AJ Edwards - UCSD

n/a

---

Aaron Cluiss - DBU

n/a

---

Abigail Downs - LAC

n/a

---

Adam Lehot - UCSD

n/a

---

Adam Butler - MSU

n/a

---

Adam Stanisor - UARK

n/a

---

Addison Suwarow - MSU

n/a

---

Aiden Marshall - UCSD

n/a

---

Aiden Filyaw - UARK

n/a

---

Akshara Muruganandam - UARK

n/a

---

Alex Sur - UCSB

n/a

---

Alex Gibson - LTU

n/a

---

Alexandria Agee - Jeff State

n/a

---

Alexandria Ritchie - ACU

n/a

---

Alison Benzing - UARK

n/a

---

Aliza Hady - ATU

n/a

---

Amily Kleinworth - UU

n/a

---

Angelina Manjawi - UARK

n/a

---

Angie Quiroz Ordonez* - ACU

n/a

---

Anna La Pour - UU

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.

---

Aracely Tobias - UCSD

n/a

---

Aubree Watkins (She/Her) - UARK

n/a

---

Audrey Mae Taylor - UU

n/a

---

Avery Merino - WmCarey

n/a

---

Bailey Vacca - DBU

n/a

---

Blaine Haywood - MSU

n/a

---

Brandon Knight - WmCarey

Compete with dignity.

---

Brendan Klaus - UARK

n/a

---

Brett Jarboe - DBU

n/a

---

Brooke Taylor - UU

n/a

---

Cade Braddock - McK

n/a

---

Caleb Whittle - UCA

n/a

---

Cameron Thoele - LSUS

n/a

---

Camille Hawkins - Jeff State

n/a

---

Carter Rose - UARK

n/a

---

Carter Shea - UCSD

n/a

---

Cas Schnell - LSUS

n/a

---

Clayton Winters - WmCarey

n/a

---

Cole Fairchild - MSU

n/a

---

Colin Barq - MSU

n/a

---

Colin Rushing - WmCarey

n/a

---

Conner Morrow - WmCarey

n/a

---

Cooper Young - UARK

n/a

---

Cyra Pratt - LSUS

n/a

---

Dain Houts-Eveld - UARK

n/a

---

Daniel Anderson - NSU

n/a

---

Daniela Rodriguez - UNT

n/a

---

Darius Chargois - LSUS

n/a

---

David Slayton - LTU

n/a

---

Dawid Boles - McK

n/a

---

Deerga Ramu - UARK

n/a

---

Devesh Sarda - LSUS

n/a

---

Donna Brake - UU

n/a

---

Donnie Dyson - LTU

n/a

---

Doug Brake - UU

n/a

---

Dylan Hall (He/Him) - UARK

n/a

---

Dylan Rucinski - UARK

n/a

---

Elinor Tiffany - UNT

n/a

---

Ella Grannon - UARK

n/a

---

Ella Erickson - ACU

n/a

---

Emi Aguilar - ACU

n/a

---

Emily Adams - UU

n/a

---

Emma Powell (She/Her) - UARK

n/a

---

Emma Jaramillo - MSU

n/a

---

Emma Stammeyer - SMU

n/a

---

Eric Cervantes - UCSB

n/a

---

Erika Brooks - LSUS

n/a

---

Evan Carter - UCSB

n/a

---

Grant Bonin - LSUS

n/a

---

Gursimar Kaur - UCSD

n/a

---

Hamilton Gibbs - ACU

n/a

---

Hannah Ross - LSUS

n/a

---

Hannah Stewart - ORU

n/a

---

Hannah Nunley - TxState

n/a

---

Hannah Stanton - DBU

n/a

---

Hayden Jescheling - UARK

n/a

---

Hayden Mittlestat - UARK

n/a

---

Isabella Agazzani - ORU

n/a

---

Ishmael Cudjoe - ACU

n/a

---

Ismael Najlis - MSU

n/a

---

Izzy Swafford - UARK

n/a

---

Jace Godfrey (He/Him) - UARK

n/a

---

Jaci Sabatini (They/Them) - UARK

n/a

---

Jack Berryhill (He/Him) - UARK

n/a

---

Jack Van Dyke (He/They) - UARK

n/a

---

Jackson Jones - UNT

n/a

---

Jacob Trosclair - MSU

n/a

---

Jacob Humphries - Jeff State

n/a

---

Jaden Nakamura - UCSB

n/a

---

Jaejin Lee - WmCarey

n/a

---

Jaidon Simmons - LSUS

n/a

---

Jake Reed - MSU

n/a

---

Jalyn Childers - ACU

n/a

---

James Slayton - LTU

n/a

---

Jaray Beards - DBU

n/a

---

Jasmine Wang - UCSB

n/a

---

Jasper Millsaps - ATU

n/a

---

Jaxon Buttram - DBU

n/a

---

Jay Allen - LSUS

n/a

---

Jayla James - DBU

n/a

---

Jefrey Macharia (he/him) - BPCC

n/a

---

Jennifer Izukamma - UNT

n/a

---

Jerry McCauley (he/him) - BPCC

n/a

---

Jewel Thomas - LSUS

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.

---

Joey Hufstedler - UU

n/a

---

John Holaday - MSU

n/a

---

Johnnie Sullivan - DBU

n/a

---

Joli Dore - LAC

n/a

---

Jon Kiesel - MSU

n/a

---

Jonathan Manwaring - UU

n/a

---

Jordan Ellis - UARK

n/a

---

Jordan Lister - DBU

n/a

---

Jose Rodriguez - UNT

n/a

---

Josephine Hunt - DBU

n/a

---

Joshua Tompkins - UARK

n/a

---

Joshua Tripp - ATU

n/a

---

Joshua Zuniga - ATU

n/a

---

Kaleb Young - ATU

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.

---

Karla Howell - NSU

n/a

---

Kate Rooney - DBU

n/a

---

Katelyn Sanders - WmCarey

n/a

---

Kayla Kemp - UU

n/a

---

Keith Milstead - SMU

---

Keydarius Taylor - MSU

n/a

---

Kip Williamson - WmCarey

n/a

---

LCU-Noel Martin - LAC

n/a

---

Layna Lundrigan - Mizzou

n/a

---

Layney Humphrey - UARK

n/a

---

Levi Chyorny - UCSD

n/a

---

Lexi Martin - WmCarey

n/a

---

Lowell Van Ness - UU

n/a

---

Lucy Basie - UU

n/a

---

Luis A - UCSD

n/a

---

Luke Paulus (He/Him) - UARK

n/a

---

Luke Abraham - ACU

n/a

---

Luke Fernando - UARK

n/a

---

Lydia Lim (She/Her) - 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.

---

Madeline McClatchey - LSUS

n/a

---

Mariah Emmerson - UARK

n/a

---

Matthea Mathurin - ORU

n/a

---

Matthew Cook (He/Him) - UARK

n/a

---

Maya Warren (she/her) - UARK

n/a

---

Megan Watson - SMU

n/a

---

Melody Pilgrim - MSU

n/a

---

Mia Denner - WmCarey

n/a

---

Mira Langin - UCSB

n/a

---

Mohammed Lakha - SMU

n/a

---

Mollie Champlin - LSUS

n/a

---

Mora Boyd - ATU

n/a

---

Naman Narla - UCSD

n/a

---

Nevaeh Leanord - MSU

n/a

---

Nicholas Madison - WmCarey

n/a

---

Nicolas Hrechko - LSUS

n/a

---

Niko Sims - UNT

n/a

---

Nishitha Kadiyala (she/her) - UCSD

n/a

---

Noah Nikolai - UCSB

Hello fellow Earthlings!

I suppose Im about to be judging one of your rounds (or youre just stalking paradigms I guess) so heres a few things to know about me:

-I debated 3 years in high school primarily in LD but also occasionally in PF

-Ive been debating for 1 year in college in IPDA and NPDA Parli

-My favorite color is blue, which may be very apparent from my attire

-Will tend to be a very tech judge, even in IPDA (though there is certain argumentation/jargon I wont accept without thorough explanation/couching terminology to preserve the laymans debate ethos)

-Tech>>truth except when tech is harmful (racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, etc.)

-Yes T, yes theory, yes Ks (with IPDA caveat) but do make sure you warrant why the K is necessary to run and dont assume I know all the jargon related to your particular K

-Dont worry if Im not looking up at/reacting to you. Im voting off the flow so thats what Im focusing on. You want me to have my head down and writing during your speech

-Fine with speed but do adapt to opponents requests for speed/clarity unless unreasonable

-Please signpost effectively and be organized. Ill try a bit to figure out where to put argumentation if you dont, but if I cant figure it out it wont go on the flow and wont be evaluated

-Please weigh and terminalize for rounds where thats relevant. It makes judging easier and makes you think critically about your case in relation to your opponents (though I do love some good line-by-line refutations)

-Be kind and respectful to one another, but I do like CX/POI that goes after case/evidence/etc. and to have some clash there. Thats the best (and most entertaining) way to use time. That being said I wont flow anything said in CX unless brought up in a later speech so make sure to do that if you want me to evaluate it

-I hope you have a fun time while debating and are able to learn something new in this round :)

---

Nora (Justin) Fausz - McK

n/a

---

Oliver Iwanczyk - - UCSD

n/a

---

Olivia Blair - UU

n/a

---

Param Thakkar - LSUS

n/a

---

Pennelope Wilson - UCA

n/a

---

Percy Blaich (He/Him) - UARK

n/a

---

Peter Hungiapuko - ORU

n/a

---

Peyton Amicone - UU

n/a

---

Peyton Willoughby - MSU

n/a

---

Phillip Parker - NSU

n/a

---

Phoenix Cao - MSU

n/a

---

Presleigh McLemore - MSU

n/a

---

RUBY GROSS - LAC

n/a

---

Reilly Ruth - DBU

n/a

---

Remi La Blue (She/Her) - UARK

n/a

---

Remy Dupart - UCSD

n/a

---

Riley Lowe (She/her) - UARK

n/a

---

Robert Toledo - LSUS

n/a

---

Roman Manner - UCSD

n/a

---

Ryan Wagy - UU

n/a

---

SMU-Ben Voth - SMU

Treat your opponents with affirming respect.  Pursue the educational value of debate as an ethic.  I have judged debates for over 30 years in various formats.  I look forward to hearing your voice on this matter.  I like good research and good delivery.

---

Sabrina Duff - LSUS

n/a

---

Sage Ross - ATU

n/a

---

Sal Abdelkader - UARK

n/a

---

Sam Daftary - UCSD

n/a

---

Sam Jared - UU

n/a

---

Sam Rothstein - UCSB

n/a

---

Saralyn McDonnell - UU

n/a

---

Scott Carey - ORU

n/a

---

Seth Brake - UU

n/a

---

Seth Blair - UU

n/a

---

Shamya Lewis - Jeff State

n/a

---

Shayoni Hudson - NSU

n/a

---

Sidney Adams - UARK

n/a

---

Silas Hofmann - ORU

n/a

---

Silas Nwoke - SMU

n/a

---

Simon Vos - LSUS

n/a

---

Sophie Fox - UU

n/a

---

Stella Gilley - ATU

n/a

---

Stephanie Newberry - ACU

n/a

---

Suki Chandok - UCSD

n/a

---

Swikrit Aryal - LSUS

n/a

---

TXST-Tyler Cole - TxState

NFA LD/CX/Policy: To boil my judging paradigm in its most simplistic terms, a view myself primarily as a policymaker. My vote almost always goes to the side that present the best policy (AFF) or argues the status quo is better (NEG) or there is a better alternative (NEG). While stock issues certainly plays a role in arriving to a decision, I would NOT go so far as to say the AFF has to win every single stock issue to win my ballot.

On Speed: Dont. Just dont. While many organizations try to be inclusive, this is the one area I find just about every national/state organization (outside of IPDA) proves itself to be hypocritical in doing absolutely nothing to police the practice of spreading, while championing themselves as being an inclusive organization. While some organizations allow judges to call speed or clear, I will not be engaging in such practice. Debate is an advanced level of public speaking. If you are not able to engage in the first principle of human communication (as outlined by Dr. Steven Beebe) be aware of your communication with yourself and others, it begs the question why is one operating on an advanced level when the basics have yet to be mastered? I should not have to tell you when you are speaking faster than what you would expect to see in a normal conversation. I am a human, talk to me like I am a human and not some robot. Ill end with this, I absolutely loathe my states senator, Ted Cruz, but I have to recognize that even a broken clock can be right. Senator Cruz states that spreading is a pernicious disease that has undermined the very essence of high school and college debate. Speed has the potential to cost you the round. If both sides decides to speed read/spread/whatever you want to call it, I am likely to default neg. If you do decide to spread and you don't give me the time or day to write down your tagline you risk your arguments not making it to the flow/influencing my decision.

On Speechdrop: As my stance on spreading may indicate, I place a high value on the public speaking aspect of this activity. As a result, I do not add myself to any speechdrop. I am here to listen to the debate, I am not here to read the debate. The only time I will request to see your evidence is if there are any ethical concerns made by the opponent about how the evidence is being utilized/interpreted.

On signposting: Extending on the ideas from above. Please, please, please signpost. I find many debaters have become accustomed to judges being on the speechdrop and they rely on the judge reading the case instead of hearing the case. If you do not prepare me to listen/flow the taglines, you risk it not making it on the flow/not being evaluated. When flowing I do not write down the author of the evidence, but rather the claim that that piece of evidence is making. When referring to your opponents arguments, it would be wise to refer to the claim and not the author. If you just refer to the author there is going to be a solid chance that I will not know where you are at on my flow.

On K debate: While my educational background is rooted in rhetorical analysis, as a policymaker I find a lot of the rhetorical K debates functionally inoperable in winning my ballot. I can maybe think of 4 times at most that I have voted on the K, and 3 of those times the K centered on spreading. I am not saying you cant run the K, I will listen to it, but strategically you must ask yourself is it worth the time for this judge.

On Disclosure of the ballot: Having been to a great deal of tournaments that have run behind, and having been kept out of my hotel room beyond midnight due to a 1.5+ hours worth of disclosure (despite the fact the president of the organization telling the judges to keep disclosure to a minimum) my stance on disclosure is this as follows. We place strict time requirements for debaters, similar restrictions must be placed on judges/the disclosure process. Until national and state organizations place strict rules/regulations on the disclosure process, and until those rules are adopted at the local level I will not be disclosing the round. At the most I will announce a winner for the round, but outside of that all commentary will be reserved for the ballot. If I find you during the course of the tournament I may come talk to you about the round, and if you see me during the course of the tournament please feel free to ask me questions. However, these conversations will not take place in the same room as the debate to ensure that the next round in the room will not start behind.

UIL/NSDA LD paradigm: When it comes to LD debate I find myself normally more a traditionalist judge. I favor the quality of your arguments over the quantity. With that being said I would prefer that spreading be kept to a minimum, or if possible, not present in the debate at all. In addition to that, I believe that LD debate is centered around the value/criterion debate, as a result, I will not vote on any plan text presented by either side. I also appreciate debaters who treat their value/criterion as a fundamental to not only their case, but also on their arguments against their opponents case. I also believe highly that this event is centered on the competitors ability to communicate, with that being said, roadmaps and signposting every argument is a very effective way of winning my ballot. Please do not read me a list of evidence and dont tell me exactly where you want that piece of evidence. Ill flow the evidence, but I will not assume where you want me to put that evidence on my flow, nor will I speculate how that evidence is supposed to be used in round.

---

Tommy James (he/him) - BPCC

n/a

---

Tooba Sehr - UARK

n/a

---

Traci Schmidley (She/Her) - MA

n/a

---

Tyler Lafayette - UARK

n/a

---

Tyler Rietzke - UCA

n/a

---

Vivian Wang - UARK

n/a

---

Wesley Crissey - DBU

n/a

---

Will Crews (He/Him) - UARK

n/a

---

William Nguyen - UCSD

n/a

---

Wyatt Logue - ATU

n/a

---

Yenuli Wickramasinghe - UARK

n/a

---

Zoey Weeks - UCA

n/a

---