Adam Sirimarco - MSU Denver

n/a

---

Aditya Yadav - CC

n/a

---

Anahi Palacios - MSU Denver

n/a

---

Arden Bunch (He, Him) - Georgia Tech

n/a

---

Ash Denchfield - KUBP

n/a

---

Ashley Burroughs - UMiss

n/a

---

Ashley Whittaker - Clemson

n/a

---

Benjamin Maresca - CCU

n/a

---

Cherish Taylor - Clemson

n/a

---

Cody Knight - MSU Denver

n/a

---

Dakota Park-Ozee - MSU Denver

n/a

---

David Steinberg - UM

n/a

---

Efrem Barnard - MSU Denver

n/a

---

Evan Zang - LUC

n/a

---

Evelyn Smith - CC

n/a

---

Geneva Luteria (she/her) - RRCC

n/a

---

Gillian Nyland - MSU Denver

n/a

---

Haiden Staton - Clemson

n/a

---

Isaac Williams - USAFA

n/a

---

Isaac Martinez - KUBP

n/a

---

Isabella de la Cruz - UM

n/a

---

Jason Jordan - MSU Denver

n/a

---

Jemel Lopez - Clemson

n/a

---

Jillian Jaeger - CC

I competed in policy and NPDA and currently coach IPDA, NPDA, and BP styles of debate.

I have no preference in terms of what arguments are run in a round, but do expect that there is clash with the Aff's case and that you explain why the argument matters and why it is a voting issue.

- Topicality is always an apriori issue (if it is applicable) and will be voted on first.

- Kritiks need to explain what the alternative does and why voting for it matters - I'm not convinced by "nuclear war will never happen, but your ballot is a stand against racism." Do better. Be thoughtful. I seldom believe that Kritiks should be run as an Aff plan, but if they strongly link to the resolution, I may be persuaded.

Speed is fine as long as you're clear and not abusing the other team. Bottom-line: organization/sign-posting and clash are key. Explain to me where your arguments apply, why they matter, how they outweigh your opposition, and why I should vote for them.

---

John Rief - MSU Denver

n/a

---

John Patrick - CPSLO

n/a

---

Judge A (will update) - CC

n/a

---

Judge B (will update) - CC

n/a

---

Lindsey Dixon - Clemson

n/a

---

Luke Monexe - UM

n/a

---

Luke Garcia - MSU Denver

n/a

---

Matt Wicks - MSU Denver

n/a

---

McKayla Montgomery - Alaska

n/a

---

Nate Graziano - MSU Denver

n/a

---

Nayra Baros - MSU Denver

n/a

---

Olivia Yankoviak - MSU Denver

n/a

---

Patrick Waldinger - UM

n/a

---

Peter Nyland - MSU Denver

n/a

---

Rachel Bruce - MSU Denver

n/a

---

Ryan Clark - BHSU

n/a

---

Saiemeh Wahidi - KUBP

n/a

---

Savannah Coble - MSU Denver

n/a

---

Scott Harris - KUBP

n/a

---

Selene Figueroa - MSU Denver

n/a

---

Shayne Catalfamo (he/him) - RRCC

n/a

---

Sonia Feria (She/Her) - CPSLO

n/a

---

Stephen Scheffel - CCU

I think that IPDA is a comment sense and rhetoric based event. I am going to judge primarily on the arguments, but speaking ability will most certainly be taken into consideration. Please refrain from using overly technical language, speed, policy tactics, etc. If it would not be persuasive to a lay person, I won't find it persuasive.

Be sure to properly back up your claims logically. I understand that the speech and debate community has a specific political bent, but I am not going to consider an argument that is made without warrant simply because it is a widely held belief in the debate community.

---

Taf Flanders - UMiss

n/a

---

Tracey Mahoney (she/her) - RRCC

n/a

---

Yumna Hussain - Clemson

n/a

---