2026 Missouri Mule

The University of Central Missouri - Oct 9-10 | Status: Adds,changes,drops | 10:42 AM Central

Tournament Image
Tournament Time: 10:42 AM Central
  Home   Contact Tournament   Schedule   Registration   Late Adds   Late Drops   Entries   Headquarters   Postings   Ballot Review   eBallots   Results

Judge Philosophies

Anna Gustin - NW Mo St.

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.

Ben Davis - Truman

n/a

Brady Super - UARK

n/a

Brian Katcher - UCMO

n/a

Brian Swafford - NW Mo St.

n/a

Catelynn Liniger - Mizzou

n/a

Christopher Lapee - KCKCC

Top level

"Tech over truth" has resulted in shallow debating where debaters spread through as many tenuous arguments as they can and then act like they mean something when they're inevitably dropped. While I think I do evaluate the debate technically, I believe you must present complete arguments for me to vote for you.

Prolly bad for these debates
K affs v T usfg/fw (both teams flying through T usfg/fw debates = I’m missing a lot on the flow and my feedback usually isn’t great on how to get better at going for certain arguments)

K debates (particularly if you’re going to go for fw in front of me. Similar problems to the above. Lightning fast theory debates make me lost and my feedback isn’t great for getting better at these debates)

T debates (slow down and stop focusing on being hyper technical. Make the interp make sense and give me reasons why your fairness/education outweighs)

TLDR:

  • Do what you do best bc that produces the best debates.

  • I'll do my best to evaluate the round as objectively as possible and give quality feedback.

  • Speed good but not everything.

  • Disclosure great I err heavy on the theory debate.

  • Impact calc and warrant analysis/extension are the most important for my ballot.

Speed:

  • Clarity+speed > clarity > speed.

T:

  • Default to competing Interps.

  • T is a debate about models.

  • Best for fairness and clash.

  • Best for limits and ground. 

  • Potential abuse is good enough to vote on.

CP:

  • Wont vote on a cp unless it has a net benefit can be internal or external.

  • A sufficiently solving CP is a reason why a 1% risk of the net ben means I vote neg.

  • If the counterplan results in the plan I don’t think it is very difficult for the aff to win the competition debate in front of me.

  • You have to give me a warrant why the counterplan solves in order for me to vote on it “they dropped it so you assume 100% solvency” is an incomplete argument and gives me 0 reason to believe it solves the aff. That means its important to extend a warrant why it solves if going for one in the NR. 

  • Condo good.

DA's:

  • I think that evidence comparison and analysis > card dumping.

  • I think going for timeframe on disads sets up the best try or die NR. 
  • Perception links should have a warrant why the plan gets percieved that way rather than just "the link gets percieved" without a warrant which should be carded.
  • There should be a clear internal link to the disad. I think a well developed internal link makes for the best NR disad outweighs push. 
  • I think the aff winnning offense on the disad is the best way to beat it outside of case outweighs (unless if case is conceded). 

Theory:

  • Outside of theory being conceded you'd likely have to spend a SIGNIFICANT part of the NR or 2AR going for it which isnt great in LD bc these debates likely always wind up being new in these speeches. I don't suggest going for theory in front of me but if you do going for fairness is best then clash second. Mainly because I think fainress implicates clash. 

The K:

  • I'm prolly best for fairness and clash on the fw debate. I think paradox, truth testing, and double down is good defense to go for also. 
  • Good for case outweighs try or die and turns the K.
  • Good for link turns. 
  • The link should be to the aff. I think links to the squo are bad. 
  • I think going for a fiated material alt good. 
  • I think going for a framework K and kicking the alt is bad 
  • I think going for aff's reasearch bad K's windup behind on the fw debate if they perf con themselve. 

IPDA

I don't have anything to really say here. I still think its a debate event and thus I'll vote for whoevers arguments are the best and most convincing. I don't think delivery factors in. Make some good arguments and clash with your opponents.

Clint Wooderson - SBU

n/a

Colten White - UNL

Cooper Young - UARK

n/a

Cyra Pratt - LSUS

n/a

David Bailey - TOUR

n/a

Eduardo Magalhaes - Simpson

n/a

Emma Terris - Webster

n/a

Ephraim Mensah - LSUS

n/a

Garrett Dohlke - Newberry C

n/a

Gina Jensen - Webster

n/a

Gracie Havard - Mizzou

n/a

Grant Bonin - LSUS

n/a

Hayden Jescheling - UARK

n/a

Holden Bukowsky - UNL

n/a

Jack Van Dyke (He/They) - UARK

n/a

Jay McJannet - Mizzou

n/a

Jessica Shinn - TOUR

n/a

Joe Moore - UCMO

n/a

Jordan Smith - Ottawa

n/a

Joshua Kofahl - UCMO

n/a

Josue Morales - Harding

n/a

Kelsey Abele (she/her) - K-State

n/a

Ken Troyer - Sterling

n/a

Lars Wagener - Truman

n/a

Laurel Kratz - Webster

n/a

Leanne Wasleski - UCMO

n/a

Lora Cohn - Park

n/a

Marisa Mayo - Simpson

n/a

Maxim Kilpatrick - MVU

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.

Michelle Jackson - UCMO

n/a

Nick Ramos - Harding

n/a

Pennelope Wilson - UCA

n/a

Rodney McDuffie - NW Mo St.

n/a

Ryan Magalhaes - K-State

n/a

Samantha Smith - IC

n/a

Sandy Katcher - UCMO

n/a

Scott Krueger - Simpson

n/a

Scott Betz - UMKC

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.

Sky Rennison - UCMO

n/a

Swikrit Aryal - LSUS

n/a

Terri Magalhaes - Simpson

n/a

Tiana Brownen - Simpson

n/a

Tom Serfass - Webster

n/a

Tyler Smith - ILSTU

n/a

Tyler Rietzke - UCA

n/a

Tylor Aary - Mizzou

n/a

Vincent Mantia - Truman

n/a

Zoe Rollins - Newberry C

n/a