Aaron Weinstein - CSUF

n/a

---

Aaron Ford - Lewis & Clark

n/a

---

Alessandro Leal-Romero - Miramar

n/a

---

Alexandra Smith - Tourn Judges

n/a

---

Alice Gilman - Tourn Judges

n/a

---

Amaia Ham - BGSU

n/a

---

Amanda Nobra - Tourn Judges

n/a

---

Amber Joiner - Nevada

I debated and did IEs in high school and was a nationally ranked debater in college. I went on to teach speech and debate courses at multiple universities and served as a DOF in the Northwest region. I hold a PhD in Public Policy and am a former state legislator who loves debate in all its forms, real world and academic.

For more public debate formats, I like the debaters to give me their best ideas as if I were a lay person. If you try to persuade an audience in the real world, you wont know their biases or lenses. I want competitors to be creative and not be worried about what they think I want to hear.

---

Amy Hileman - NOVA

For IPDA debate I do not want a jargon-filled round where students attempt to speak so quickly that the competition and judge won't notice the flaws in their logic. I do not believe that IPDA should look/sound like other types of debate. Give me the politeness/ettiquete at the start of the constructives. Focus on the quality of your argument vs speed. If I put my pen down when you are speaking, you are speaking too quickly. I am looking for sound arguments with clear structure and supporting research.

---

Anju Vriksha - Tourn Judges

n/a

---

Ashley Hines - NIU

n/a

---

Ashton RIos - TxState

n/a

---

Athena Rodriguez - IVC

n/a

---

Athena Rodriguez - Tourn Judges

n/a

---

Autumn Miller - Harding

n/a

---

Ben Walker - SMSU

n/a

---

Ben Pyle - UA

n/a

---

Ben Mann - Lewis & Clark

Hi! I'm the assistant director of forensics at Lewis & Clark College. My background is over 12 years of experience in college debate, including coaching roles in NPDA, NFA-LD, IPDA, and BP. A few general principles on how I evaluate debate are below:

• I view debate as comparative access to comparative impacts. Demonstrate to me that you best access the most important impacts of the debate, through framework/sequencing control, links, and an articulated impact story, and you have the easiest pathway to my ballot.
• I'm a flow judge and prioritize content over delivery. Typically, I give speaks based on argument quality and strategic decisionmaking.
• Yes, I'm comfortable with spreading if your opponent is. Please slow down a bit for tags and when moving between positions, and signpost clearly. If you're going too fast for me to flow, I'll say "slow." If your speaking isn't clear, regardless of your rate of delivery, I'll say "clear." Please accommodate your opponent if they can't follow you.
• Yes, you can read T and other procedurals in front of me, just sequence them properly (such as a priori).
• Yes, you can read Ks, critical affs, unique arguments, or even reject the resolution on the aff in front of me. However, I'm also open to framework and other responses to these arguments. The K lit needs to be in your argument: I won't fill in gaps that aren't present in your speech.
• No, don't be unnecessarily disrespectful to your opponent or judges, either through in-round behavior or argument types that actively disparage marginalized populations. Who you choose to be in the round matters more than W/L, and this behavior will at minimum impact your speaker points.

I judge primarily out of tournament need and may be in different formats round-to-round. Ultimately, I'm format-agnostic and invested in the educational/skill benefits that come from different styles of debate. If you have a format-specific question for me, you can reach me at bmann@lclark.edu

---

Brenna Bretzinger - NIU

n/a

---

Brent Mitchell - UA

n/a

---

Caden Haustein - Harding

n/a

---

Cassy Stierns - St. Cloud State U

n/a

---

Christina Smith - IVC

n/a

---

Clare Frances Kennedy - UA

n/a

---

Collette Blumer - CSUF

n/a

---

David Trumble - STA

n/a

---

Derious Braswell - Tourn Judges

n/a

---

Eli Ballowe - Tourn Judges

n/a

---

Elizabeth Berthold - Nevada

n/a

---

Emmy Rains - Jeff State

n/a

---

Ethan Arbuckle - LEE

n/a

---

Inderpreet Mushiana - Tourn Judges

n/a

---

Inderpriet Mushiana - IVC

n/a

---

Jake Garlock - UA

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

---

Jeff Harkleroad - Tourn Judges

n/a

---

Jeffrey Stein - Tourn Judges

n/a

---

Jeremy Hodgson - NOVA

Interpretation:I believe in communication that is respectful. Trigger warnings are welcome but not required. I focus on clear argumentation in interpretation events as well as exigency, developed characters, relationship development and nuanced performance choices. I welcome all types of literature and unique topics as well as breaking convention and taking risks while still respecting the events rules. I appreciate humility, heart and humanity. Clean delivery and time matter in tough rounds. Above all I want genuine human connection. I judge rounds from the second you walk in the room and therefore, I believe good communication is more than just the debate, presentation or performance at hand.

Platform & Limited Prep:I pride in ethos, pathos and logos. Relevancy, solid structure, and impact are all critical. Practicality and accessibility in persuasion is paramount. Lofty proposals should be avoided. Relatability is not always a deal breaker. Timing weighs on my decision heavily. Value your own prep time- please use it. Speaking sooner does not dictate better scoring. I welcome diverse topics and ideas and pride in inclusive language and sensitivity to ones audience. Be boldly yourself up there. I judge rounds from the second you walk in the room and therefore, I believe good communication is more than just the debate, presentation or performance at hand.

Debate:I expect, respect. Attacks or petty banter will lose a competitor the round. Debating one another does not mean judging the round for me, telling me how someone failed to uphold a rule, or telling me why I should vote someone down is not energy well spent. Spend your time justifying your own side of the debate. Competitors should courteously bring flaws in argumentation to the table-not the rules. I will judge you on the merit of your research and argumentation in comparison to your opponent. Speed holds no weight to your rank. I care about emphasis, control, and logic. Students must remain on topic and clearly articulate the tenants they bring forth from the beginning of the debate. Late arguments should be avoided. Anything off topic from the debate itself should be avoided. Weighing mechanisms are appreciated and staying on top of timing is critical. Levity is also appreciated and welcome in modesty. I judge rounds from the second you walk in the room and therefore, I believe good communication is more than just the debate, presentation or performance at hand.

Above all, have fun up there and be supportive of one another.

---

Jeremy Williams - IVC

n/a

---

Jess Tischmacher - Harding

n/a

---

Joe Gantt - Lewis & Clark

 

---

Joshua Roden - Harding

n/a

---

Judy Santacaterina - NIU

n/a

---

Justin Wiley - Mt. Hood CC

n/a

---

Kaitlyn Gonzalez - Mt. SAC

n/a

---

Kaylee Tegan - Nevada

DEBATE

My debate philosophy is quite simple, I prefer clear, structured arguments about the resolution. I dont enjoy spending the entire round hearing arguments about framework and definitions unless ABSOLUTELY necessary to the round. I also prefer quality arguments over a mass quantity of arguments. I prefer speeches that are slow and easy to understand rather than overloading your opponent and judge with fast arguments. I tend to not vote on dropped arguments unless it is absolutely necessary in the round. With organization, signposting contentions and on-time, brief road maps are preferred.

Most importantly, I expect all competitors to be respectful and civil when debating. I will not tolerate rude competition.

IE

For individual events and speeches, organization is very important. All parts of a speech should be easily identifiable. I am listening to the content of a speech as well as the delivery. Is there eye contact with the judge and audience? Do you know your speech well? Speeches should not be over the time limit.

---

Ken Ogden - IVC

n/a

---

Kristella Muvunankiko - IVC

n/a

---

Kyle Duffy - COC

---

Luke Edwards - NIU

n/a

---

Mackenzie Mattila - NAU

---

Marianne Vanderbeke - BGSU

n/a

---

Matt DuPuis - NIU

n/a

---

Megan Thompson - Tourn Judges

n/a

---

Mekena Bennett - Fullerton College

n/a

---

Mike Gray - Troy

n/a

---

Mishaal Said - Tourn Judges

n/a

---

Naomi Andrews - TCC

n/a

---

Natalie Hedberg - UA

n/a

---

Pam Secklin - St. Cloud State U

n/a

---

Philip Miller - Harding

n/a

---

Philip Sharp - Nevada

Phil Sharp- University of Nevada-Reno

---

Rachel Pollock - NIU

n/a

---

Ric Studer - St. Cloud State U

n/a

---

Rigo Ruiz - LEE

n/a

---

River Mishow - Tourn Judges

n/a

---

Ryan McDonald - PHC

n/a

---

Scott Wells - St. Cloud State U

n/a

---

TCC-John Mikolajcik - TCC

n/a

---

TSU-Tyler Cole - TxState

n/a

---

Travis Cornett - Tourn Judges

n/a

---

Victor Pantaleoni - Nevada

n/a

---

Will Jackson - Jeff State

n/a

---

Zoe-Raven Wianecki - CSUF

n/a

---