Judge Philosophies
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.
Ashley Lorenzo - LTU
n/a
Dylan Jimenez - Harding
n/a
Greg Gorham - GCU
Hayden Jescheling - UARK
n/a
Ja'i Dantzler - UCA
n/a
Jack Van Dyke (He/They) - UARK
n/a
Maria Borges - UARK
n/a
Nancy Garcia - Harding
n/a
Nitya Dhungana - LTU
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.
Sophie Barrentine (She/Her) - UARK
n/a