Judge Philosophies
Ann Burnette - Hired
n/a
Austin Allen - Hired
n/a
Brent Brossmann - JCU
Dillon McCoy - TxState
n/a
Eva Margarita - UT Austin
n/a
Fallon Hopper - Hired
n/a
Jacob Leger (Any Pronouns, them, they) - UL Lafayette
n/a
Jaelyn Ashford - TxState
n/a
Jamie Parker (she, her) - UL Lafayette
n/a
Jordan Auzenne - UT Austin
n/a
Justin Blacklock - SAC
As a judge, I feel it extremely important to clearly advocate for what you believe in. Forensics, as an activity, is really about advocacy and speaking to the issues that concern you most.
In Interp, I prefer characters that are authentic, arguments/themes that are well thought out, and performances that have been clearly fine-tuned to represent those characters and messages clearly.
In Platform/Public Speaking, I look for organization, research, and a clear sense of the speakers voice in the writing. Of course, I am concerned with cleanliness of delivery and performance style, but again, I want speeches (from INFO to PERS to CA/RC to ADS/STE) to clearly stand behind a message that the speaker is advocating for.
In all forms of debate, I prefer clarity and organization over speed and strategy (just for strategy sake). Arguments should remain on case as much as possible, and competitors should respect the boundaries of the debate platform rather than bending the rules to meet them. In short, my debate philosophy is quality of arguments over quantity.
Have a great Phi Rho Pi and support all speakers interp, speeches and arguments!
Kathy Owens - UMHB
n/a
Kristine Brossmann - JCU
M'Liss Hindman - TJC
In judging debate, I am open to most arguments. However, I am a strong believer in civility and want to hear debaters making rational arguments without bashing or demeaning their opponents. I also like to hear clear organization with links to one another's arguments. I do not enjoy speed or excessive use of jargon. I believe debate should still be a communication event teaching solid communication skills that can be used in everyday life.
Madison Stueve - UNT
n/a
Michael Hoover - Hired
n/a
Randy Cox - UT Austin
n/a
Robert Markstrom - McNeese
n/a
Sarah Contreras - DMC
Interp Events: I want to BELIEVE that you have embodied your character. I do not want simply words on a page. I like a piece with emotional levels. There is nothing better than making me laugh just at the moment I am about to cry! Your piece should have social significance. You can set that up in your introduction. Take me on an emotional rollercoaster! Have fun!
Debate: I value a coherent, well-organized argument. I want to be able to flow the round easily so that I can concentrate on what you are telling me rather than what I am writing down. I like a friendly clashclash is good but does not have to be nasty. However, do not be fake either. I am NOT impressed by the use of debate jargon. I believe the best argument would be able to convince any person on the street and they dont know or care about debate jargon.
Shannon LaBove - RIce
Shannon LaBove MA, JD
ADOF Rice University
Judging Philosophy
Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year, etc.)
I started debating at age ten when I could not see over the podiums in Junior High LD and loved it...still do. I competed LD in High School, Parli in college (I was in NPDA-90’s style with hands on the head questions) and have coached a combination of Parli, IPDA and NFA-LD for 12 or so years for a combination of NPDA, PRP and PKD. Needless to say I understand that there are many styles of debate and consider myself a Tab/Flow judge who likes to evaluate the round presented. I am very keep it simple and give me a place to vote.
Approach of the critic to decision-making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock-issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.)
I do have what many call an “old school” debate preference which includes the following:
Don’t Like:
I don’t do flow work for debaters. If you want it flow it through.
I don’t like bad law. If you don’t know it don’t get complicated with it.
I don't like performance. This is not to say I don't see it as a valid mechanism this is to say it is not my preference in a round to watch.
Do Like
Clash-don’t just dismiss and assume I know the position. I like link and clash work.
Easy decisions-tell me where and how you want me to vote.
Run what you would like-I try not to be interventionist
Aff to define round-Will buy a trichotomy/framework issue if it is blatant and abusive.
Relative importance of presentation/communication skills to the critic in decision-making
I don’t mind speed but am a stickler for organization and clarity.
Relative importance of on-case argumentation to the critic in decision-making
I like Clean case/off-case structure and for things to be run correctly. For me the Aff has Burden of Proof and the Opp to refute. Clash on case is great and preferred but will vote off/critical.
Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks
No real preference here but you have to link up to round. Generic without clear link does not fly well with me.
Preferences on calling Points of Order.
If you see it call it.
Anything else feel free to ask. I look forward to watching great debate!
Tony-Lydia McKinney - Hired
n/a
Tyler Cole - Hired
n/a
Tyshee Sonnier - TxState
n/a
Wade Hescht - Hired
n/a