Judge Philosophies
Aaliyah Persons - DBU
n/a
Aaron Cluiss - DBU
n/a
Adrian Alvarado - LEE
n/a
Alexander Carwheel - DBU
n/a
Alexis Farino - DBU
n/a
Amelia Little - 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.
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.
Braden Saraco - TCC NW
n/a
Brennan Schiltz - DBU
n/a
Brett Jarboe - DBU
n/a
Brett Trussell - SMU
n/a
Brian Lain - UNT
CJ Longino - LSUS
n/a
Caleb McWhorter - DBU
n/a
Callie Leverett - ACU
n/a
Caris Gray - LEE
n/a
Carly Wells - DBU
n/a
Catherine Dixon - DBU
n/a
Colin Quinn - UNT
Colin Quinn
University of North Texas
Framing how I should evaluate things is the most important thing to do. When that doesn't happen I have to intervene more and rely more on my predispositions rather than the arguments made.
Topicality: I like T debates. I think that for the neg to win a T debate there needs to be a well established competing interpretations framework and a good limits or ground argument. Affs need to have a reasonability argument paired with a decent we meet or counter-interpretation.
Counterplans: The neg needs to establish competition and a clear net benefit. I think i'm generally aff biased although they need to focus on what they can win (Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument except conditionality bad, I think most condition/consult-esque counterplans are legitimate but not competitive, etc).
Disadvantages: Impact calculus should be a priority. I do not think that there's always a risk of anything and can be persuaded that there's zero risk.
Kritiks: Impact framing arguments are the most important thing to win. They filter how I evaluate the rest of the debate in terms of deciding what is important to win and what isn't. I think that negatives need to make definite choices in the 2NR in terms of how to frame the K and what to focus on otherwise the aff is in a strategic place. Link/Impact scenarios that are specific to the plan make the debate much harder for the aff.
Affs: I think that framework is useful and can be won but I am sympathetic to affs that are topical without maybe defending a resolutional agent. I think a winning framework argument should be centered around a method that encourages the best discussion about the topic rather than just the government. When negs lose framework debates they fail to win links to the aff c/i or role of the ballot arguments. Topical version arguments are useful but negs need to remember to explain the reason they solve the affs offense; "you can still talk about x" often doesn't cut it. I think that affs that don't defend a plan need to focus on framing the ballot because that's how I will filter all of their arguments. I think that it is difficult for aff's to win framework debates without a we meet or counter-interp that can frame any other offense you have in the debate.
I may not know the very specific part of the topic/argument you are going for so make sure it's explained. I'm pretty visible in terms of reactions to certain arguments and it will be obvious if i'm confused as to what is going on.
Don't cheat.
Daniel Davis (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Daniel Wells - DBU
n/a
Diana Weilbacher - ACU
n/a
Eddie Watkins - UCA
n/a
Ella Armstrong - DBU
n/a
Emma Jaramillo - MSU
n/a
Emma Stammeyer - SMU
n/a
Erick Rivera-Miller - ACU
n/a
Erick Aguilar - ACU
n/a
Ethan Larrew - ACU
n/a
Gabriel Serna - DBU
n/a
Jackson Csoma - BPCC
n/a
James Wood - DBU
n/a
Jodeyah Mills - ACU
n/a
Joel Martin - DBU
n/a
John Douklias - DBU
n/a
Jose Rodriguez - UNT
n/a
Kaeddis Cole - LEE
n/a
Kaleb Schmidley - LSUS
n/a
Katelyn Ah Puck - DBU
n/a
Kathryn Kozak - TCC NW
n/a
Keith Milstead - SMU
Kimberly Truong - LEE
n/a
Le'Jeaha Falany - MSU
n/a
Leah Hotze - ACU
n/a
Lesley Chetti - DBU
n/a
Liam McNeely - DBU
n/a
Linley Brown - LEE
n/a
Lorenzo Barrera - LEE
n/a
Ly Nguyen - LEE
n/a
Mack Miles (They/Them) - LSUS
n/a
Madison Hall - LEE
n/a
Maikaylinn Woerner - DBU
n/a
Mary Lyle - UCA
n/a
Matthew Gedeon - BPCC
n/a
Micah Robinson - LSUS
n/a
Nathan Mustapha - LEE
n/a
Nicholas Grotberg - UNT
n/a
Olivia Gee - TCC NW
n/a
Patrick Longoria - TCC NW
n/a
Paul Wuller - SMU
n/a
Rachel Currie - LEE
n/a
Rebecca Currie - BPCC
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.
Sam Mahony - ACU
n/a
Scarlett Jobe - TCC NW
n/a
Sean Ye - MSU
n/a
Sean Newman - UNT
n/a
Shree Brown - DBU
n/a
Tanner Brown - LSUS
n/a
Thomas Sorensen - ACU
n/a
Travis Varner - DBU
n/a
Uchechukwu Agbo - SMU
n/a
Vaughn Androlowicz - SMU
n/a
Waleed Nawaz - DBU
n/a
Wesley Crissey - DBU
n/a