Judge Philosophies
AJ Edwards (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Aaliyah Castro - LEE
n/a
Abbi Arbuckle (she/her) - ACU
n/a
Abby Thomas - UARK
n/a
Adam Winningham - UTK
n/a
Adam Naiser - UAMONT
n/a
Addison Beatty - OKBU
n/a
Alex Gibson - BPCC
n/a
Alexis Swingle - UARK
n/a
Alyssa Gray (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Anna Kangas - UU
n/a
Anna Ward - UAMONT
n/a
Anthony Copeland - LTU
n/a
Ashley Hale (she/her) - LTU
n/a
Athena Shead - UTK
n/a
Aubrey Eytchison - UU
n/a
Aurora King (she/her) - UCA
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.
Bismah Aslam - MTSU
n/a
Brandon Carlson - MSU
n/a
Breanna Betts - MSU
n/a
Brianna Harperhoward - NSU
n/a
Cameron Chadwick - UU
n/a
Carlos Reyes - LEE
n/a
Cassie Kutev - LEE
n/a
Chloe Brownell (she/her) - ACU
n/a
Christian Thomas - UTK
n/a
Clark Hathaway - UTK
n/a
Cole Pawlaczyk - UTK
n/a
Cooper Longino - BPCC
n/a
Courtney Cochran - MSU
n/a
Daniel Latour - SMU
n/a
Darrell Brown - LAC
n/a
Dena O'Banion - BPCC
n/a
Devyn Hinds (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Drew Lentz - UU
n/a
Dylan Ashworth - LAC
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.
Elliot Certain (he/they) - MTSU
n/a
Emilie Vann - OKBU
n/a
Emily Strange - LAC
n/a
Emily Landry - BPCC
n/a
Emily McDonald - ACU
n/a
Emmy Rains - Jeff State
n/a
Haley Mims-Crawford - UAMONT
n/a
Hannah Morris (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Hannah Voss - LAC
n/a
Hannah Hall - SMU
n/a
Hannah Freeland - UU
n/a
Heather Johnson (she/her) - ACU
n/a
Hunter Sullivan (He/Him) - LSUS
n/a
Jaden Hansen - OKBU
n/a
Jake Peace - ACU
n/a
Joseph Lee - SMU
n/a
Jovanni Arellano - LEE
n/a
Kara Taylor - LTU
n/a
Kathryn Pinkston - UU
n/a
Keely Hardeman (she/her) - ACU
n/a
Kevin Doss - LSCO
n/a
Kyle Daughabaugh - OKBU
n/a
Kylie Bennett - LAC
n/a
LaLa Arnold - MTSU
n/a
Laura Daniels - MSU
n/a
Leia Mercier (She/Her) - LSUS
n/a
Leslie Ford - NSU
n/a
Linley Brown - LEE
n/a
Macie Smith - UU
n/a
Maddie Cupit - ACU
n/a
Maddie Grace Thierfelder - UU
n/a
Madelyn Hunter - MSU
n/a
Madison Plaisance - LTU
n/a
Madison McCarthy - UU
n/a
Madison Peel - OKBU
n/a
Maggie Peña - ORU
n/a
Mahogany Grissom - NSU
n/a
Maisyn Price - UU
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 Shi - ACU
n/a
Matt Williams - A-State
Matt Ritchie - ACU
n/a
Melissa Champine - UU
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).
Mike Vera - MSU
n/a
Misty Tanner - LAC
n/a
Mo Sparks - UU
n/a
Nathan Mustapha - LEE
n/a
Nazif Manaj - Belmont
n/a
Neel Patel - LTU
n/a
Nick Truitt - UU
n/a
Olivia Bell - UU
n/a
Ornella Joseph - LEE
n/a
Paris Thompson - LTU
n/a
Prince Lofton - BPCC
n/a
Quinn Bethea - MSU
n/a
Rebekah Malone - MSU
n/a
Regan Hardeman - ACU
n/a
Remi Whitehead - UARK
n/a
Riyanna Kennedy - LEE
n/a
Ryan Ware (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Ryanne Nelson - OKBU
n/a
Rylee Page - LTU
n/a
Sahori Hernandez-Quinones (she/her) - ACU
n/a
Samuel Stettheimer - UU
n/a
Sarah Rosine - UU
n/a
Shanisha Ford (She/Her) - LSUS
n/a
Sharlee Rogers - MSU
n/a
Sian Fox - UCA
Sierra Boudreaux - LAC
n/a
Sonya Harvey - MSU
n/a
Steven Barhorst - MTSU
Swasti Mishra - UTK
n/a
Tabitha Keylon - UU
n/a
Terrin Hibbler - UTK
n/a
Trey Gibson - LSUS
n/a
Ty Young - LEE
n/a
Tyler Redmon - Belmont
n/a
Vanessa Rangel - UAMONT
n/a
Victoria Watson - LAC
n/a
Walker Keller - OKBU
n/a