Judge Philosophies
Aaron Treisman - CU-Boulder
n/a
Aaryn Raymond - ACU
n/a
Abby Reeves - MSU
n/a
Ahleysha Lee - BPCC
n/a
Aiden McQueary - UNT
n/a
Alexander Carwheel - DBU
n/a
Alexandria Ritchie - ACU
n/a
Alexis Farino - DBU
n/a
Alyssa Frost - MSU
n/a
Amber Chi - UCSD
n/a
Amy Sanchez - LEE
n/a
Angie Quiroz Ordonez - ACU
n/a
Anna La Pour - UU
n/a
Arianna Deurloo - UCSD
n/a
Arlene Canizalez - UARK
n/a
Ashley Lorenzo - LTU
n/a
Aubree Watkins (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Audrey Hong - UCSD
n/a
Austin Keefe (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Austin Wilson - UU
n/a
Autumn Miller - Harding
n/a
Azmir Siddiqui (he/him) - USM
n/a
Braeden Helmick - UU
n/a
Brenna Betts - MSU
n/a
Brett Trussell - SMU
n/a
Brooklyn Malau - UCSD
n/a
Caden Cockrell (he/him) - BPCC
n/a
Caleb Stubbs - UU
n/a
Carley Perry - NSU
n/a
Caroline Jethmal - UCSD
n/a
Chamiru Dewundaraliyanawaduge - UCSD
n/a
Chaohua (Kevin) Wang - UCSD
n/a
Charmi Gopu - UCF
n/a
Chengyun Xiao - UCSD
n/a
Chloe Benson - UU
n/a
Christian Martinez - UCSD
n/a
Christopher Jewett - CU-Boulder
n/a
Cindy Chen - UCSD
n/a
Cole Fairchild - MSU
n/a
Colten Nichols (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Colton Thatcher - UU
n/a
Colton Sumner - MSU
n/a
Connor Peppard - UCSD
n/a
Daisy Murfey - UU
n/a
Daniel Soto - CU-Boulder
n/a
Danielle Kofink - ACU
n/a
Danielle Sanson (she/her) - BPCC
n/a
Darain Farve - DBU
n/a
David Slayton - LTU
n/a
Devesh Sarda - LSUS
n/a
Diana Weilbacher * - ACU
n/a
Diego Garcia Sandoval - UCSD
n/a
Dylan Hall (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Dylan Branca - MSU
n/a
Edric Chang - UCSD
n/a
Elena Foster - LEE
n/a
Eli Brown - MSU
n/a
Eliana Snyder - UU
n/a
Elijah Hawk - Harding
n/a
Elinor Tiffany - UNT
n/a
Elisabeth Kiu - UNT
n/a
Elizabeth Orton - MSU
n/a
Ella Grannon - UARK
n/a
Ella Baker - UARK
n/a
Ella Armstrong - DBU
n/a
Elliot Galarneau - UCF
n/a
Emma Powell (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Emma Jaramillo - MSU
n/a
Erick Aguilar - ACU
n/a
Erik Hovlid - Morton College
n/a
Erin Yu - UCSD
n/a
Esther Rolsma - UU
n/a
George Utz - MSU
n/a
Grace Wigington - UCF
n/a
Grayson Daniels-Thompson - UARK
n/a
Gretta Graves (she/her) - USM
n/a
Haiven Potts - UU
n/a
Hannah Stewart - ORU
n/a
Hannah Barnett - ACU
n/a
Hayden Jescheling - UARK
n/a
Hayden Mittlestat - UARK
n/a
Hays Romano - MSU
n/a
Heidi Tyler - LSUS
n/a
Iann Tobar - ORU
n/a
Isabel Keith - MSU
n/a
Isabella Agazzani - ORU
n/a
Isabelle Leber - UCSD
n/a
Ivan Luzcando - UARK
n/a
Izzy Swafford - UARK
n/a
Jace Godfrey (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Jaci Sabatini (They/Them) - UARK
n/a
Jack Van Dyke (He/They) - UARK
n/a
Jackie Garcia-Torres - ACU
n/a
Jackson Csoma - ACU
n/a
Jacob Neal - MSU
n/a
Jacob Blair - UCSD
n/a
Jacob Rosas - LEE
n/a
Jacob Little - UU
n/a
Jade Vasquez (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Jake Reed - MSU
n/a
Jake Leckrone - UU
n/a
James Wherry - CU-Boulder
n/a
James Slayton - LTU
n/a
Jane Anne Carroll - ACU
n/a
Jason Edgar - Morton College
Make Logical, Rational Arguments and Speak with Conviction. Oh, and you can't spell debate with T.
Jaxon Hatfield - UARK
n/a
Jaxon Buttram - DBU
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
Jeffrey Robinson - UARK
n/a
Jess Tischmacher - Harding
n/a
Jessi Boaz - ACU
n/a
Jessica Tsai - UCSD
n/a
Joachim Galil - UCSD
n/a
Jocelyn Garcia Torres - ACU
n/a
Joe Blasdel - McK
Section 1: General Information
I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University. After three years studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree (NPDA, LD, and IEs) and have been doing so ever since.
In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues). I am unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments.
On trichotomy, I tend to think the government has the right to run what type of case they want as long as they can defend that their interpretation is topical. While I donât see a lot of good fact/value debates, I am open to people choosing to do so. Iâm also okay with people turning fact or value resolutions into policy debates. For me, these sorts of arguments are always better handled as questions of topicality.
If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised. The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion. If youâre calling multiple irrelevant POOs, I will probably not be pleased.
Iâm not a fan of making warrantless assertions in the LOC/MG and then explaining/warranting them in the MO/PMR. I tend to give the PMR a good deal of latitude in answering these ânewâ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ânewâ PMR arguments.
Section 2: Specific Inquiries
Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given).
Typically, my range of speaker points is 27-29, unless something extraordinary happens (good or bad).
How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be âcontradictoryâ? with other negative positions?
Iâm open to Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for voting for them than your average judge. I approach the K as a sort of ideological counterplan. As a result, itâs important to me that you have a clear, competitive, and solvent alternative. I think critical affirmatives are fine so long as they are topical. If they are not topical, itâs likely to be an uphill battle. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K.
Performance based argumentsâ?¦
Same as above.
Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?
Having a specific abuse story is important to winning topicality, but not always necessary. A specific abuse story does not necessarily mean linking out of a position thatâs run; it means identifying a particular argument that the affirmative excludes AND why that argument should be negative ground. I view topicality through a competing interpretations framework â Iâm not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an âaverageâ threshold. I donât vote on RVIs. On spec/non-T theory, I have a âhighâ threshold. Unless it is seriously mishandled, Iâm probably not going to vote on these types of arguments.
Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? Functional competition?
All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay). I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I donât have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized.
In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?
All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework.
How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
I tend to prefer concrete impacts over abstract impacts absent a reason to do otherwise. If there are competing stories comparing impacts (and there probably should be), I accept the more warranted story. I also have a tendency to focus more heavily on probability than magnitude.
Jonas Lansford (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Jonathan Conway - UCF
n/a
Jordan Ellis - UARK
n/a
Josh Gonzales - UNT
n/a
Josh Gibbs - MSU
n/a
Josh Kilpatrick - UCF
n/a
Josh Mehaffey - ACU
n/a
Joshua Tompkins - UARK
n/a
Julienne Cuozzo - CF
n/a
Justin Salahuddin - UCF
n/a
Kalli Mchugh - UCSD
n/a
Kamillyah Evans - LTU
n/a
Kamren Cohen (Online) - UNT
I'm mainly a policy stock issues judge so to me, the team that can follow that the best/ most wins. I do listen to everything but I don't really like K's. If your K as an alt that is something other than reject the aff than I'll weigh it more than the typical reject the aff alt.
K affs: Personally as a general rule if your aff calls for direct action I'll like it way more than the the whole "we should reevaluate our relationship with X"
Tl;Dr: I will listen to everything however if your K/ K Aff calls for use to just think about something or re-evaluate our relationship with X I will weigh it a lot less against other things.
Karl Ashton - ORU
n/a
Kat Chavez - UCSD
n/a
Kate Rutherford - UU
n/a
Katelyn Ah Puck - DBU
n/a
Kayla Kemp - UU
n/a
Kaylin Mulkey - CF
n/a
Keith Milstead - SMU
Kelby Callicott - UARK
n/a
Kellin King - UCSD
n/a
Kendra Parker - MSU
n/a
Kexin Wang - UCSD
n/a
Landon Richter - BPCC
n/a
Lauren Knudsen - UU
n/a
Lauren Peaspanen - MSU
n/a
Layeth Darzeidan - LSUS
n/a
Le'Jeaha Falany - MSU
n/a
Liam McNeely - DBU
n/a
Lilly Leake - UARK
n/a
Lilly Corbin - LEE
n/a
Logan Gerhard - UCF
n/a
Lorenzo Barrera - SHSU
n/a
Lourdes Alaniz - UCSD
n/a
Luke Thurmon (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Lydia Lim - UARK
n/a
Lydia Stinnett - UU
n/a
MSU-Heaven Favre - MSU
n/a
MSU-Summer Ley - MSU
n/a
Madeline McClatchey - LSUS
n/a
Madison Collins - ORU
n/a
Maisyn Price - UU
n/a
Makenzie Barger - MSU
n/a
Maria Borges - UARK
n/a
Maritza Soto - ORU
n/a
Mathew Nabors - DBU
n/a
Matthew Cook (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Matthew Peck - KSU
n/a
Max Slattery - UCSD
n/a
Max Green (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Maycee Hufstedler - UU
n/a
Meghan Pitman - UARK
n/a
Melody Chen - UCSD
n/a
Mia Chacon - UARK
n/a
Micah Robinson - UCSD
n/a
Michaela Nunn - MSU
n/a
Miles Garcia - UNT
n/a
Muizat Ayoola-Abioye - LTU
n/a
Nancy Garcia - Harding
n/a
Nathan Nuulimba - UU
n/a
Nathan Lacefield - DBU
n/a
Nghi Chau - UCF
n/a
Nicco Stacey - UU
n/a
Nicolas Hrechko - LSUS
n/a
Nicolas Neal - MSU
n/a
Noah Dancy - MSU
n/a
Percy Blaich (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Portia Mobley - MSU
n/a
Presley Jones (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Rachel Zhang - UCSD
n/a
Rakshithaa Jaiganesh - UCSD
n/a
Rebecca Annor - ORU
n/a
Remi La Blue - UARK
n/a
Rigo Ruiz - LEE
n/a
Riley Lowe - UARK
n/a
Robin Mathis - KSU
n/a
Ruben Capetillo - LEE
n/a
Ryan Seiter (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Ryan Li - UCSD
n/a
Ryan Wagy - UU
n/a
Sam Pirasteh - UCSD
n/a
Samarth Ghodke - UCSD
n/a
Sanchita B - UCF
n/a
Sara Kim - UCSD
n/a
Sasha Banaei - UCSD
n/a
Savanna Burris - ORU
n/a
Sean Murray - UCSD
n/a
Sean Ye - MSU
n/a
Seth Brake - UU
n/a
Shanisha Ford (She/Her) - LSUS
n/a
Shelton Gibbs - ACU
n/a
Silas Hofmann - ORU
n/a
Sophie Moody - UARK
n/a
TJ Jones (he/him) - BPCC
n/a
TSU-Tyler Cole - TxState
n/a
Tara Rambarran - LEE
n/a
Taylor Heysquierdo - LEE
n/a
Tracy Perkins - UARK
n/a
UNT-Jose Rodriguez - UNT
n/a
Valay Kelkar - CU-Boulder
n/a
Vanessa De La Paz - ACU
n/a
Will Crews (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Wyatt Villines - UARK
n/a
Yu Fu - UCSD
n/a
Yu Qi - UCSD
n/a
Yunteng Ma - UCSD
n/a
Zeke Jackson (he/him) - USM
n/a
Zhaun Miguel Guerrero - UCSD
n/a
Zoe Leatherwood - UU
n/a
adriana colon - LEE
n/a