Judge Philosophies
AJ Edwards (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Abbey Barnes (she/her's) - USM
not as dumb as I look
Abby Lenderman (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Adam Naiser - LEE
n/a
Adam Torres - DBU
n/a
Adam Key - UAMONT
n/a
Akira Johnson - NSU
n/a
Aleea Murray - LSUS
n/a
Alex Vanoy - Jeff State
n/a
Alex Carraway - MSU
n/a
Alex Bope - UU
n/a
Alex Gibson - LTU
n/a
Alexis Farino - DBU
n/a
Alysia Moore - MSU
n/a
Amari Cooper - MSU
n/a
Andrew Weidefeller (he/him) - UARK
n/a
Angel Gonzalez Garcia - Jeff State
n/a
Angela Bastoparra - LSUS
n/a
Anna McFetridge - WmCarey
n/a
Ant Woodall - OKCU
Debate:
I competed for 2 years of high school and 4 years of college. I know most of the basic terminology but prefer to keep debate accessible. Here's a few more specific things.
Stylistic stuff:
Don't call me "Judge". Just talk to me.
Off time roadmaps are fine as long as they are fast (less than five seconds).
Seated CX is fine with me, confirm with me and opponent before doing it.
Paradigm:
I flow until flowing is unnecessary to determine a winner.
When choosing a winner, I recognize some arguments have more value than others and will consider expressed impacts in my decision.
This means a debater can win several arguments and still lose the round.
I don't like spreading and I think speed is abusive in IPDA.
I like voting issues in the final speeches. They are the most common influence on my RFDs.
Other stuff is too nitpicky to list here. You're welcome to ask questions before the round starts as long as we're not behind.
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 Copeland - LTU
n/a
Ashley Chapman (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Athena Shead - UTK
n/a
Barrett LeBon - BPCC
n/a
Billie Day - OKCU
n/a
Bob Alexander - BPCC
n/a
Brandon Knight - WmCarey
Compete with dignity.
Brandon Davis - Harding
n/a
Brett Monroe (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Brinkley Troyer - DBU
n/a
Brook McMillan - Jeff State
n/a
CJ Longino - LSUS
n/a
Caleb Starkey - UU
n/a
Caleb Horton - WmCarey
n/a
Camille Allgood - LAC
n/a
Charli Henn - OKCU
n/a
Claire Carter - MSU
n/a
Colleen Kilgore - UAMONT
n/a
Colten Nichols (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Conor Kopkau - MSU
n/a
Courtney Parks - TCU
n/a
Daisy Rehbock (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Daniel Wilkerson - LAC
n/a
Daniella Martin - UTK
n/a
Dayhath Marte-Herrera - WmCarey
n/a
Devin Hutchins - MSU
n/a
Diego Moreno - LEE
n/a
Dr. Carolyn Rodeffer (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Drew Waites - UTK
n/a
Elaine Csoros - UU
n/a
Elaine Eaton - NSU
n/a
Elias Perry - LEE
n/a
Elijah Jarrell - UTK
n/a
Elizabeth Friedman - DBU
n/a
Emily Dowd (they/them) - LSUS
n/a
Emily Lewis-Staires - UARK
n/a
Emma Jaramillo - LEE
n/a
Emma Catanese - Jeff State
n/a
Eánthe Pieterse - UARK
n/a
Faith Behrens - UU
n/a
Fernando Penate-Chavez - LPDA
n/a
Grace VanLiere (she/her) - UU
n/a
Hannah Miller - LAC
n/a
Hannah Dryer - UU
n/a
Hannah Daniels - MSU
n/a
Hengel Zelaya - Harding
n/a
Hylan Durham - WmCarey
n/a
Ileana Mocciola - ACU
n/a
Jace Wilder (he/they) - Belmont
n/a
Jack Broyles - OKCU
n/a
Jackson Csoma - BPCC
n/a
Jacob Holland (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Jacob Croom - NSU
n/a
Jacqueline Maldonado Martinez (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Janine Wilkins - Park
n/a
Jason Rogers - WmCarey
n/a
Jenny Link - UU
n/a
Jess Perez - DBU
n/a
Jonathan Conway - UCF
n/a
Jonathan Langley - UARK
n/a
Jordan Thomas (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Joshua Hendricks (they/them) - USM
Debate better.
Josie Zakrewski - UARK
n/a
Jovanni Arellano - LEE
n/a
Justin Hamilton - DBU
n/a
Kaitlynn Sweeney - LTU
n/a
Kareyn Hellmann - TCU
n/a
Kash Blakely - LEE
n/a
Katelyn Ah Puck - DBU
n/a
Kellie Kinnie - UARK
n/a
Kendrick Kruskie - LTU
n/a
Kierson Titus (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Kimberly Truong - LEE
n/a
Kylie Bennett - LAC
n/a
LSUS-Jordan Guillot (they/them) - LSUS
n/a
LSUS-Mack Miles (They/Them) - LSUS
n/a
LSUS-Shanisha Ford (She/Her) - LSUS
n/a
Laura Fair - UACCB
n/a
Lauren Berger - UARK
n/a
Lee Taylor - WmCarey
n/a
Leslie Ford - NSU
n/a
Lindsay Culpepper - MSU
n/a
Lindsay Walton - Harding
n/a
Liz Roa - UACCB
n/a
Logan Gibbs - TCU
n/a
Luke Thurmon (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Lyeneal Griffin - WmCarey
Lyeneal Griffin, M.F.A.
Assistant Coach, William Carey University
I will judge the flow. Please make sure that your arguments are clear and intelligible. This is important to me. Weigh impacts.
Neg, refute and build. Weigh impacts.
Draw your arguments from quality source material. Equity, inclusivity, and diversity in your evidence is a plus. Be clear on the scope of your resolutions. I like to review sources.
Be respectful. Bad sportsmanship will lead to a reduction of points. Do not talk down to your opponents or judge.
Lyosi Alvarado (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
MTSU-LB Bourdwine (he/him) - MTSU
n/a
MTSU-Marah Chance - MTSU
n/a
MTSU-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!!!!
Maddie Fritz (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Madeline Magness - UCF
n/a
Madeline Hansen - Harding
n/a
Madison Biggerstaff - MSU
n/a
Madison Clarke - LAC
n/a
Maisyn Price (She/Her) - UU
n/a
Mariah Parker - DBU
n/a
Masey Hammons - UL Lafayette
n/a
Matt Aulthouse - MSU
n/a
Matteo Mauro - MSU
n/a
Matthew Gedeon (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Max Hoener - UARK
n/a
Meagon Clarkson-Guyll (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Megan Smith* - LTU
n/a
Megan Murphy - BPCC
n/a
Megan Dial (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Megan Veilleux - LSUS
n/a
Merry Ashlyn Gatewood - UU
n/a
Michael Kirk - UU
n/a
Mikael Brown - UAMONT
n/a
Mollie-Nan Henderson - DBU
n/a
Myca Marotti - UACCB
n/a
Nate Goldstein - LTU
n/a
Nathan Mustapha - LEE
n/a
Nathaniel Nuulimba - UU
n/a
Nazif Manaj - Belmont
n/a
Noah Reid - UU
n/a
Nyla Jones - MSU
n/a
Patrick Baugh - LAC
n/a
Paul Strait (he/his) - USM
n/a
Phoebe Lim - LAC
n/a
Rathe VanBuskirk - UARK
n/a
Rebecca Currie - LEE
n/a
Rhea Neugebauer (She/They) - UARK
n/a
Riyanna Kennedy - LEE
n/a
Rufina Gonzalez - LEE
n/a
Ruqayyah Smith - LSUS
n/a
Ryan Greenawalt - Belmont
n/a
Ryan McDonald - PHC
n/a
Ryan Wagy - UU
n/a
Ryan Seaman - OKCU
n/a
Sahori Hernandez-Quinones (she/her) - ACU
n/a
Sarah Stevenson (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Seth Blair - UU
n/a
Shanna Huffine - UACCB
n/a
Shayne Coffey - UACCB
n/a
Shelby Cumpton - LAC
n/a
Shimi Yandell - UU
n/a
Simone Cottrell - MSU
n/a
Sirenia Rodriguez - UAMONT
n/a
Sophia Shelton - UU
n/a
Sophie Barrentine (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Steven Barhorst - MTSU
Sydni Gross - LAC
n/a
Tabitha Keylon - UU
n/a
Tanner Marlow - MSU
n/a
Tanner McGee - WmCarey
n/a
Taylor Vanoy - Jeff State
n/a
Todd Roskop - DBU
n/a
Tommy James (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Toriance Fontenot - LAC
n/a
Tory McCoy - LSUS
n/a
Travis Wright - WmCarey
n/a
Vanessa Jones - LEE
n/a
Vineeth Vanga - MSU
n/a
Vo Sanders - UARK
n/a
Zavier Whiting - LAC
n/a
Zoe Leatherwood - UU
n/a