ACU-Annah Samdi - ACU

n/a

---

ACU-Sam Mahony - ACU

n/a

---

AJ Edwards (He/Him) - LSUS

n/a

---

Aiden Bennett - MSU

n/a

---

Alex Gibson - LTU

n/a

---

Alexandria Ritchie - ACU

n/a

---

Allison Winter - UF

n/a

---

Alyx Dickson - Lewis & Clark

I am the Director of Speech at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, OR. I have well over a decade of experience competing and coaching across all IE and Debate events. I competed in Texas as part of (AFA) D3, NFA, PKD, and Phi Rho Pi (TX Region 6 - when that was still a thing), and have a very strong passion for Community College access to education and equity within the speech and debate space(s).

Debate:

I believe that the debate space is yours. I am well read on critical theory and philosophy. Speed likely won't be an issue. I am an offense/defense judge. Biggest thing I care about is being respectful,in the space. Any targetting or discriminatory behavior will not be tolerated. If you have more particular questions about how I evaluate specific arguments or in certain round situations, please feel free to ask prior to the debate. Different formats exist for reasons, so don't just go for inequitable, easy wins that take away debate space access, instead be strategic in/with the game of debate.

Speech:

For speech, I prefer to have CW/TW always given to help myself and other members of the audience to better prepare and engage with/in the performances of the round. My take is that this activity is only as beautiful as its community and the intentional choices of space/place creation that we cultivate it to be. Be mindful of the potential impact(s) on the room and the community both in your performances and speeches, but also outside of the rounds and as you traverse the community of/within speech, and all of the cultures and communities that we engage with through travelling and being an activity participant in Speech as public competition.

---

Amelia Little - ACU

n/a

---

Amie Clarke - GCU

n/a

---

Anna Wooten - MSU

n/a

---

Anna McFetridge - WmCarey

n/a

---

Arbaz Khan - LSUS

n/a

---

Asahi Lama Sherpa - MSU

n/a

---

Ash Bridenbaker - LSU

n/a

---

Ashlee Roberson - WmCarey

n/a

---

Aubree Watkins (She/Her) - UARK

n/a

---

Audrey Oberle - MSU

n/a

---

Audrey Taylor - UU

n/a

---

Bailey Brown - LAC

n/a

---

Beau Farrar - LTU

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

---

Ben Krueger - Nevada

Ben Krueger (he/him/his)

University of Nevada, Reno

I competed in Parli and IEs in the early 2000s at Northern Arizona University. After many years away from competitive forensics, I returned to judging in 2016. I have been the assistant director at UNR since 2019.

General Debate Views and Preferences

1. I come from a traditional policymaking background, but I'm open to multiple frameworks and interpretations of debate. It's up to you to defend and justify your framework choices in the round.

2. I don't do well with speed. The faster you spread, the more likely it is that I'll miss arguments on the flow and make a decision you won't like.

3. Structure is good and I appreciate signposting, but remember that it's not a replacement for substantive argument. Having a catchy tagline is not the same thing as having a well-developed warrant that supports your claim.

4. Rebuttal speeches should "zoom out" and give me a big picture overview of what's going on in the round. When the rebuttal is simply a line-by-line analysis, I inevitably have to do more work to weigh the issues myself.

5. I viscerally dislike "gut check" arguments and won't vote for them. Instead, give me more specific analytic reasons why I shouldn't believe a specific claim (for example, it doesn't have a clear source, it's based on a post hoc fallacy, it's based on a faulty analogy, etc).

6. Don't be jerks. It is possible to make assertive, highly competitive arguments while still recognizing the humanity of your opponents. Hostile verbal and nonverbal behavior cheapens the pedagogical value of competitive debate and drives students away from the activity.

My views on Parli

I rarely judge Parli anymore, but in case you encounter me in a Parli round, there are a few things to be aware of about how I approach the event: (1) I hate stupid T arguments and tend to default to reasonability over competing standards unless there's something really wonky going on. (2) K's absolutely must have clear links and clear alt-solvency that I can weigh against the plan. If they don't, I will have a low threshold for accepting any plausible-sounding answer to them. (3) I will not vote for poorly-explained technical arguments just because they're on the flow if they aren't properly weighed or impacted out.

My views of IPDA

IPDA is NOT parli-lite! If you treat the round that way, I will at minimum tank your speaker points.

I believe that IPDA should be publicly accessible as a debate format, by which I mean that speeches should be delivered at at a conversational rate and and should minimize use of technical jargon as much as possible. I will still evaluate IPDA rounds from a flow-centric perspective, which means that things like top-of-case and dropped arguments still matter. Eloquent oratory or witty comebacks alone will not be enough to win my ballot if you aren't winning on flow. I tend to be disinclined to vote on framework presses beyond the level of definitions reasons to prefer a specific criterion.

Although uncommon, I find myself giving more low-point wins in IPDA than I did in Parli. If I give you a low-point win, it typically means one of two things happened: (1) you clearly won on flow, but there was a major issue with your delivery/presentation style, (2) you weren't winning on flow, but your opponent collapsed to the wrong voting issues or made some major strategic blunder in rebuttals that led me to buy your voting issues instead.

A Final Note on Recent Political Developments (6/2022)

In light of recent developments in national politics, I am choosing to disclose that I am a gay man. Please be mindful that resolutions about legal rights of specific groups (such as LGBTQ+ individuals, women, or racial minorities) can be triggering to competitors and judges when framed as a binary either/or choice between maintaining civil rights or eliminating them. In such rounds, I will grant leeway to both affirmative and negative teams to frame their arguments in ways that avoid a morally problematic division of ground. If you find yourself on the "bad" side of such a resolution, some ideas for you how might reframe include: state-level counterplans, constitutional amendments, constitutional convention, secession, Northern Ireland-style consociationalism, etc.

---

Benjamin Shoptaw (He/Him) - UARK

n/a

---

Bethany Stanford - MSU

n/a

---

Billy Owens (he/him) - LTU

n/a

---

Bob Alexander - BPCC

n/a

---

Braeden Helmick - UU

n/a

---

Brandon Reynolds - LSU

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=21586 - You'll need an account to view it. Hopefully you have one.

---

Brandon Knight - WmCarey

Compete with dignity.

---

Braxton Ganey - LSUS

n/a

---

Bryson Sexton - UARK

n/a

---

Carissa Moore - ACU

n/a

---

Carolyne Smith - UU

n/a

---

Carter Stainton (he/him) - UARK

n/a

---

Celie Dixon - MSU

n/a

---

Charles Culliford - LAC

n/a

---

Charlie Grunloh - MSU

n/a

---

Cole Fairchild - MSU

n/a

---

Colten Nichols (He/Him) - UARK

n/a

---

Colten Harris - UU

n/a

---

Courtnae James - LSUS

n/a

---

Daisy Murfey - UU

n/a

---

Daniel Murrah - BPCC

n/a

---

Daniel Wilkerson - LAC

n/a

---

Daniela Pineda-Vizcaino (She/Her) - UARK

n/a

---

Danielle Duffield (she/her) - USM

n/a

---

Devesh Sarda - LSUS

n/a

---

Diana Weilbacher - ACU

n/a

---

Dominick Mercer - BPCC

n/a

---

Dylan Hall (He/Him) - UARK

n/a

---

Eliana Snyder - UU

n/a

---

Emma Powell (She/Her) - UARK

n/a

---

Emy Pablico - ACU

n/a

---

Ephraim Mensah - LSUS

n/a

---

Eric Wooten - MSU

n/a

---

Erick Aguilar - ACU

n/a

---

Evan Smith - UF

n/a

---

Evan Garrison - MSU

n/a

---

Finn Spoerl - Lewis & Clark

n/a

---

Freya Steed - Lewis & Clark

n/a

---

George Urling - Marshall U

n/a

---

George Moisant - MSU

n/a

---

Grace Dunning - UU

n/a

---

Gretta Graves (she/her) - USM

n/a

---

Haiven Potts - UU

n/a

---

Hayden Braziel - LSU

n/a

---

Hazel Hernandez - MSU

n/a

---

Jace Godfrey (He/Him) - UARK

n/a

---

Jaci Sabatini (They/Them) - UARK

n/a

---

Jack Duncan - UARK

n/a

---

Jackie Garcia-Torres - ACU

n/a

---

Jacob Rose - MSU

n/a

---

Jacob Davidson - Jeff State

n/a

---

Jade Vasquez (She/Her) - UARK

n/a

---

Jake Leckrone - UU

n/a

---

Jake Reed - MSU

n/a

---

Jane Anne Carroll - ACU

n/a

---

Jasmine Forck - LSUS

n/a

---

Jasper Millsaps - ATU

n/a

---

Javan Elzie - BPCC

n/a

---

Jeff Peterson - GCU

n/a

---

Jessi Boaz (she/her) - ACU

n/a

---

Jessica Rogers - TN Tech

n/a

---

Jessie Paxton - UCMO

n/a

---

Jewel Thomas - LSUS

n/a

---

Jodeyah Mills - ACU

n/a

---

Johnathan Hebert - LAC

n/a

---

Jonas Lansford (He/Him) - UARK

n/a

---

Jonathan Bridenbaker - LSU

n/a

---

Jonathan Conway - UCF

n/a

---

Joseph Miller - LTU

n/a

---

Joshua Hendricks (they/them) - USM

Debate better.

---

Justin Jetton (he/him) - BPCC

n/a

---

Kameron Dowling - SUBR

n/a

---

Kaylee Reid - MSU

n/a

---

Kendrick Kruskie - LTU

n/a

---

Kennas Shah - UARK

n/a

---

Kennedy Hartman - LSU

n/a

---

Khubaib Islam - LSUS

n/a

---

LCU-Noel Martin - LAC

n/a

---

Lianne Kho - LSUS

n/a

---

Lillian Stevens - UARK

n/a

---

Lily Bridges - USM

n/a

---

Lilyane Calhoun - LAC

n/a

---

Lindsey Brown - BPCC

n/a

---

Luke Thurmon (He/Him) - UARK

n/a

---

Lydia Stinnett - UU

n/a

---

Lyeneal Griffin - WmCarey

Lyeneal Griffin, M.F.A.

Assistant Coach, William Carey University

I will judge the flow. Please make sure that your arguments are clear and intelligible. This is important to me. Weigh impacts.

Neg, refute and build. Weigh impacts.

Draw your arguments from quality source material. Equity, inclusivity, and diversity in your evidence is a plus. Be clear on the scope of your resolutions. I like to review sources.

Be respectful. Bad sportsmanship will lead to a reduction of points. Do not talk down to your opponents or judge.

---

MSU-Emma Jaramillo - MSU

n/a

---

Maddie Fritz (She/Her) - UARK

n/a

---

Madelyn Allison - Jeff State

n/a

---

Makayla Mills - LSUS

n/a

---

Marlo Linan (She/Her) - UARK

n/a

---

Matthew Cook (He/Him) - UARK

n/a

---

Matthew Gedeon - BPCC

n/a

---

Max Green (He/Him) - UARK

n/a

---

Maxime McClatchey - LSUS

n/a

---

McKenna Roberts - LTU

n/a

---

McKenna Crain - LAC

n/a

---

Mia Denner - WmCarey

n/a

---

Michael Guzman (He/Him) - UARK

n/a

---

Michael Dvorak - GCU

---

Michael Shirzadian - Marshall U

n/a

---

Michael Banks - MSU

n/a

---

Mike Gray - Troy

n/a

---

Molly Watson (She/Her) - UARK

n/a

---

Molly McLemore - MSU

n/a

---

Muizat Ayoola-Abioye - LTU

n/a

---

Myca Marotti - UAMONT

n/a

---

Nathan Nuulimba - UU

n/a

---

Nicco Stacey - UU

n/a

---

Nicky McHugh - UCF

n/a

---

Noah Dancy - MSU

n/a

---

Nora Galvan - UARK

n/a

---

Olivia Shaw - UU

n/a

---

Owen Iddings (he/him) - UAMONT

n/a

---

Percy Blaich (He/Him) - UARK

n/a

---

Peyton Willoughby - MSU

n/a

---

Philip Sharp - Nevada

Phil Sharp- University of Nevada-Reno

I have been a DOF for 15 years. I have coached national champions in a number of different formats. I really enjoy good argumentation and strong clash. A good debate will include two sides being respectful of each other and the audience while battling over the resolution provided. While your delivery and decorum are important aspects of persuasion, your arguments will be the center of my evaluation. I like it when debaters guide me to the decision they want to read on the ballot rather than being mad that I didn't vote the way the wanted me to. Focus on the criteria dn do ballotwork in the debate, especially in the last speeches.

---

Pragati Gautam - MSU

n/a

---

Presley Jones (She/Her) - UARK

n/a

---

Price Morgan (He/Him) - UARK

n/a

---

Rakesia Wilson - MSU

n/a

---

Ray Wooten - MSU

n/a

---

Rebecca Currie - BPCC

n/a

---

Rhea Neugebauer (She/They) - UARK

n/a

---

Richard Sayers - Jeff State

n/a

---

Ronin May - Jeff State

n/a

---

Ruqayyah Smith - LSUS

n/a

---

Ryan Seiter (He/Him) - UARK

n/a

---

Ryan Wagy - UU

n/a

---

Ryann McClure - LTU

n/a

---

Sam Harvey - MSU

n/a

---

Samantha Young - WmCarey

n/a

---

Sarah Thompson - WmCarey

n/a

---

Scarlett Leake - WmCarey

n/a

---

Sean Ye - MSU

n/a

---

Sean Bell - LTU

n/a

---

Seth Blair - UU

n/a

---

Shamar Hunt - MSU

n/a

---

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.

---

Shelley Wooten - MSU

n/a

---

Sierra Robinson-Clark - MSU

n/a

---

Sophie Fox - UU

n/a

---

Sophie Barrentine (She/Her) - UARK

n/a

---

Stephanie Littlefield - ATU

n/a

---

Susie Utz - MSU

n/a

---

TJ Jones - BPCC

n/a

---

Tanner Marlow - MSU

n/a

---

Tate Blondin - BPCC

n/a

---

Tess Robertson - ATU

n/a

---

Tim Walker - UU

n/a

---

Tory McCoy - LSUS

n/a

---

Trakevious Thompson - WmCarey

n/a

---

Tristan Balderacchi - MSU

n/a

---

Tyler Sullivant - MSU

n/a

---

UCM-John Wallis - UCMO

n/a

---

Will Crews (He/Him) - UARK

n/a

---

Zoe Lenters - LAC

n/a

---