warnings before I just stop flowing all together!

I believe that the debate is yours to be had, but there are a few things that you should know:

1. Blippy, warrantless debates are mind numbing. If you do not have a warrant to a claim, then you do not have an argument even if they drop it. This usually occurs at the top of the AC/NC when you are trying to be "clever." Less "clever," more intelligent. I do not evaluate claims unless there are no real arguments in a round. Remember that a full argument consists of a claim supported by warrants with evidence.

2. I believe that the speed at which you go should be accessible to everyone in the round, this means your competitor and other judges on a panel. I am open to voting on accessibility and/or clarity kritiks. SPEED SHOULD NOT BE A TOOL OF EXCLUSION!!!!!!

3. I often vote for the one argument I can find that actually has an impact. I do not evaluate moral obligations in the round (if you say "Moral Obligation" in college LD Debate I stop flowing, take a selfie, and mock you on social media). This does not mean I will not vote for dehumanization is bad, but I need a warrant outside of just telling me I am morally obligated to do something. Moral obligations are lazy debate, warrant out your arguments. HIGH SCHOOL LD DEBATERS- IGNORE THIS

4. Run whatever strategy you want--I will do my best to evaluate whatever you give me in whatever frame I'm supposed to--if you don't give me the tools I default to policy maker, if it's clearly not a policy maker paradigm round for some reason I'll make something up to vote on...basically, your safest bet is to tell me where to vote.

5. If you are rude, I will not hesitate to tank your speaker points. There is a difference between confidence, snarkiness, and rudeness.

6. When running a kritik you need to ensure that you have framework, impacts, links, an alternative text, alt solvency, and role of the ballot (lacking any of these will make it hard for me to vote for you)...I also think you should explain what the post alt world looks like.

7. If you are going to run a CP and a kritik you need to tell me which comes first and where to look. You may not like how I end up ordering things, so the best option is to tell me how to order the flow.

8. Impact calc is a MUST. This is the best way to ensure that I'm evaluating what you find to be the most important in the round.

9. Number or letter your arguments. The word "Next" or "And" is not a number or a letter. Doing this will make my flow neater and easier to follow and easier for you to sign post and extend in later speeches. It also makes it easier for me to make a decision in the end.

10. I base my decision on the flow as much as possible. I will not bring in my personal beliefs or feelings toward an argument as long as there is something clear to vote on. If I have to make my own decision due to the debaters not being clear about where to vote on the flow or how arguments interact, I will be forced to bring my own opinion in and make a subjective decision rather than an objective decision.

11. If you advocate for a double win I automatically vote for the other person, issue you 1 speaker point, and leave the room. This is a debate, not a conversation. We are here to compete, so don't try to do something else.

12. Wilderson has stated that he does not want his writings used in debate by white individuals. He believes that the use of his writings is contradictory to what he overall stands for because he feels like you are using his arguments and black individuals as a tool to win (functionally monetizing black individuals). So for the love of all that is good please stop running these cards and respect the author's wishes. If you are white and you run his evidence I will not evaluate it out of respect for the author.

13. I will give you auto 30 speaker points if you read your 1AC out of an interp black book with page turns.

Really, I'm open to anything. Debate, have fun, and be engaging. Ask me any questions you may have before the start of the round so that we can all be on the same page :) I also believe this activity should be a learning experience for everyone, so if after a round you have any questions please feel free to approach me and talk to me! I truly mean this because I love talking about debate and the more each debater gains from a round will provide for better rounds in the future for me to judge. If you ever have questions about a comment or RFD please ask. My email is sjcarl3@ilstu.edu

---

Shawna Merrill - IC

My competitive background is mainly in parli, but I judged LD throughout the 17/18 season and am currently head coach of a program competing in NFA-LD.

Debate is ultimately a communication endeavor, and as such, it should be civil and accessible. I’m not a fan of speed. I can handle a moderate amount especially as I follow along with your docs (I want to be included on speechdrop, email chains, etc.), but at the point that you’re gasping for air, I’m over it. Using speed as a strategy to spread your opponent out of the round is not okay for me.

I’m not a big T person. While I prefer proven in-round abuse to vote on T, I will vote for competing interpretations if it’s done well. Basically, if you run T, you’d better mean it. Don’t use it as a time sink.

I will vote on Ks if they address the topic/refute the plan. I enjoy a good critical argument, but don’t assume I’m familiar with all of your literature.

My favorite types of rounds are ones that engage in direct clash and cover the flow. Attend to the link stories and connect the dots as to how we get to your impacts. I’ll vote on just about any argument as long as it’s clearly explained and defended.

Bottom line: don’t try to get too fancy. Run arguments you understand and do what you’re comfortable with.

---

Shelby Cumpton - UCMO

Love good speaking, strong argumentation, and a little humor here and there. Don't run preponderance of evidence in front of me; I care about actual argumentation, not just evidence. If you want to win my ballot, don't get caught up in the technicalities or terminology; just make a better argument.

---

Shree Brown - DBU

n/a

---

Sim Singh - Texas Tech

n/a

---

Steve Doubledee - WU

---

Susan Keim - Park

n/a

---

Tanner Brown - LSUS

n/a

---

Tara Rambarran - LEE

n/a

---

Taylor Corlee - SBU

n/a

---

Taylor Heysquierdo - LEE

n/a

---

Terri Magalhaes - Simpson

n/a

---

Thomas Puffett - UCMO

n/a

---

Tiana Brownen - Simpson

n/a

---

Tom Serfass - Webster

n/a

---

Tory McCoy - LSUS

n/a

---

Ty Page - UCMO

n/a

---

Tyler Cole - TxState

n/a

---

Tyson Lamoureux - UCMO

n/a

---

Will Wheeler - Mule Judges

n/a

---

William Musser - UCMO

n/a

---

Zack Schmidt - UCMO

n/a

---