Judge Philosophies
Adam Enz - IC
n/a
Amy Schroeder - Truman
n/a
Andrew Rea - WU
n/a
Annika Ruiz - CCU
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.
Ashley Schlesky - UCMO
n/a
Ashley Singh - UCMO
n/a
Ashton Mullen-IPDA - Truman
n/a
Austin Sopko - Truman
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=296640
Ayden Clark - UCMO
n/a
Beau Burnett - UCMO
n/a
Ben Davis - Truman
n/a
Benji Baumgartner - UCMO
n/a
Bobbi Gums - Simpson
n/a
Bobbi Gums - TOUR
n/a
Bre Prater - TOUR
n/a
Brian Swafford - NW Mo St.
n/a
Briana Glover - UCMO
n/a
Busari Oluwatofunmi Dorcas - UCMO
n/a
CJ Miller - UCMO
n/a
Caleb Wands - UCMO
n/a
Caleb Sides - UCMO
n/a
Caleb Dillon - UCMO
n/a
Carmen Kidwell - UCMO
n/a
Carolyn Rodarte - UCMO
n/a
Carson Davis - ATU
n/a
Catelynn Liniger - Mizzou
n/a
Chanin Paxton - TOUR
n/a
Chase Dernier - UCMO
n/a
Christine Rogers - TOUR
n/a
Clara Wind - CCU
n/a
Colten White - UNL
Cooper Spacil-IPDA - Truman
n/a
Craig Brown - K-State
n/a
Daniel Province - TOUR
n/a
Darelle Wabo - UCMO
n/a
Darren Elliott - KCKCC
Darren Elliott "Chief" --Director of Debate and Forensics Kansas City KS Community College
Director and Head Coach at KCKCC for the past two decades. In that time we have had multiple late elim teams at CEDA Nats, multiple teams qualified to the NDT, 2015 NPDA Parli National Champions, 2016 NFA LD National Champion, mulitple CC National Championships in all formats of Debate and some IE's as well. I appreciate the breadth the activity provides and I enjoy coaching, judging hard working students who value the activity.
*PARLI ADDITION--The Aff should have any plan texts, ROTB, ROTJ, Alts, Etc. written on paper prior to the end of the PMC. The Neg should have any counterplan texts, ROTB, ROTJ, Alts, Etc. written on paper prior to the end of the LOC. Debates are routinely spending 3-5 minutes prior to FLEX time after the first two speeches to manage these issues.
Probably the least interventionist judge you will encounter. Will listen to and fairly consider any argument presented. (Avoid obvious racist and sexist arguments and ad Homs). For an argument to be a round winner you need to win the impact the argument has in relation to the impacts your opponent might be winning and how all of those affect/are affected by the ballot or decision (think framework for the debate). No predispositions against any strategy be it a Disad/CP/Case or K or T/Framework on the Neg or a straight up policy or K Aff. Win what it is you do and win why that matters. I actually appreciate a good Disad/CP/Case Offense debate as much as anything (even though the arguments a number of recent KCKCC debaters might lead one to think otherwise). The beauty of debate is its innovation.
I appreciate in-depth arguments and hard work and reward that with speaker points. A debate that begins in the first couple of speeches at a depth that most debates aspire to be by the last two speeches is a work of art and shows dedication and foresight that should be rewarded. Cross-X as well, in this regard, that shows as good or better of an understanding of your opponents arguments as they do will also be rewarded. Cross-X is a lost art.
Most of all--Have Fun and Good Luck!!
Dr. Gabriel Adkins - ATU
n/a
Eddie Watkins - UCA
n/a
Eduardo Magalhaes - Simpson
n/a
Emily Bergman - CCU
n/a
Emily Joshlin - ATU
n/a
Emma Terris - Webster
n/a
Emmett Beeson - Truman
n/a
Eric Rotert-IPDA - Truman
n/a
Garrett Dohlke - Webster
n/a
Gina Jensen - Webster
n/a
Grace Bell - KCKCC
n/a
Gracie Havard - Mizzou
n/a
Hannah Rodriguez-Nemeth - UCMO
n/a
Hayden Etter - UCMO
n/a
Holden Bukowsky - UNL
n/a
Illary Soto - UCMO
n/a
Iris Vermillion - UCMO
n/a
Isabella Vollmar - UCMO
n/a
Ja'i Dantzler - UCA
n/a
Jack Unsell - Truman
n/a
Jack Rogers - UCMO
n/a
Jacob Cromley - CCU
n/a
Jarrett Reiter - UCMO
n/a
Jason Roach - Webster
n/a
Jasper Millsaps - ATU
n/a
Jay Self - Truman
n/a
Jesse Jones - TOUR
n/a
Joe Moore - UCMO
n/a
Joe Devero - UCMO
n/a
Joel Bruciaga - CCU
n/a
Jordan Smith - Ottawa
n/a
Joshua Kofahl - UCMO
n/a
Josie Hougham - UCMO
n/a
June Wheatley - Mizzou
n/a
Justin Fausz (they/them) - IC
n/a
Kaleb Young - ATU
n/a
Kathryn Hamilton - UCMO
n/a
Kayla Gerlt - Truman
n/a
Kayla Helms - TOUR
n/a
Kelly Edmondson - TOUR
n/a
Kevin Minch - Truman
Kevin James - CCU
n/a
Kevin Doss - TOUR
n/a
Kirby Weber - Webster
n/a
Kwasi Amponi - CCU
n/a
Landon Alexander - CCU
n/a
Lars Wagener - Truman
n/a
Laurel Kratz - Webster
n/a
Lauren Weiss - Truman
n/a
Layna Lundrigan - Simpson
n/a
Lenora Haddad - CCU
n/a
Liz Houlihan - CCU
n/a
Lori Myers - UCMO
n/a
Madilynn Ritter - CCU
n/a
Manny Reyes - TOUR
n/a
Marisa Mayo - Simpson
n/a
Mary Mann - Ottawa
n/a
Maya Szafraniec - KCKCC
I am an assistant debate coach at Kansas City Kansas Community College. 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. My debate partner and I mostly read critical arguments. So, Im cool with Ks, and a well-written K always brings me joy. Make sure you can explain how you link and how your alt solves. I got my degrees in Biology (BA, minor in math) and Anthropology (MA)). For my day job, I am a data analyst for early childhood education policy in Missouri. I guess K debaters can be policy makers too LOL. All that to say I love learning new things and often dip intellectually into many buckets. Make sure your policy Aff is inherent, and have a clear, consistent story through uniqueness, links, and impact. I think little affs with 100% solvency are underappreciated. 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 if you tell me why that means you win the debate. I am good with speed, just slow down for your alt/plan and interps and dont use it to exclude people, and I default to net benefits weighing unless you tell me otherwise.
My most favorite thing about debate is that you all get to decide what debate is uniquely in each roundwhat you want to talk about, how you want to talk about it, how I vote. Reject that topic if you want to girl! Go fast, go slow, whatever, I am just going to do my best to evaluate what you all created based on the rules you find important. I think that is one of the most educational and important parts of debate, I am so happy and excited people keep wanting to do debate.
mszafraniec1997@gmail.com for the email chain, or if you'd like to ask me questions about your round later.
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. Tell me about what you are passionate about. Be nice to each other.
Mora Boyd - ATU
n/a
Nick Van Ross - NW Mo St.
n/a
ONLINE - Ar'mand Erving - IC
n/a
ONLINE - Kris Stroup - Truman
n/a
ONLINE--Dennis Taylor - TOUR
n/a
ONLINE--Tess Welch - TOUR
n/a
ONLINE-Neil Mansharamani - Truman
n/a
ONLINE-Ryan Kennedy - Truman
n/a
ONLINE-Shane Brewer - TOUR
n/a
Pam Lowe - TOUR
n/a
Peter Lundrigan - Simpson
n/a
Philomena Williams - K-State
n/a
Ritorshi Dutta - UCMO
n/a
Rodney McDuffie - NW Mo St.
n/a
Sawyer Partney-IPDA - Truman
n/a
Scott Elliott - UMKC
n/a
Scott Krueger - Simpson
n/a
Sha Wilson - MVC
n/a
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.
Stacy Bernaugh - TOUR
n/a
Stephanie Littlefield - ATU
n/a
Stephen Scheffel - CCU
I think that IPDA is a comment sense and rhetoric based event. I am going to judge primarily on the arguments, but speaking ability will most certainly be taken into consideration. Please refrain from using overly technical language, speed, policy tactics, etc. If it would not be persuasive to a lay person, I won't find it persuasive.
Be sure to properly back up your claims logically. I understand that the speech and debate community has a specific political bent, but I am not going to consider an argument that is made without warrant simply because it is a widely held belief in the debate community.
Steve Doubledee - WU
ADOF for Washburn University
Please treat your opponent with kindness and respect. I get it sometimes this is hard to docx can get heated at times. Just know that keeping your cool in those situations goes a long way with me. Guaranteed if youre rude speaks will suffer. If youre really rude you will get the Loss!
Quality of evidence matters. Credential comparisons are important example- Your opponents evidence is from a blog vs your evidence is from a specialist in the field of the debate---you should point that out! Currency comparisons are important example- Your opponents impact card from 2014 is based off a very different world than what we exist in now---you should point that out. Last thing hereOver-tagged / under highlighted cards do not impress me. Good rule of thumbif your card tag is longer than what you have highlighted I will consider that pretty shady.
Speed vs Delivery- What impresses medebaters that can deliver their evidence efficiently & persuasively. Some can do this a little quicker than others and that is okay. On the flip side for you slower debaters the great balancer is I prefer quality evidence / arguments and will always privilege 1 solid argument over 5 kind-of-argumentsyou just have to point that out. Cross-applications / impact filter cards are your friend.
I prefer you embrace the resolution- What does this mean exactly? No plan text Affirmatives = 90% chance you will lose to T. If you could write an advocacy statement you probably could have written/found a TVA. What about the other 10%? Well, if your opponent does not run or collapse to T-USFG / does not put any offense on your performative method then you will probably get my ballot.
Theory/procedurals- Aff & Neg if youre not making theory args offensive then dont bother reading them. Negs that like to run 4 theory/procedural args in the 1NC and collapse to the one least coveredI will vote on RVIsThis means when kicking out, if an RVI is on that theory sheet you better take the time to answer it. I view RVIs as the great strategic balancer to this approach.
Case debate-Case debate is important. Key areas of case that should be addressed: Plan text (plan flaw), circumvention, direct solvency turns / defense, impact filters / framing, rolb claims.
Counterplan/disad combo - If I had to choose what debate island I would have to live on for the rest of my life-- I would choose this one. I like generic process cp/da combos just as much as hyper specific PICs/with a small net-benefit. CP text is important. Your CP text should be textually & functionally competitive. CP theory debates can be interesting. I will give all cp theory arguments consideration if framed as an offensive reason to do so. The only CP theory I will not listen to is PICs bad (never). Both aff/neg should be framing the rebuttal as Judge we have the world of the cp vs the plan here is why my world (the cp or plan) is better.
K debates - I am a great believer in topic specific critical lit The more specific your link cards the better. If your only link is "you function through the state" dont run it or do some research and find some specific links. I expect K Alts to have the following: 1. Clear alt text 2. Carded alt solvency that isolates the method being used 3. Tell me what the post alt world looks like. If your K happens to be a floating PIC that is fine with me but I will consider theoretical argument in opposition as wellYes, I will listen to a Floating PIC good/bad debate.
Last thought: Doing your own research + Cutting your own evidence = more knowledge gained by you.
Chance favors a prepared mind Louis Pasteur
Taylor Corlee - Crowder
n/a
Terri Magalhaes - Simpson
n/a
Tiana Brownen - Simpson
n/a
Tom Serfass - Webster
n/a
Tom Pinney - TOUR
n/a
Valorie Gabrielli - UCMO
n/a
Ve'Shawn Dixon - NW Mo St.
n/a
Virginia Grzenia - TOUR
n/a
Xander Corkins - UCMO
n/a