Judge Philosophies
AJ Edwards (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Aaliyah Castro - LEE
n/a
Abbey Barnes (she/her's) - USM
not as dumb as I look
Abbi Jose - LSUS
n/a
Abigail Downs - LAC
n/a
Adam Key - UAMONT
n/a
Akela Martin - UTK
n/a
Alayna Weathers - WmCarey
Alex Gibson - BPCC
n/a
Alexander Bauserman - ATU
n/a
Ali Richard - Jeff State
n/a
Alicia Brown - MSU
n/a
Amanda Kronenberger - MSU
n/a
Amari Washington - ORU
n/a
Andrew Jones - LEE
n/a
Andria Miller - TCU
n/a
Angela Anima-Korang - ETBU
n/a
Angela Lovelace - A-State
Anna Ward - UAMONT
n/a
Anndee Barr - LAC
n/a
Anne Elizabeth Harrington - MSU
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.
Anthony Copeland - LTU
n/a
Aria Giacona - LTU
n/a
Ashley Gardner - LTU
n/a
Ashley Hale (she/her) - LTU
n/a
Aurora King (she/her) - UCA
Austin Robison - BPCC
n/a
Austin Shively - TCU
n/a
Azhan Hasan - TCU
n/a
Benjamin Freasier - LTU
n/a
Benjamin Scarpino - UF
n/a
Blake Denney - Jeff State
n/a
Bob Alexander - BPCC
n/a
Braeden Martin - MSU
n/a
Brandon Carlson - MSU
n/a
Brandon Knight - WmCarey
Compete with dignity.
Brandy Roebuck - SEARK
n/a
Brittney Harris - LSUS
n/a
Brynn Daniel - LTU
n/a
CJ Parrish (he/him) - UCA
Carly Crotty - Belmont
n/a
Carter Cullen - ATU
n/a
Catherine Gilchrist - UCA
n/a
Cem Alpman - LEE
n/a
Chelsea Hendrix - MTSU
n/a
Cheryl Chambers - MSU
n/a
Christian Thomas - UTK
n/a
Clark Hathaway - UTK
n/a
Clark Hensley - MSU
n/a
Codey King - UTK
n/a
Cole Pawlaczyk - UTK
n/a
Coley Matthews - ETBU
n/a
Cyrano Davis - UCF
n/a
David Lee - UCA
Dayhath Marte-Herrera - WmCarey
n/a
Dena O'Banion - BPCC
n/a
Diego Moreno - LEE
n/a
Dom Mercer (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Drew Waites - UTK
n/a
Eden Barnhart - LAC
n/a
Eli Stroud (they/them) - UCA
Elijah Biedinger - ACU
n/a
Elizabeth McDowell - LTU
n/a
Elizabeth Snow - A-State
I've judge all IEs, IPDA, and parli. In debate, I prefer clear examples and explanations. Don't go to fast; there really isn't a need to. I don't think I've ever head an IPDA round that was too fast, if that helps you with how fast is too fast.
Please sign-post as you go.
Emmitt Antwine - LTU
n/a
Erick Roebuck - SEARK
n/a
Erika Simonson - TCU
n/a
Ervin Fuller - LEE
n/a
Evan Smith - UF
n/a
Faith Yoruw - LAC
n/a
Gavin Simone - UTK
n/a
Giselle Reyes - WmCarey
n/a
Gowri Tumkur - UTK
n/a
Graham Buchanan - UTK
n/a
Hannah Ross - LSUS
n/a
Hannah Morris - NWACC
n/a
Hansen Penya (he/him) - ACU
n/a
Heather Johnson (she/her) - ACU
n/a
Heaven Sheppard - Jeff State
n/a
Hunter Sullivan (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Isabel Dunkelberger - TCU
n/a
Isabelle StahrFisher - TCU
n/a
Isabelle Marshall - UTK
n/a
Jaclyn Morgan - UL Lafayette
n/a
Jacob Teague - LTU
n/a
Jacob Chisom - UAMONT
n/a
Jacob Holland - UCA
Jason Stahl - Belmont
n/a
Jason Rodriguez - LAC
n/a
Jewel Thomas (She/Her) - LSUS
n/a
Joe Davis - CUNE
n/a
Jonathan Conway - UCF
n/a
Jonathon Hibbard - UAMONT
n/a
Josh Danaher - ACU
n/a
Josh Mandzak - UTK
n/a
Joshua Hendricks (they/them) - USM
Joshua Rogers - WmCarey
Joshua D Rogers Paradigm
Joshua Rogers
B.A. Classics, Ph.D. Linguistics
Director of Forensics & Latin Teacher - Presbyterian Christian High School (Hattiesburg, MS)
Forensics Head Coach - William Carey University
Experience:
Oratory and Communication experience in High School
Discourse and Communication theory in Undergrad and Graduate work
Teaching Speech and Debate since 2015
Basic Judging Paradigm:
I will judge the flow
I want substantive arguments and clash
Weigh your impacts at the end
Bad sportsmanship leads to reduction of points
Don't talk down to the judge
Public Forum: Give evidence, cite, analyze - don't just restate claims three ways. I encourage Neg, don't just rebut, build a world in which you can win.
Lincoln Douglas/Policy:
I attempt to be tabula rasa, but when no decision-rule calculus is provided, I default to understanding and applying morality arguments. I tend to see the debate in an offense/defense paradigm.
I default to competing interpretations on Topicality, and reasonability on all theory. If you define value and criteria, stay with your parameters.
I am fine with speed, but clarity is key.
I would like to be on your email chain (jdrogers @wmcarey.edu) so I can look at cards that your reference in cross-examination.
LD Note: I tend to view the value/value criterion debate as less important than substantive arguments. Impacting your arguments is incredibly important. Cheap shots / tricks are not the way to my ballot (because: reasonability). I also will not vote for an argument I don't understand based on your explanation. I will not read your case later to make up for a lack of clarity when you spread. If I can't flow it, it's like you never made that argument.
Policy: I like to hear clash on evidence. Evaluate evidence since you have it in front of you. But more important, outline and build a plan. Explain how and why it works.
Don't give me outrageous impacts, we all know the world COULD end. Show how the plan results in impact, not just slippery slope.
Neg feel free to build Kritic if you can, always enjoyable.
I would like to be on your email chain (jdrogers @wmcarey.edu) so I can look at cards that your reference in cross-examination.
Josiah Macumber - UF
n/a
Julia Mixon - WmCarey
n/a
Justin Durbin - Cumberland
n/a
Justin Schulte - NWACC
n/a
KLAUS BERRY - USM
Kale Rector (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Kate Mead - ETBU
n/a
Kathleen Sandoval - TCU
n/a
Kathy Miller - UAMONT
n/a
Katie Thomas - NSU
n/a
Katie McKenzie - LTU
n/a
Keely Hardeman (she/her) - ACU
n/a
Kelsey Horath - LTU
n/a
Kelvin Thomas - Jeff State
n/a
Kendall Merrit - LEE
n/a
Kevin Wilmoth - NWACC
n/a
Kyle Deer - TCU
n/a
Kylie Jordan - Jeff State
n/a
Kylie Bennett - LAC
n/a
Lauren McHenry - UCA
Lauryn Carr - MSU
n/a
Leia Smith (She/Her) - LSUS
n/a
Leslie Alexander - BPCC
n/a
Lillia Poveda - UTK
n/a
Logan Perkins - LSUS
n/a
Logan Gibbs - TCU
n/a
Luke Lechner - LTU
n/a
Luke Litz - Belmont
n/a
Luke Brundy - TCU
n/a
Luke Arnold - MTSU
n/a
Lyosi Alvarado - NWACC
n/a
Macy Dammen - LAC
n/a
Maddie Cupit - ACU
n/a
Maggie Eaves - ETBU
n/a
Maggie Jeffries - MSU
n/a
Maggie Bridges - MSU
n/a
Marie Stone - A-State
I am a student at Arkansas State University currently pursuing a bachelors degree in psychology with a minor in communication studies and a certificate in debate and forensics. I prefer if you dont spread, but I can usually understand fast talkers pretty well. In a debate round, I like to see passion and interest in the subject in a speaker. Normally, I dont do hand signals, but if you need them I need you to tell me before you start. Also, please time yourselves.
Mary Joseph - UCF
n/a
Mary Beth Woodward - MSU
n/a
Matthew Gedeon (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Matthew Coleman (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Mayukh Datta - MSU
n/a
Megan Smith* - LTU
n/a
Michael Gray - A-State
This part pertains mostly to
Parli, BUT you should probably read it since it represents what I believe about debate in general. See below for IPDA.
Me: Debated for A-State from
2007-2011; mostly Parli, but some IPDA and Worlds. Assistant coach for A-State
from 2011-2013 and Director of Debate for A-State from 2016-present.
In General: I'll listen to anything,
but I do not evaluate blippy claims that lack warrants or logical impact
scenarios.
Speaker Points: These
exist to reward good speakers. What is a good speaker? For me, a good speaker
has little to do with who won the round. Speed doesn't make you a good speaker. Knowing
lots of stuff doesn't make you a good speaker. Winning an argument doesn't make you a good speaker. It's that other thing that makes you good. Do that. Make sense?
Case: By default, my stance is that the Aff has the
burden of proof & the burden of rejoinder. It is your job to fairly limit
the round and present a clear case that upholds the resolution. If you can
convince me otherwise, do it.
I'll gladly vote on an aff
K if it makes sense and wins. But listen... it is better when your opponent can
engage. So, make your aff K clear and accessible. Save the ninja stuff for neg.
T: I love a well-run
topicality argument. Or 2. Or 3. I am completely okay with collapsing to T. I
actually think teams should do it more often. It's a lost art.
Spec/Vagueness: Yes. But be reasonable with it. And don't take my use of the work "reasonable" as an indication that it's the only counter-standard you ned (aff).
K: Yes, please. Avoid
any blatant mis-readings and misapplications (please listen to this...
please). You will have a difficult time winning my ballot if you're
(intentionally or not) misrepresenting the nature of another
person's rhetoric or using well-established theory in a way that it was
not intended. If you need to make an argument that you cannot find written in a tome somewhere, make the argument from your own brain... don't try to shove a square author into a round round.
DA/CP/Condi: structure,
structure, structure.
My default stance is that all Neg arguments are conditional. If, however, the debate turns to theory, Aff can win condi-bad. I'll listen. I need clear articulation of theory arguments, not just blippy responses that require me to intervene to fill in the blanks.
Speed and Speed K: I
prefer upbeat debate and a good pace. If you've clocked yourself, I am totally comfortable
with a clear rate of speech around 275-325wmp. I've rarely seen a need for
anyone to argue that fast. In all honesty, parli is at its best when
highly-trained, charismatic debaters engage in argumentation at about
200-250wpm. Anything faster and you're probably repeating yourself, skipping
syllables, and missing good arguments for the sake saying more words. That
said, if you're one of those super-clear talkers (you know who you are), I
might be willing to tolerate your top speed for part of the debate. <--- maybe 1% to 5% of the field in parli can really do this well. Chances are, you are not in that 1% to 5%. In competition, go as fast as you need to go and can go without losing clarity... and go no faster. Please.
If I or your opponent
calls clear and you do not respond appropriately, you will receive the lowest
speaker points you've ever gotten. I promise. You may well win the round, but
you will have done so unethically and I cannot award high speaks to unethical
debaters who intentionally ignore a legit request for access. I really don't care how you feel about this. I will
vote on a speed K... IF it is run correctly, makes sense, and defended
appropriately. I will not vote on "they talk fast and it's not fair."
Rebuttals: By the time
we get to the rebuttals, I've heard enough line-by-line. I'd appreciate a
bit more here, but if your rebuttal sounds exactly like your previous speech
(pay attention, Neg), I'm already bored. Come on, this is your chance to really
secure those speaker points. Show me that you can tend to the line-by-line and
cover the flow and still give me a clear summarization of advocacy and impact
analysis at the bottom.
Time, Timers, &
Beeps: Thanks and roadmaps off time; quickly. I prefer you time one another. If
you are unable, I'll start my timer when you start debating. When my timer
beeps, you get maybe 10 words before I stop flowing. I've had more sentence
fragments at the bottom of a flow than I can count. Look... just time your
arguments. It's not difficult to just be done talking 1 second before the timer
goes... it's impressive and judges notice it. Be impressive.
At the end of the day, I
believe that debate is an educational game and that education does not have to
be at odds with gameplay. It's both, so do both. Make it interesting and
competitive, play fair, and you'll receive what you earn.
Anyway, unlike some other judges, I will offer you the respect of listening very closely to well-structured, well-thought-out articulations of abuse; I'll listen to vagueness presses; I'll listen to articulations of abuse at the level of definitions, as well as criteria/framing. If your opponent really has skewed ground in the round, then you have 6 minutes to really, really, really dig into the implications of that and convince me that it is a voting issue (HINT: USE THE CONSTITUTION).
Molly Brown - ORU
n/a
Nate Goldstein - LTU
n/a
Nate Croft - WmCarey
n/a
Nathaniel Williams - MSU
n/a
Neel Patel - LTU
n/a
Nick Ged - MTSU
n/a
Nina Niemotka - MSU
n/a
Nora Crane - UF
n/a
Omar Villarreal - WmCarey
n/a
Paige Michel - TCU
n/a
Phoebe Lim - LAC
n/a
Phoenix Pedrami - LTU
n/a
Polo Mann - ORU
n/a
Preston Kimmel - ETBU
n/a
Rachel Robinson (she/her) - LTU
n/a
Reagan English - ATU
n/a
Rebecca Currie - LEE
n/a
Rickenzie Johnikin - UL Lafayette
n/a
Ryan Bohatec - ORU
n/a
Sarah Nichols - TCU
n/a
Sarah Pollock - ATU
n/a
Sarah Douglass - TCU
n/a
Savannah Ramey - ETBU
n/a
Scottie Lawrence - ATU
n/a
Seth Fendley - UCF
n/a
Sian Fox - UCA
Solomon Barber - MTSU
n/a
Stephanie Provenzano - LSUS
n/a
Stephen Varnell - SKV
n/a
Stephen Baker - ATU
n/a
Steven Barhorst - MTSU
Sypro Spanos - MSU
n/a
Tanner McGee - WmCarey
n/a
Tessa Lewis - ACU
n/a
Thomas Sorensen - ACU
n/a
Toriance Fontenot - LAC
n/a
Trakevious Thompson - WmCarey
n/a
Troy Hefner - LSUS
n/a
Victoria Silvio - LSUS
n/a
Victoria Byrd - WmCarey
n/a
Will Couch - MSU
n/a
William Francis - LTU
n/a
Yasmine Davis - MSU
n/a
alex agdeppa - Cumberland
n/a
jacob Humphries - Jeff State
n/a