2026 51st Annual Red River Swing

Louisiana State University-Shreveport - Nov 6-8 | Status: Accepting Entries | 12:59 AM Central

Tournament Image
Tournament Time: 12:59 AM Central
  Home   Contact Tournament   Schedule   Registration   Late Adds   Late Drops   Entries   Headquarters   Postings   eBallots   Results

Judge Philosophies

Akshara Muruganandam - UARK

n/a

Angelina Larosa - UCSD

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

Ariel Sepulvado - LSUS

n/a

Aryanna Morales - UCSD

n/a

Brady Super - UARK

n/a

CJ Miller - UCMO

n/a

Caitlin Cole - LSUS

n/a

Caleb McCurren - MurSta

n/a

Carley Perry - NSU

n/a

Chamiru Dewundaraliyanawaduge - UCSD

n/a

Darius Chargois - LSUS

n/a

Deerga Ramu - UARK

n/a

Dr. Elisabeth Liebert - LSUS

n/a

Dr. Kristie Weeks - LSUS

n/a

Dr. Zeeshan Noor - LSUS

n/a

Gavin Claprood - UCSD

n/a

Hayden Jescheling - UARK

n/a

Hope Oglesby - Patriot Debate

n/a

Isabelle Leber - UCSD

n/a

Isak Schmidley - LSUS

n/a

Ja'i Dantzler - UCA

n/a

Jack Van Dyke (He/They) - UARK

n/a

Jackson Evans - UCSD

n/a

Jaidon Simmons - LSUS

n/a

Jay Allen - LSUS

n/a

Jayla James - Patriot Debate

n/a

Jaylen Terrell - LSUS

n/a

Jessica Lescher - LSUS

n/a

Johnnie Sullivan - Patriot Debate

n/a

Josh Davis - LTU

n/a

Josue Morales - Harding

n/a

Julian Mackenzie - UCSD

Note:This is all for guidance on what I would like to see. At the end of the day have the debate you want to have, and I will do my best to evaluate it.

Background:Hi my name is Julian Mackenzie, I participated in Speech and Debate for a total of 9 years as a competitor and now I'm a Coach for SDSU.

  1. In high school. I competed for four years in mostly Interp, Extemp, Impromptu, LD, and Pufo for Helix Charter High School. In my senior year, I was a debate captain for my high school team.
  2. I competed for two years for the Grossmont Community College team in NPDA, IPDA and Extemp, where I won top competitor for the 2021-2022 school year.
  3. After that I competed for UCSD for three years in NPDA, IPDA, Pufo, and TIPDA, and I was the President of the team.
  4. Now I Coach and I am the Director of Debate and Limited Prep at San Diego State University. In addition I am also a assistant coach at UCSD.

All formats:

  1. I like Lay debate or fast and Technical debate.
  2. I will take any argument into consideration as long as the argument is backed up by logic or evidence.
  3. Both teams/competitors in your last speech please give me clear voters, so that I can make an informed decision.
  4. Have good clash
  5. Please signpost
  6. Please be as organized as possible tell me exactly where you are on the flow.
  7. Please be respectful to everyone in the round.
  8. Have Fun!

IPDA:

  1. I prefer tech over truth, but I will not accept arguments that are a lie and do not have evidence or some truth.
  2. Present strong, logical, cohesive arguments.
  3. Please speak with a clear and calm pace.
  4. Label each of your arguments.
  5. Avoid technical debate jargon.
  6. Keep Cases and arguments simple and clear

NPDA:

  1. I'm ok with theory/topicality but I think it has to be warranted.
  2. I'll vote on a RVI including time skew.
  3. I love Value and Fact rounds, so please do not define a round as policy if it does not have should in the resolution.
  4. K's work in Policy Rounds, run Phil if it's a value round.

NFA-LD:

  1. Run a good and sound plan
  2. Tricks are great, but please keep them at the top of the case.
  3. I'm ok with theory/topicality but I think it has to be warranted.
  4. I'll vote on a RVI including time skew.
  5. Share your doc with me if you are going to spread, please.
  6. Please have your card doc ready to show your opponent's cards

Speech:

  1. As for speech I judge like any other speech judge on content and performance.
  2. Please do not "can" your speech in Impromptu. If I find your "canning" I will place any off-the-cuff speech ahead of you.
  3. I will not automatically rank you lower if your speech is shorter than 10 minutes.

Julissia Benejan - LSUS

n/a

Kamillyah Evans - LTU

n/a

Karla Howell - NSU

n/a

Katie Rittenberg - UCSD

n/a

Keith Milstead - SMU

Kevin Colorado - UCSD

n/a

Levi Cook - Patriot Debate

n/a

Liam Boardwine - MurSta

n/a

Lizeth Andraca - LSUS

n/a

Madeline McClatchey - LSUS

n/a

Maverick Alsobrook - LSUS

n/a

Natalie Cottrell - LSUS

n/a

Natasha Gamboa - UCSD

n/a

Nicolas Hrechko - LSUS

n/a

Pennelope Wilson - UCA

n/a

Ria Christian - Patriot Debate

n/a

Riley Lowe (She/her) - UARK

n/a

Robert Toledo - LSUS

n/a

Ryker Lynch - LTU

n/a

Simon Vos - LSUS

n/a

Stephania Ortez - UNG

n/a

Stephanie Yeh - UCSD

n/a

Taris Cooper - LSUS

n/a

Tyler Wilhite - LSUS

n/a

Yenuli Wickramasinghe - UARK

n/a

Zenobia Bowlin - LSUS

n/a