2022 Southern Forensics Championship Tournament
Southern Forensics Governing Board - Jan 28-30 | Status: Completed | 11:36 AM Central
Tournament Time: 11:36 AM Central
Judge Philosophies
A Adams (they/them) - LSU
n/a
AJ Edwards (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Abbey Barnes (she/her's) - USM
not as dumb as I look
Abbi Arbuckle (she/her) - ACU
n/a
Abby Weiss - ACU
n/a
Adam Key - UAMONT
n/a
Adrienne Lunceford - Jeff State
n/a
Alex Vera - MSU
n/a
Alex Gibson - BPCC
n/a
Alex Mills - A-State
!!!!!IPDA!!!!!
As for the affirmative and negative,you really cannot go wrong with me in terms of what kinds of arguments I like or dislike as long as they are both reasonable and fair.That being said, I really enjoy out of the box arguments or those that have huge impacts. When it comes to weighing mechanisms just keep it simple, I'd rather hear more about the actual topic than the fw.
I'm pretty much chill with anything in the round, just be nice to one another and debate! :)?
Alexandra Rojas - UCF
n/a
Alexandria Ritchie - ACU
n/a
Alli Kennon - UA
n/a
Alyssa Gray (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Alyssa Runnels - UCA
n/a
Amanda Kronenberger - MSU
n/a
Anamica Khadgi - MSU
n/a
Angel Rivera Velez - UCF
n/a
Angelina Peruzzini - MTSU
n/a
Anna McFetridge - WmCarey
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.
Anthony Cotton - ORU
n/a
Ari Brown - SMU
n/a
Ashley Hale (she/her) - LTU
n/a
Ashley McClinton - WmCarey
Ashley Butler - CUNE
n/a
Ashley Knight - WmCarey
n/a
Athena Shead - UTK
n/a
Aurora King (she/her) - UCA
Austyn Markham - TCU
n/a
Avery Egerton-Warburton - SMU
n/a
Bella Brownlee - MSU
n/a
Ben Walker - SMSU
n/a
Benjamin Winston - Belmont Abbey
n/a
Benjamin Scarpino - UF
n/a
Berta Pavaci - SMU
n/a
Bianca Airey-Fourie - UCA
n/a
Billy Owens (he/him) - LTU
n/a
Blake Traylor - Belmont Abbey
n/a
Blake Denney - Jeff State
n/a
Bob Alexander - BPCC
n/a
Brad Bull - TTU
This activity is to promote rational communication NOT auctioneerring skills. One well-reasoned mediocre argument outweighs 10 great arguments I can't hear. In addition, while the public often likes zingers and rudeness, I will automatically give a loss to a team that is flagarantly rude. If both teams are rude, I'll flip a coin, write down the winner, and put down my pen. Usually, however, judging these events gives me great hope for the future, and I look forward participants giving me hope for reasoning and civility.
Braeden Martin - MSU
n/a
Brandon Knight - WmCarey
Compete with dignity.
Brandon Carlson - MSU
n/a
Breanna Prater - TCU
n/a
Brenna Betts - MSU
n/a
Brennah Fohl (She/They) - LSUS
n/a
Bright Ajayi (he/him) - Park
n/a
Brook McMillan - Jeff State
n/a
CJ Parrish (he/him) - UCA
Caleb Conaway - DU
n/a
Cameron Hodge - Jeff State
n/a
Cameron Richards - UTK
n/a
Cassie Kutev - LEE
n/a
Chas Womelsdorf (he, him) - UL Lafayette
n/a
Cheryl Chambers - MSU
n/a
Chloe Brownell (she/her) - ACU
n/a
Christian Thomas - UTK
n/a
Christian Huggins - A-State
Christina Smith - A-State
n/a
Clark Hathaway - UTK
n/a
Cooper Longino - BPCC
n/a
Courtney Cochran - MSU
n/a
Courtney Parks - TCU
n/a
DOUGLAS REHM (he/his) - USM
Dalton Cook (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Daniel Davis (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Darren Roberts - UCF
n/a
Dayhath Marte-Herrera - WmCarey
n/a
Dena O'Banion - BPCC
n/a
Derek Dismukes - MTSU
n/a
Derrion Cain (she/her) - LSU
n/a
Devin Hutchins - MSU
n/a
Devyn Hinds (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Diego Moreno - LEE
n/a
Donna Smith - SMU
n/a
Drew Waites - UTK
n/a
Elias Perry - LEE
n/a
Elijah Biedinger - ACU
n/a
Elise Hardwick - MSU
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.
Ellen Patterson - LSU
n/a
Elliot Certain (he/they) - MTSU
n/a
Emma Catanese - Jeff State
n/a
Emma Jaramillo - LEE
n/a
Emma Waite - SMU
Emmitt Antwine - LTU
n/a
Eric Ryan - SMU
n/a
Erlind Boarj - TTU
n/a
Ethan Jones (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Evan Smith - UF
n/a
Gillen Manos - UF
n/a
Glenyz Pereira - UCF
n/a
Greenlee Crow (They/Them) - UARK
n/a
Greta Hacker - UCA
Grey Rodery - UCA
n/a
Hailey Hazen - SMU
n/a
Hannah Risker - A-State
Hannah Vancuren - UF
n/a
Hannah Morris (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Hansen Penya (he/him) - ACU
n/a
Hayden Cherry - MSU
n/a
Heather Johnson (she/her) - ACU
n/a
Heather Harrison - MSU
n/a
Holden White (he/she/they) - LSU
n/a
Holly Harrison - MSU
n/a
Hunter Sullivan (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Isabelle StahrFisher - TCU
n/a
Isabelle Marshall - UTK
n/a
Jaci Sabatini (They/Them) - UARK
n/a
Jack Van Dyke (He/They) - UARK
n/a
Jackson Csoma - BPCC
n/a
Jackson Scott (he/him) - ACU
n/a
Jacob Leger (Any Pronouns, them, they) - UL Lafayette
n/a
Jacob Humphries - UA
n/a
Jacob Davidson - Jeff State
n/a
Jamie Parker (she, her) - UL Lafayette
n/a
Jane Anne Carroll - ACU
n/a
Janine Wilkins - Park
n/a
Jasmine Brossett - NSU
n/a
Jasmine Turnage - A-State
n/a
Jason Rogers - WmCarey
n/a
Jason Tronetti - Belmont Abbey
n/a
Jayce Burney (he/him) - UCA
Jennifer Torres - Doane
n/a
Jessi Boaz - ACU
n/a
Jessica Rogers - MTSU
n/a
Jessica Siles - UCF
n/a
Jewel Thomas (She/Her) - LSUS
n/a
Joe Davis - CUNE
n/a
Jonathan Conway - UCF
n/a
Josh Rushing - DU
n/a
Josh Danaher - ACU
n/a
Joshua Hendricks (they/them) - USM
Debate better.
Josiah Macumber - UF
n/a
Julia Mixon - WmCarey
n/a
Justin Salahuddin - UCF
n/a
KELLI KIRKLAND (she/her's) - USM
Kale Rector (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Kara Taylor - LTU
n/a
Kareyn Hellmann - TCU
n/a
Kathleen Sandoval - TCU
n/a
Katie Thomas - NSU
n/a
Katrianna Powell - DU
n/a
Kay Allen - Belmont
n/a
Keely Hardeman (she/her) - ACU
n/a
Kellie Roberts - UF
n/a
Kendrick Kruskie - LTU
n/a
Kennedy Loper - SMU
n/a
Kylie Bennett - LAC
n/a
LSUS-Cooper Johnson - LSUS
n/a
LaLa Arnold - MTSU
n/a
Lauren Hand - WmCarey
Leia Smith (She/Her) - LSUS
n/a
Leia Mercier (She/Her) - LSUS
n/a
Leslie Ford - NSU
n/a
Lia Portillo Cantarero (She/Her) - NSU
n/a
Linley Brown - LEE
n/a
Logan Gibbs - TCU
n/a
Lucas Rentz - UF
n/a
Luke Chaney - MSU
n/a
Madalyn Rickert (she/her) - ACU
n/a
Madeline Magness - UCF
n/a
Madeline Magness - UCF
n/a
Madison Plaisance - LTU
n/a
Madison Biggerstaff - MSU
n/a
Maggie Bridges - MSU
n/a
Maggie Phillips - MSU
n/a
Malia Frerking - CUNE
n/a
Mallory Taylor (She/Her) - LSUS
n/a
Marcus Williams - 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.
Mark Moerson - MSU
n/a
Mary Joseph - UCF
n/a
Matt Williams - A-State
Matthew Gedeon (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Matthew Dalton - DU
n/a
Maurica Simpson (she/her) - ACU
n/a
Megan Spence - DU
n/a
Megan Veilleux - LSUS
n/a
Mekaelia Morgan - UCF
n/a
Mel Turnage - UCF
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.
--------
IPDA
There aren't a lot of argument-focused norms for this community, so I can't really speak to anything in particular.
Do your best to make clear arguments and I'll vote on who does the best at upholding their burdens. A lot of what I said above applies to any format of debate.
I think IPDA debaters should all decide how they're going to handle/interpret article 1, section J of the constitution so that both aff and neg have fair and balanced ground.
Too often, it seems that judges' thresholds for abuse are out of sync with the seriousness of fairness in debate. The IPDA constitution mentions fair/fairness and abuse a significant number of times, compared to governing documents for other formats of debate; so... it seems serious to me. I just don't know what to do with it because nobody every really talks about it in specific, argumentative ways. Y'all should start doing that more...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).
You're welcome.
But... you also have to answer case. Trust me, you have plenty of time. Be efficient.
Mimosa Khatun - Belmont Abbey
n/a
Molly Brown - ORU
n/a
Myles Opoku Duah-Boateng - SMU
n/a
Najla Magness - UCF
n/a
Nate Croft - WmCarey
n/a
Nathan Mustapha - LEE
n/a
Nathan Marshall - ACU
n/a
Nirmal Bhatt - MSU
n/a
Nora Crane - UF
n/a
Omar Villarreal - WmCarey
n/a
Patrick Richey (he/him/Dr.) - MTSU
Meh. I've judged a few rounds. I hate rudeness and disrespect in rounds. Keep it nice and cordial. Don't BS me. I like cats!!!!
Patrick Wheaton - UCA
n/a
Patrick McKenzie - MSU
n/a
Phoebe Lim - LAC
n/a
Price Morgan - SMU
n/a
Priscilla Guerra - LEE
n/a
Rachel Robinson (she/her) - LTU
n/a
Rachel Turner (she/her) - LSU
n/a
Randy Perez - UA
n/a
Rebecca Currie - LEE
n/a
Reid Pinckard (He/They) - UARK
n/a
Richard Bilich - WmCarey
n/a
Ruqayyah Smith - LSUS
n/a
Ruth Dismukes - Jeff State
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.
Ryan Jarratt - MSU
n/a
SMU-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.
Sadie Johnson (she/her) - LTU
n/a
Sahori Hernandez-Quinones (she/her) - ACU
n/a
Sam Stewart - MSU
n/a
Sarah Landrum - TCU
n/a
Savannah LaRoe - SMU
n/a
Scott Haines - BPCC
n/a
Scottie Lawrence - UCA
n/a
Sean Buechele - UF
n/a
Seung Ho Jeon - A-State
Shanisha Ford (She/Her) - LSUS
n/a
Sheila Ritchie (she/her) - ACU
n/a
Shelby Cumpton - LAC
n/a
Sidney Lain (she/her) - LTU
n/a
Solomon Barber - MTSU
n/a
Stassja Campbell (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Stefano Piovesan - SMU
n/a
Steven Barhorst - MTSU
Swasti Mishra - UTK
n/a
Sydney Robbins - MTSU
Tanner McGee - WmCarey
n/a
Taylor Enslin - SMU
Thad Abner - WmCarey
n/a
Toriance Fontenot - LAC
n/a
Trakevious Thompson - WmCarey
n/a
Travis Corrigan - ACU
n/a
Tricia Melvin - MSU
n/a
Tyler Redmon - Belmont
n/a
Victoria Watson - LAC
n/a
Will Jamison - UARK
n/a
Xander Wick - TCU
n/a
Yaseen Sharara - UTK
n/a
Zoe Nye - MSU
n/a