Judge Philosophies
Abbygail Zanoni - LSUS
n/a
Adam Torres - DBU
n/a
Addison Jacobsen - LSUS
n/a
Adrian Alvarado - LEE
n/a
Airicka Fields - BPCC
n/a
Alexis Reuther - DBU
n/a
Amber Owrey - UU
n/a
Angela Bastoparra - LSUS
n/a
Annah Samdi - ACU
n/a
Anthony McMullen (he/him) - UCA
Experience: Competed for the University of Arkansas (2000-05); Coach at the University of Central Arkansas (2007-present). Most of that experience is in IPDA. While I appreciate and am happy to participate in other forms of debate, I'm an IPDA purist at heart and that governs my philosophy. I'm also a licensed attorney and spent seven years working for the Arkansas Court of Appeals. My job involved reading arguments with real world consequences. As such, while I am willing to vote for any well-reasoned argument, I'm a policymaker judge more than anything.
Delivery: I'm not a fan of speed. If I am judging a form of debate where that is the norm, I'll accept the burden of listen to rapid-fire delivery. Otherwise, don't do it. I often listen to podcasts at 1.5x speed. That's fine. Because it is a debate, I can probably listen to you at 2x speed and be fine. Anything faster, and you risk losing me. I find spreading unethical. Don't do it.
Speaker Points: Pretty arbitrary, especially if the ballot does not contain a rubric. If it is an IPDA round, I will have traditional criteria in mind: delivery, courtesy, organization, tone, logic, support, CX, refutation. In each category, you start with a 3 in each category. An average debater will receive a 4, a good debater will receive a 5. I won't go less than 3 in a category unless you "earn" it. Low point wins are a thing.
Case: The affirmative has the burden of proof, and the negative has the burden of clash. Failing to meet those burdens is an automatic L before we reach the rebuttals.
As a policymaker judge, I would prefer to give a win or loss based on the merits/demerits of the resolution itself, especially if it is form of debate where you get to choose the topic. I'll vote on topicality, but if it is close, I'll give the affirmative the benefit of the doubt. (If you are going to run T, I'm big on framer's intent.) I'm willing to vote on a K, but again, I would rather vote on the merits of the resolution itself. Like topicality, the affirmative will get the benefit of the doubt if it is close.
I flow the round. By the time we get to rebuttals, tell me why you won. Put out any fires created by your opponent's previous speech if necessary, but please don't go line by line. I'm very big on impact calculus, especially if the criterion is cost-benefit analysis, comparative advantage, or something similar.
Evidence: First, quality over quantity. Better evidence will always beat more evidence. Explain why your evidence supports your case. I do not enjoy rounds where debaters dump numbers and stats without context. Second, source presses are a waste of time unless (1) your opponent makes a spurious claim or (2) you have evidence that contradicts your opponents. If the only argument you have against an argument is that no source was provided, you will lose that argument unless you tell me why the lack of source is important.
Topic Disclosure: I'm not a fan of it, but I recognize that I'm in the minority. If the resolution is fairly straightforward and affirmative's interpretation is in line, I will not entertain an argument that the debate was unfair due to a lack of disclosure. If the resolution is metaphorical or otherwise vague, you should probably disclose.
While I will not punish a debate who does not disclose, I will DQ a debater who gives a false or misleading disclosure. At the same time, I believe that the affirmative is entitled to use the prep time as they see fit. If you plan takes you in a different direction, you are entitled to change your mind (especially if the negative pressed you for disclosure before you started prepping your case). But be reasonable. Doing so with twenty minutes of prep left is okay. Doing so with ten minutes left isn't.
NPDA debaters: I miss points of information. Please use them.
Ashley Hale - USM
n/a
Athena Shead - UTK
n/a
Aubree Watkins (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Bailey Brown (She/Her) - LSUS
n/a
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.
Bob Alexander - BPCC
n/a
Bryson Hawkins - UACCB
n/a
Caleb Starkey - UU
n/a
Camille Allgood - LAC
n/a
Chinaka Ihekweazu - ORU
n/a
Chuck Rogers - MSU
n/a
Cooper Johnson - LSUS
n/a
Courtnae James - LSUS
n/a
Daniel Davis (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Daniel Wilkerson - LAC
n/a
Daniel Murrah - DBU
n/a
Danielle Duffield - USM
n/a
Diana Weilbacher - ACU
n/a
Dominick Mercer - BPCC
n/a
Elena Foster - LEE
n/a
Elias Perry - LEE
n/a
Elijah McGrew - LAC
n/a
Elise Scudmore (they/them) - USM
n/a
Evan Thomas - UCA
n/a
Hannah Morris (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Heidi Tyler - LSUS
n/a
Holden Hargrave - UACCB
n/a
Indya Green - ORU
n/a
Jack Van Dyke (He/They) - UARK
n/a
Jackson Csoma - BPCC
n/a
Jacob Frederick - UU
n/a
Jacob Little - UU
n/a
James Jovicich - UARK
n/a
Jane Anne Carroll - ACU
n/a
Jeorgia Jones - ORU
n/a
Johnnie Sullivan - DBU
n/a
Jordan Guillot (they/them) - LSUS
n/a
Josh Danaher - ACU
n/a
Joshua Fuhrer - UTK
n/a
Josiah Reed - LAC
n/a
Jovanni Arellano - LEE
n/a
Justin Hamilton - DBU
n/a
Kimberly Truong - LEE
n/a
Kylie Bennett - LAC
n/a
LSUS 1 - LSUS
n/a
LSUS 2 - LSUS
n/a
LSUS 3 - LSUS
n/a
LSUS 4 - LSUS
n/a
LSUS 5 - LSUS
n/a
LSUS 6 - LSUS
n/a
Leslie Alexander - BPCC
n/a
Levi Cook - DBU
n/a
Lindsey Brown - BPCC
n/a
MIcah Robinson - LSUS
n/a
Mack Miles (They/Them) - LSUS
n/a
Mads Williams - ACU
n/a
Mattie Thompson - UARK
n/a
Mauricio Rullan - SMU
n/a
Max Green (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Megan Smith* - LTU
n/a
Michael Riley - DBU
n/a
Molly Watson (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Myca Marotti - UACCB
n/a
Nathan Nuulimba - UU
n/a
Neetin Khadka - DBU
n/a
Olivia Shaw - UU
n/a
Owen Thurber - UTK
n/a
Philip Ojo - DBU
n/a
Piyush Chaudhary - MSU
n/a
Pragati Gautam - MSU
n/a
Pragyesh Poudel - MSU
n/a
Rachel Currie - LEE
n/a
Rahul Sah - MSU
n/a
Ray Eaton - UU
n/a
Riley Haller - LSUS
n/a
Ruqayyah Smith - LSUS
n/a
Ryan Booth - SMU
If you get called on falsifying evidence I will drop you. Call out evidence you think is suspect and make the case for it.
I try to be as Tabula Rasa. 8 Years of competitive debate experience mostly Parli and IPDA but I have some LD and Pufo experience. Run whatever arguements you want but make sure they are logically supported.
Sabrina Duff - LSUS
n/a
Sam Mahony - ACU
n/a
Sanskriti Aryal - MSU
n/a
Sean Peer - UACCB
n/a
Sebastian Santana - MSU
n/a
Shamar Hunt - MSU
n/a
Shanisha Ford (She/Her) - LSUS
n/a
Sharlee Rogers - MSU
n/a
Sienna Reid - UTK
n/a
Tanner Brown - LSUS
n/a
Taylor Corlee - SBU
n/a
Thaddeus Stringer - ACU
n/a
Ty Weatherby - UU
n/a
Yair Salgado - BPCC
n/a