Judge Philosophies
AJ Edwards - UCSD
n/a
Abby Mock - A-State
n/a
Advita Shinde - LEE
n/a
Alex Watt - BSU
n/a
Alex Marshall - Cumberland
n/a
Amie Clarke - GCU
n/a
Andy White - CSCC
n/a
Angie Quiroz Ordonez* - ACU
n/a
Anna-Rachel Krebs - WmCarey
n/a
Anthony Penders - EWU
n/a
Ashlee Shamanur - UU
n/a
Ashley Tucker - Jeff State
n/a
August Williams - UTK
n/a
Austin Thoma - UW–Madison
n/a
Austin Rice - USM
n/a
BSU-Izanna Stoddard - BSU
n/a
Bellaluna Nahab - UCSB
n/a
Brad Bull - Whitworth
n/a
Brendan Klaus - UARK
n/a
Caden Cockrell (he/him) - BPCC
n/a
Caleb Spires - CSCC
n/a
Carl Hawkins - MSU
n/a
Carter Shea - UCSD
n/a
Chamiru Dewundaraliyanawaduge - UCSD
n/a
Chance Bradford - UCA
n/a
Cheryl Parrish - UTK
n/a
Connor Peppard - UCSD
n/a
Courtney Pace - TCC
n/a
Cyra Pratt - LSUS
n/a
Daniel Anderson - NSU
n/a
Daniel Mathis - WmCarey
n/a
Danielle Kofink - ACU
n/a
Danielle Sanson (she/her) - BPCC
n/a
David Painter - Rollins
n/a
David Castellanos - DBU
n/a
Dena Butler - Ind
n/a
Denim Taylor - LSUS
n/a
Dennis Taylor - Marshall U
I believe debate is a communication event. It also is an exchange between human beings, not just an argument between sides of a thought experiment or a game.
FOR COLLEGE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATE ONLY
I do not like high speed. Why? I think it makes debate less accessible to students and judges and the skills debate teaches less transferable to other settings.
If, at the beginning of the debate, your opponent requests the debate be held at a moderate pace, I expect you to honor their request. What does that mean? Two examples: Don't gasp for air between long utterances, and don't speak several octaves above where you normally speak because you are talking so fast.
If, during the debate, you are overwhelming your opponent's or my ability to process information, we may say SPEED. By the same token, if your speaking is not clear to either of us, we may say CLEAR. Please adjust accordingly if either of us says SPEED or CLEAR.
FOR ALL DEBATE FORMATS
I have judged debate events off and on for 40 years. For my first 15 years, I judged policy debate and only occasionally value debate. More recently, I have judged rounds of COLLEGE IPDA Debate (most), Lincoln-Douglas Debate, and NPDA Debate (least) and HIGH SCHOOL Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, and Extemp Debate.
Ultimately, I judge holistically - the better debater or debate team wins the round. This almost always is the debater or debate team that carried the debate on my flow. In that very rare case when it is not, it is because I consider effective communication in deciding which debater or debate team won and in assigning speaker points.
In a policy debate, I generally look to stock issues; in a value debate, I generally look to which side best upholds the value(s) presented; in a fact debate, I generally look to which side persuaded me by a preponderance (best, not most) of the evidence - at least if no one offers a better way of analyzing the debate.
I learned debate when counterplan theory was a bit different and there were no kritiks. But I am generally aware of current theory on these topics. I do expect you to explain them clearly (especially the kritik) and establish a clear link to the AFF case and plan. Importantly, I'm not an expert on every critical lens that challenges status quo thinking.
I do try to come in with an open mind. As a result, I will listen to and potentially "vote" any issue you raise.
I prefer for debaters on both sides to address the topic and clash thoughtfully with the other side's arguments.
I expect debaters to both make arguments and use reasoning and evidence. Rarely is one by itself enough.
I dislike spreading. Identify major weaknesses in your opponents' arguments and flesh them out for me. Presenting a lot of one-sentence arguments in the hope your opponent can't respond to all of them will not help you win my ballot.
I dislike when a debater gives me the name of some expert or a statement and expects me to fill in a lot of blanks. If you're cross-applying "the Smith card" tell me what to cross-apply on it and why.
I expect debaters to summarize clearly why they won.
In IPDA debate, I do consider the relative ground each debater has to operate in, so it may not be a good strategy for an affirmative debater to attempt to unfairly narrow the ground for a debate. If a debater does a lot with a little ground, they are more likely to win my ballot than a debater who does a little with a lot of ground. Similarly, I find some IPDA topics to be pretty one-sided - and I'll vote for the debater who moved my original thinking the most.
I judge on what I hear. I won't read a card after the round absent an allegation of fabrication or mischaracterization or the language contained on the card is a major issue.
Diana Weilbacher * - ACU
n/a
Donnie Dyson - LTU
n/a
Eli Brown - MSU
n/a
Elinor Tiffany - UNT
n/a
Eliza Tew - MSU
n/a
Emily Gosch - UU
n/a
Emma Jaramillo - MSU
n/a
Erin Hoffman - Morton College
n/a
Erin Swift - NAU
n/a
Ethan Tablan - Tulane
n/a
Ethan Arbuckle - NMMI
n/a
Eva Isom - UU
n/a
Felicity Fulcher - UTK
n/a
Gerardo Annascius - UCA
n/a
Grant Bonin - LSUS
n/a
Grant Anderson - Tenn Tech
n/a
Haley Atchley - CSCC
n/a
Hannah Stewart - ORU
n/a
Hannah Daniels - MSU
n/a
Heather Gilmore - Idaho State
n/a
Indira Renkema - Whitworth
n/a
Iris Vermillion - UCMO
n/a
Isabella Agazzani - ORU
n/a
Ivan Luzcando - UARK
n/a
JULIETTE ESLAYED - LAC
n/a
Jace Godfrey (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Jack Van Dyke (He/They) - UARK
n/a
Jack Berryhill (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Jack Helms - Denison
n/a
Jack Quigley - Idaho State
n/a
Jacqueline Maldonado Martinez (She/Her) - UARK
n/a
Jaden Nakamura - UCSB
n/a
Jake Vincent - WmCarey
n/a
Jay Villanueva - Nevada
I have 14 years of debate experience. I have 2 years of high school LD, 1 year of Policy, and finished with a year of Senate. In college I competed in NPDA, LD, IPDA, and BP at the University of Nevada, Reno. I am experienced in debate, so don't be afraid to run technical arguments. That said, I prioritize accessibility, so if your opponent cannot handle spreading, you should make a meaningful attempt to not spread or be incredibly clear. I will make it a voting issue if presented as a theory argument. That said, the interp, standards, and voters need to be fleshed-out and time must be dedicated to it if you want me to vote on it.
Quickly: For speech events, I evaluate based on how much evidence you use, how well memorized/performed it was, and your speaker's triangle, depending on the event of course.
Pronouns: She/Her
I plan on judging high school and college debate. Please refer to the appropriate section. Thank you!
--------------------------------
LD: Connect your contentions to the (V)alue and (C)riterion. Probably should justify your V and C as the most important/relevant V and C for the RESOLUTION. You can use an analytic, but carded evidence to uphold your V & C would be stronger. You can run your case like a Policy case, but keep it in the format of LD (Value Net Bens through the Criterion of Cost Benefit analysis for example). You can run Ks, just connect it back to your V and VC. You can run whatever really, just justify the argument to me. I'm still not used to hearing CPs in LD, but go for it! I have Parli, Policy, and college LD experience, I can keep up. Be nice to each other.
PF: The only high school debate event I never competed in (before BQ was a thing). Be straight-forward. You have evidence, tell me why it matters. Be nice to each other. I often default to preponderance of probability (more likely than not).
Policy: Run whatever (K, DA, CP, Aff-K, Performance, Topicality, Theory, etc.) butbe inclusive. Arguments need to connect logically between cards. Don't make leaps in claims. Have links and internal links for Neg. Be nice to each other.
--------------------------------
NPDA: I competed in NPDA for 4 1/2 years at UNR. I will be upfront by saying that I was not nationally competitive. I did not do well at NPDA (Nats) nor NPTE and have difficulties flowing Elim 2 and beyond at either tournament. That said, I can keep up with most and usually flow on paper.
Here is how I evaluate the round:
T/Theory comes before the K unless there's enough work on why the K should come first. I default to competing interps. If you believe the T/Th to be abusive or problematic, I will vote on an RVI for both equity and education. Don't waste my time spreading out your opponents with 3 T/Th and collapsing to the under covered one. That said, I'm more likely to vote the argument down and not the team on an RVI. So at least it's not a one-shot kill(?)
Ks are an important part of critical thinking, and thus important to education. However, I also believe that in a world where the resolution is the only guaranteed point of research, and where Debate should be about having equal access to good education, you need clear links to the resolution. This includes Aff Ks. I think performances face a unique problem in this case. I say, contextualize your perf to debate or the world around us and explain why it's a more pressing issue than the resolution if your perf is not topical. Give your opponents options to compete against your performance. Disclosing your perf at the start of prep could easily resolve competitive equity claims for me.
The second part of Ks for me are Solvency. I have a hard time buying K solvency. Unless it's rooted in fiat, K solvency often sounds like it's some high theory, PoMo, Ivory Tower analysis that I can't wrap my head around without having prior knowledge on the subject. That said, I try to be tabula rasa, but I obviously have my knowledge bases. I understand Security, Borders, EcoFem, EcoSec, Queer Args primarily, although not exclusively.
RoB/RoJ: I think these are fine, except when you're aff and you also run a Plan alongside the K. Just because your read "PT: The res" does not mean you are doing the res. Unless you are. If you are just saying it to answer back a Theory Interp by saying, "we did read a PT" without actually integrating it into your K args, then you're just wasting your time in my opinion.
Also, give me reasons why your RoB/RoJ is preferable, even in the PMC/LOC.
CP/DA: On the perm, is it feasible to do both? Is it preferable to do both? What are the advantages of doing the CP alone (the DA that goes with it)? What are the DAs of doing the CP and the Aff? What are the ADVs of doing the CP and the Aff?
ADV: I need a clear link story. Internal links are helpful here. Solvency is fine instead of IL. Critical impacts will win my heart, but magnitude, probability, and timeframe are definitely also important. I'll vote on any of the three if you explain why in this round one matters over the others. Or go for all three, whichever.
IPDA:As a competitor, I did not take this event super seriously. I only did this event a handful of times, and they were often collapsed with JV (which proved to be easy Gold). That said, I have had a year of experience judging, including at Nationals (Jan-Dec 2025) and my opinion has drastically shifted.
Framework:Have a clear FW. The Aff should set the FW, but the Neg can rebut if the FW is abusive. Otherwise, the Neg should try to work with the FW that the Aff presented.
1AR:I am not a fan of the two 3-minute Aff rebuttal speeches. They're too short to say much. That said, please at least bring up your own case contentions, even if just the taglines. If you don't, I evaluate it as a dropped arg.
NR: Line-by-line for half the time, crystallization for the other half. Weigh your impacts via magnitude, timeframe, and probability.
2AR:I would argue that this is the most difficult speech in the round. I don't know the "correct" strategy, but I prefer hearing strictly impact weighing with a clear link story to how you reach those impacts. Compare the two worlds of the Aff vs the Neg. This should be much more conversational and less line-by-line.
Don't be rude. Don't attack the opponents, attack their arguments. Be clear in your delivery. Signpost. Have fun. Learn a lot! :D
Jenna Cronin (she/her) - USM
n/a
Jessica Tsai - UCSD
n/a
Jessica Patterson - Independent-AT
n/a
Joe Blasdel - McK
Section 1: General Information
I competed in parliamentary debate and individual events from 1996 to 2000 for McKendree University. After three years studying political science at Syracuse University, I returned to coach at McKendree (NPDA, LD, and IEs) and have been doing so ever since.
In a typical policy debate, I tend to evaluate arguments in a comparative advantage framework (rather than stock issues). I am unlikely to vote on inherency or purely defensive arguments.
On trichotomy, I tend to think the government has the right to run what type of case they want as long as they can defend that their interpretation is topical. While I donât see a lot of good fact/value debates, I am open to people choosing to do so. Iâm also okay with people turning fact or value resolutions into policy debates. For me, these sorts of arguments are always better handled as questions of topicality.
If there are new arguments in rebuttals, I will discount them, even if no point of order is raised. The rules permit you to raise POOs, but you should use them with discretion. If youâre calling multiple irrelevant POOs, I will probably not be pleased.
Iâm not a fan of making warrantless assertions in the LOC/MG and then explaining/warranting them in the MO/PMR. I tend to give the PMR a good deal of latitude in answering these ânewâ arguments and tend to protect the opposition from these ânewâ PMR arguments.
Section 2: Specific Inquiries
Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given).
Typically, my range of speaker points is 27-29, unless something extraordinary happens (good or bad).
How do you approach critically framed arguments? Can affirmatives run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be âcontradictoryâ? with other negative positions?
Iâm open to Ks but I probably have a higher threshold for voting for them than your average judge. I approach the K as a sort of ideological counterplan. As a result, itâs important to me that you have a clear, competitive, and solvent alternative. I think critical affirmatives are fine so long as they are topical. If they are not topical, itâs likely to be an uphill battle. As for whether Ks can contradict other arguments in the round, it depends on the context/nature of the K.
Performance based argumentsâ?¦
Same as above.
Topicality. What do you require to vote on topicality? Is in-round abuse necessary? Do you require competing interpretations?
Having a specific abuse story is important to winning topicality, but not always necessary. A specific abuse story does not necessarily mean linking out of a position thatâs run; it means identifying a particular argument that the affirmative excludes AND why that argument should be negative ground. I view topicality through a competing interpretations framework â Iâm not sure what a reasonable interpretation is. On topicality, I have an âaverageâ threshold. I donât vote on RVIs. On spec/non-T theory, I have a âhighâ threshold. Unless it is seriously mishandled, Iâm probably not going to vote on these types of arguments.
Counterplans -- PICs good or bad? Should opp identify the status of the counterplan? Perms -- textual competition ok? Functional competition?
All things being equal, I have tended to err negative in most CP theory debates (except for delay). I think CPs should be functionally competitive. Unless specified otherwise, I understand counterplans to be conditional. I donât have a particularly strong position on the legitimacy of conditionality. I think advantage CPs are smart and underutilized.
In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)?
All things being equal, I evaluate procedural issues first. After that, I evaluate everything through a comparative advantage framework.
How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")?
I tend to prefer concrete impacts over abstract impacts absent a reason to do otherwise. If there are competing stories comparing impacts (and there probably should be), I accept the more warranted story. I also have a tendency to focus more heavily on probability than magnitude.
John Aduroja - MTSU
n/a
Jonas Lansford (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Jordan Ellis - UARK
n/a
Jordan Compton - UCMO
n/a
Josh Gonzales - UNT
n/a
Josh Sanders - MurSta
n/a
Josh Gibbs - MSU
n/a
Julius Dawoodtabar - UCSD
n/a
Kacie Hoch - BSU
n/a
Kate Rutherford - UU
n/a
Kate Rose - DBU
n/a
Katie Rockhill - CSCC
n/a
Keith Milstead - SMU
Kennedy Goodspeed - DBU
n/a
Kenzie (Mackenzie) Caro (she/her) - LRU
n/a
Kevin Davis-Bryant - MurSta
n/a
Kylee Heiser - WmCarey
n/a
Lakelan Hammonds - CSCC
n/a
Landon Richter - BPCC
n/a
Lazarus Clark - Idaho State
n/a
Le'Jeaha Falany - MSU
n/a
Liz Roa - UCA
n/a
Lori Welch - Whitworth
n/a
Luke Abraham - ACU
n/a
Luke Yeates - BSU
MIlos Vuskovic - UCSD
n/a
Mario Speech II - USM
n/a
Matthew Cook (He/Him) - UARK
n/a
Maurica Simpson (she/her) - ACU
n/a
Megan Smith* - LTU
n/a
Michael Shirzadian - Marshall U
n/a
Mira Langin - UCSB
n/a
Molly Rhymes - LAC
n/a
Natasha Gamboa - UCSD
n/a
Nick Ged - UTK
n/a
Nick Truitt - UU
n/a
Niko Sims - UNT
n/a
Noah Nikoli - UCSB
n/a
Noella Price - PDA
n/a
Norah McLaughlin - Whitworth
n/a
Nylah Harris - DBU
n/a
Olivia Buhler - UCSD
n/a
Peyton Amicone - UU
n/a
Philip Avery - UU
n/a
Pranisha Rijal (she/her) - USM
n/a
Presleigh McLemore - MSU
n/a
Preston Langley (he/him) - BPCC
This is a test
RUBY GROSS - LAC
n/a
Rachel Freeze - A-State
n/a
Riley Lowe (She/her) - UARK
n/a
Robert Toledo - LSUS
n/a
Rowan Smith - Idaho State
n/a
Ryan Seiter (He/Him) - UARK
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.
Sam Daftary - UCSD
n/a
Samip Panthi - USM
n/a
Sarah Feist - ORU
n/a
Sarah Walker - NAU
Sarah Walker
Director of Forensics and Debate, Northern Arizona University
Altogether,
I have about 15 years of experience in a variety of debate types, as a
competitor and judge. Most of that experience has been in Parliamentary
Debate.
I have a strong
background in Rhetorical Criticism and Argumentation, so I am confident I
can grasp any K, Plan Text, CP, or perm you bring up. If your speed,
technical jargon, or volume make it difficult for me to keep up however,
I may give up flowing, and I cannot judge on what doesnâ??t make it to my
paper.
Overall, I have most appreciated debates that have been
centered on making well warranted, competing arguments. If you can
clearly refute the central arguments of the other team, you will go a
long way in creating not only a stronger debate, but also a happier
judge.
Things you should know:
1) I prefer debates with clash, where the aff plan is the central space for negative arguments. This means:
(a) Plan texts/advocacy statements are preferred over their absence.
(b) As a general rule, the efficacy of the policy/advocacy probably matters more than how one represents it.
(c)
Critiques on objectionable items in the plan are preferred. I like
specific K links. All Ks have a presumed alternative, which means the
aff can always make a permutation.
(d) I have reservations about
judging performance/personal politics debates. I likely have at least a
workable understanding of your literature, but I do prefer a debate
constructed on a rubric I am more familiar with, and I simply have less
experience with this style. I am happy to learn, and willing to judge
this type of round, but be aware that the argument does still need
warrant, and I will still need to be able to flow something. Please make
your arguments clear.
2) Miscellaneous but probably helpful items
(a)
I view debate as a professional activity. This means you should not be
acting in a way that would get you removed from a professional setting. I
understand the purpose behind profanity and the showing of pornography
or graphic images, but these should be kept to moderation, and there
should be a clear warrant for them in the round. As far as I am
concerned, there is absolutely no reason for rude, violent, or
hyper-aggressive statements in a debate round. Ad hominem is a fallacy,
not an effective debate strategy. I will dock your points for it.
(b)
When speaking, giving road maps, etc., please speak with the purpose of
making sure that the judge heard you. If I canâ??t place your arguments, I
am much less likely to flow it. Clearly signposting and providing a
roadmap is an easy way to avoid this problem.
(c) I am much more
impressed by smart arguments and good clash than I am with highly
technical debates. If you drop whole points or arguments in the flow in
favor of chasing down one argument, do not expect me to overlook those
dropped args.
(d) Evidence is
evidence, not the argument itself. Both are necessary to create a good
debate. Please remember that evidence without an argument will be hard
for me to flow, and thus vote on, and arguments without evidence are
rarely strong enough to withstand scrutiny.
(e) I donâ??t grant universal fiat.
Saying that something should be done just because you have the power to
do it is not a strong argument, nor is it likely to lead to a better
debate. Iâ??d prefer you explain WHY and HOW we should enact the plan,
rather than simply insisting that it can be done.
3) Clipping
Issues: I will stop the debate to assess the accusation and render a
decision after the review. While I understand why other people
proactively police this, I am uncomfortable doing so absent an issue of
it raised during the debate. If proof of significant (meaning more than a
few words in one piece of evidence) clipping is offered, it's an
automatic loss and zero points for the offending team and debater.
4)
Topicality debates: If
you truly believe an abuse of the resolution was levied, or if you truly
cannot work in the limitations provided, then bring up T. If not, then I
am more likely to view a T argument as a distraction tactic. You will
get farther arguing ground loss than with an arg about the
interpretations of the T.
5) Timing the debate and paperless: You should
time yourselves, but I will time to enforce efficiency. I stop flowing
when the timer goes off. Donâ??t abuse the timer.
Sarisha Agarwala - UCSD
n/a
Seth Blair - UU
n/a
Sierra Noe - MurSta
n/a
Silas Hofmann - ORU
n/a
Stephanie Newberry - ACU
n/a
Sylvia Ho - UCSD
n/a
TCC-Cole Butler - TCC
n/a
TCC-John Mikolajcik - TCC
n/a
TSU-Tyler Cole - TxState
n/a
Tanner Brown - LSUS
n/a
Tyler Redmon - Belmont
n/a
UoC-Samuel Price (he/him) - Cumberland
n/a
Victor Gardner - GCU
n/a
Zachi Holden - ORU
n/a
Zak Sallis - WmCarey
n/a
Zhy Powell - UCA
n/a
Zoe Wilson - UCSD
n/a