2026 Missouri Valley University Viking
Missouri Valley University - Oct 23-25 | Status: Completed | 2:15 PM Central
Tournament Time: 2:15 PM Central
Judge Philosophies
Allyson Regehr - MVU
n/a
Avery Henry - FSU
n/a
Craig Hennigan - UNLV
Find my paradigm on tabroom.com
Dan Bloomingdale - Texas Tech
n/a
Davi Brooks - Sterling
n/a
Jackie Blair - UMKC
n/a
Jeff Harkleroad - Pitt
n/a
Joy Self - MVU
n/a
Kamren Cohen - MVU
n/a
Ken Troyer - Sterling
n/a
Lars Wagener - Truman
n/a
Lauren Woodall - UMKC
n/a
Matthew Parnell - HSC
n/a
Maya Szafraniec - KCKCC
I am an assistant debate coach at Kansas City Kansas Community College. In college, I debated mostly Parli, some LD and Policy, for Saint Marys College of California. My partner and I dropped in octos of NPDA in 2019. My debate partner and I mostly read critical arguments. So, Im cool with Ks, and a well-written K always brings me joy. Make sure you can explain how you link and how your alt solves. I got my degrees in Biology (BA, minor in math) and Anthropology (MA)). For my day job, I am a data analyst for early childhood education policy in Missouri. I guess K debaters can be policy makers too LOL. All that to say I love learning new things and often dip intellectually into many buckets. Make sure your policy Aff is inherent, and have a clear, consistent story through uniqueness, links, and impact. I think little affs with 100% solvency are underappreciated. Im also down to hear your CP/DA and think condo is probably good. I would be equally happy to vote on a theory or framework argument if you tell me why that means you win the debate. I am good with speed, just slow down for your alt/plan and interps and dont use it to exclude people, and I default to net benefits weighing unless you tell me otherwise.
My most favorite thing about debate is that you all get to decide what debate is uniquely in each roundwhat you want to talk about, how you want to talk about it, how I vote. Reject that topic if you want to girl! Go fast, go slow, whatever, I am just going to do my best to evaluate what you all created based on the rules you find important. I think that is one of the most educational and important parts of debate, I am so happy and excited people keep wanting to do debate.
mszafraniec1997@gmail.com for the email chain, or if you'd like to ask me questions about your round later.
I also reserve the right to vote teams down for being overtly oppressive (saying something racist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic, ablest, Islamophobic, etc.), generally or directed to competitors.
Bring me a chai and you get block 30s
Overall: Read offence. Use more warrants. Do impact calc, the more work you do for me explaining how you win the better your chances are of winning. Tell me about what you are passionate about. Be nice to each other.
Nadya Steck (She/Her) - Pitt
n/a
Nathan Newby - KCKCC
email: newbydebate@gmail.com
FORENSICS TOURNAMENT SPECIFIC:
If you're reading this I might be judging you in an event like IPDA. I do NOT evaluate IPDA (or any debate event) any differently. I will do my best to evaluate the flow in terms of extended and conceded arguments and I care very little for "quality of speaking"
In that same vein, speaker points are more decided by strategic debate decision-making and quality of arguments rather than whether or not you sound like a final round extemper.
BACK TO GENERAL PARADIGM:
last paradigm was still over 1500 words, and I feel like it said close to nothing about how to debate in front of me, let's try this again...
I am going to cut my paradigm like it's a card, if you are in a hurry, read the bold!
PROCESS OF WRITING AN RFD:
Unless if given good reasons why I shouldn't evaluate this way (! = strong conviction, and ? = soft conviction):
I view debate through procedural questions first!
then framing questions!!! these are the most important bits of judge instruction for me (esp. the ROB/ROTJ) - not sure where else I should put this, but I am tech over truth to nearly the extreme (can suspend disbelief on anything except "oppression good") That being said if an argument isn't technically proficient then I can't vote on it so it's a bit of a double edged sword! (For a clarifying example, I judged a debate where a counterplan was conceded, but there wasn't a CP text and so because it wasn't technically proficient, I couldn't evaluate it despite it being conceded.
Assuming the conclusion of the framing debate allows me to evaluate the 1AC's impacts, I ask myself what impact stories to the AFF do I have FULLY extended through EVERY speech (the 1AR gets some leeway if the 2AC extensions are really good and the 2AR fills in for the 1AR's gaps in extension)!
Then I ask myself what impacts, under that FW, do the NEG have fully extended from the 1NC into either the 2NC and/or the 1NR and then into the 2NR. I am a massive hater of 90% of new arguments in the block!!! I am totally fine with "newish" links, uniqueness, and maybe even impacts to a previously read position if it's in the 2NC? The 1AR only needs to say the word "new" for me to completely disregard them (assuming the neg doesn't make procedural claims as to why they get to make those arguments) and even if they don't, I still might not evaluate them depending on how egregious it is.
Assuming that both teams do their job and we actually have clashing impact stories then I typically prefer specificity, the more specific and contextual the scenario the better. I recently judged a finals debate where specific impact scenario solvency was conceded as well as generic solvency takeouts, I opted for the solvency for the specific case scenario because I was able to rationalize why the negative solvency takeouts could be "the rule" while the AFF solvency for their specific 2AR scenario is the exception to the rule!
I hold the line pretty hard on not doing work for whenever possible, so I end up voting on presumption a lot as a result! Really make sure you don't drop the AFF!!!
HOW I FLOW DEBATES:
I flow on my laptop which has only emboldened my HEAVY preference to judge debates that are like 1-4 off versus 5-9+ off, I will WANT to vote for condo in these debates.
If you have pretyped up analytics (specifically in fast debates), please send them... (even if you send them on a separate email chain just to me) I copy paste anything I can verify that you said directly onto my flow, so you are actively creating a flow discrepancy for yourself if you make me finger peck everything at 350 WPM. Coaches will get their hands on your 2AC analytics one way or another; all you do by sending a doc without them is make my flow of YOUR arguments worse!
Perfectly fine with speed, if I'm struggling, I'll clear and/or speed you once and if you slow down/clear up and then revert back after a while, I'll probably give you another reminder, but I won't continue to remind you if there's not a perceivable effort to adapt.
Thinking about carrying a pen on me so that I can loudly drop my pen when I'm not flowing (either because I'm just not going to buy an argument or if the argument you are responding to is so bad I'm tired of more time being dedicated to it... it's up to you to decipher which is the case lol). Key thing to note here, just because I am typing does not mean I am flowing!!!!!!I type comments and flow at the same time quite often!
Tell me where to put things on my flow!!! If you don't, I will just flow them on the bottom of the sheet that you were last on/where I think you are putting them on!
ARGUMENT PREFERENCES:
If you have any 1ACs or Negative positions that you have been sitting on because they are too silly Im definitely the judge to pull them out for! Like honestly, I would find 67 SPEC considerably less silly than someone reading Israel good.
I mainly debated T, K, and Case 1NCs when I was at my most competitive! Procedural and Critical debates are very much my strong suits both in the feedback I can give and the debates I'm the best at evaluating.
Don't really have any strong dispositions for or against any particular type of CPs. I think that the procedural debates on each of them are fun to evaluate and I'd be happy to vote on them as much as I would be willing to vote on the CP itself.
CROSS-EX/PREP OPINIONS:
I think cross is generally binding? I am also fine with open cross if everyone in the debate is okay with it (if not then its closed!)
Fine with ending prep when you are ready to send the doc but that doc needs sent out ASAP, at this point if you stop prep and are sending a doc you are getting a ton of free mental prep and so I actively encourage your opponents to steal prep and I won't stop nor dock them for doing it!
Roadmaps are off-time but they need to be short!!! Just give me the names of the different sheets of paper you will be arguing on.
Noah Smentkowski - SEMO
n/a
Rebecca Postula - MVU
n/a
Ron Stevenson (he/him) - UNLV
n/a
Sage Carter (she/her) - WKY
n/a
Sarah Dweik (She/They) - HSC
n/a
Sha Wilson - Pitt
n/a
Shanna Carlson - ILSTU
Background: I competed in parliamentary and LD debate for Washburn University for five years (2005-2010). I freelance coached and judged for three years. I have taught high school and college debate camps for the University of Texas-Dallas, ISU, and Kyushu University in Japan. I am currently the Director of Debate at Illinois State University.
DISCLOSURE THEORY IS LAZY DEBATE AND I WILL GIVE YOU NO HIGHER THAN 15 SPEAKER POINTS IF YOU RUN THIS POSITION (this means at best you will get a low point win).
I am unable to flow too much speed due to an issue with my hand. I will give you 2 verbal "speed" warnings before I just stop flowing all together!
I believe that the debate is yours to be had, but there are a few things that you should know:
1. Blippy, warrantless debates are mind numbing. If you do not have a warrant to a claim, then you do not have an argument even if they drop it. This usually occurs at the top of the AC/NC when you are trying to be "clever." Less "clever," more intelligent. I do not evaluate claims unless there are no real arguments in a round. Remember that a full argument consists of a claim supported by warrants with evidence.
2. I believe that the speed at which you go should be accessible to everyone in the round, this means your competitor and other judges on a panel. I am open to voting on accessibility and/or clarity kritiks. SPEED SHOULD NOT BE A TOOL OF EXCLUSION!!!!!!
3. I often vote for the one argument I can find that actually has an impact. I do not evaluate moral obligations in the round (if you say "Moral Obligation" in college LD Debate I stop flowing, take a selfie, and mock you on social media). This does not mean I will not vote for dehumanization is bad, but I need a warrant outside of just telling me I am morally obligated to do something. Moral obligations are lazy debate, warrant out your arguments. HIGH SCHOOL LD DEBATERS- IGNORE THIS
4. Run whatever strategy you want--I will do my best to evaluate whatever you give me in whatever frame I'm supposed to--if you don't give me the tools I default to policy maker, if it's clearly not a policy maker paradigm round for some reason I'll make something up to vote on...basically, your safest bet is to tell me where to vote.
5. If you are rude, I will not hesitate to tank your speaker points. There is a difference between confidence, snarkiness, and rudeness.
6. When running a kritik you need to ensure that you have framework, impacts, links, an alternative text, alt solvency, and role of the ballot (lacking any of these will make it hard for me to vote for you)...I also think you should explain what the post alt world looks like.
7. If you are going to run a CP and a kritik you need to tell me which comes first and where to look. You may not like how I end up ordering things, so the best option is to tell me how to order the flow.
8. Impact calc is a MUST. This is the best way to ensure that I'm evaluating what you find to be the most important in the round.
9. Number or letter your arguments. The word "Next" or "And" is not a number or a letter. Doing this will make my flow neater and easier to follow and easier for you to sign post and extend in later speeches. It also makes it easier for me to make a decision in the end.
10. I base my decision on the flow as much as possible. I will not bring in my personal beliefs or feelings toward an argument as long as there is something clear to vote on. If I have to make my own decision due to the debaters not being clear about where to vote on the flow or how arguments interact, I will be forced to bring my own opinion in and make a subjective decision rather than an objective decision.
11. If you advocate for a double win I automatically vote for the other person, issue you 1 speaker point, and leave the room. This is a debate, not a conversation. We are here to compete, so don't try to do something else.
12. Wilderson has stated that he does not want his writings used in debate by white individuals. He believes that the use of his writings is contradictory to what he overall stands for because he feels like you are using his arguments and black individuals as a tool to win (functionally monetizing black individuals). So for the love of all that is good please stop running these cards and respect the author's wishes. If you are white and you run his evidence I will not evaluate it out of respect for the author.
13. I will give you auto 30 speaker points if you read your 1AC out of an interp black book with page turns.
Really, I'm open to anything. Debate, have fun, and be engaging. Ask me any questions you may have before the start of the round so that we can all be on the same page :) I also believe this activity should be a learning experience for everyone, so if after a round you have any questions please feel free to approach me and talk to me! I truly mean this because I love talking about debate and the more each debater gains from a round will provide for better rounds in the future for me to judge. If you ever have questions about a comment or RFD please ask. My email is sjcarl3@ilstu.edu
Shawna Merrill - IC
My competitive background is mainly in parli, but I judged LD throughout the 17/18 season and am currently head coach of a program competing in NFA-LD.
Debate is ultimately a communication endeavor, and as such, it should be civil and accessible. I’m not a fan of speed. I can handle a moderate amount especially as I follow along with your docs (I want to be included on speechdrop, email chains, etc.), but at the point that you’re gasping for air, I’m over it. Using speed as a strategy to spread your opponent out of the round is not okay for me.
I’m not a big T person. While I prefer proven in-round abuse to vote on T, I will vote for competing interpretations if it’s done well. Basically, if you run T, you’d better mean it. Don’t use it as a time sink.
I will vote on Ks if they address the topic/refute the plan. I enjoy a good critical argument, but don’t assume I’m familiar with all of your literature.
My favorite types of rounds are ones that engage in direct clash and cover the flow. Attend to the link stories and connect the dots as to how we get to your impacts. I’ll vote on just about any argument as long as it’s clearly explained and defended.
Bottom line: don’t try to get too fancy. Run arguments you understand and do what you’re comfortable with.
Vani Balram - MVU
n/a
Zoey Rotenberry - FSU
n/a