Judge Philosophies
Adam Blood - UWF
n/a
Aldon Stone - FSU
n/a
Angel Rivera-Velez - Hired
n/a
Anisa Lynom - FSU
n/a
Anthony Stowers - Hired
n/a
Arden Kelly - Tallahassee
My background is deeply rooted in the theatre as a professional actor, now director and professor. I coach for an award winning college forensics team in individual events. In a good debate candidate, I look for clarity of thought and driving through your thoughts to reach your point/argument. I also come to each round without bias towards a certain subject with the need for the winner to convince me with facts that outweigh the other competitor. It is very important to have passion in your fight for your side, as well.
Benjamin Scarpino - UF
n/a
Brandon Thigpen - Hired
n/a
Chris Cohen - Lynn
n/a
Christina Matis - UWF
n/a
Eric Hamm - Lynn
I am a reformed policy debater. I love theory but hate speed. I believe that debate is a communication activity, and that speeding makes the activity inaccessible and less valuable. That said, I am usually OK with critical positions run on the Aff or the Neg (though Aff K need to have substantial "role of the ballot" discussions). Topicality, along with other procedurals, is always a fun position; I especially prefer good debate on the standards/reasons to prefer level. Counterplans do not have to be non-topical (with theory to support), but mutual exclusivity is important to avoid a permutation, which usually does not have to be understood as advocacy (but this can be challenged).
The two areas, besides my distaste for speed, that might be understood as more conservative would be regarding the neutrality of political assumptions and my skepticism of performative advocacy cases. I am open to political arguments from anywhere on the political spectrum. I will not take as an assumption "Trump bad," nor the contrary "Trump good." Defend these positions. For performance, perhaps my skepticism comes from the fact that I haven't yet heard it run well. Perhaps you can convert me. Identity positions have a higher threshold to clear.
With value-based debate, I expect clear discussion of the value and criterion. I enjoy getting into the philosophical weeds. I am a philosophy professor who specializes in 19th and 20th century continental philosophy. I also have an economics background, so feel free to get wonky.
Glenyz Pereira - UCF
n/a
Gwendolyn Gay - Tallahassee
n/a
Hannah Vancuren - UF
n/a
Hannah Snyder - Hired
n/a
Jacob Deutsch - Hired
n/a
Jasmine Machado - Hired
n/a
Jawata Afnan Saba - Hired
n/a
Jeff Harkleroad - Hired
n/a
Jesselym Gonzalez - Tallahassee
I am a former competitor and coach although through my years in competition I specialized in I.E events and very little PA. My judging philosophy for IPDA is more so on facts, points and staying on topic with the prompt/argument. I think centralized arguments are very important and I would not like to see a competitor go overboard with his arguments – I would like to see them stay on topic and LISTEN to the other competitor – as well as CHALLENGE what they are saying. They need to keep things as clear as possible. Although things like delivery and confidence are still very important to me – they are not the biggest indicator for my judging criteria. My judging is based on the speech itself and what arguments the competitor is saying. After hearing this, I will choose – in a non-bias way – which competitor made the most compelling arguments, points, and stayed closest to the topic. I will do this without allowing my own opinion to affect the overall score therefore choosing the winner.
Jessica Siles - UCF
n/a
Jillian Boland - Hired
n/a
John Schultz - Tallahassee
n/a
Jonathan Bridenbaker - Hired
n/a
Jonathan Conway - UCF
n/a
Justin Salahuddin - Hired
n/a
Kate Hamm - Lynn
Kayden Stiltner - UWF
n/a
Kellie Roberts - UF
n/a
Kevin Ambrose - FSCJ
n/a
Liam Shanley - Hired
n/a
Lindsay Duede - Hired
n/a
Mahek Bhagchandani - Hired
n/a
Marna Weston - UF
n/a
Matthew Doggett - FSCJ
I have a more extensive judging philosophy up on tabroom, and this philosophy is focused on IPDA alone.
For background, I started out in CEDA as a competitor and coach, but have coached just about every imaginable format (High School LD, College LD, Public Forum, NPDA, and IPDA). I try not to bring any preconceived feelings into the round but like any judge I have bias. Here are mine:
1) I think framework is important, but most debaters don't impact it. I find myself in most rounds thinking "okay, you won framework, and..." It's not enough to win it, you have to impact it.
2) I'm not against theory or topicality. In fact, I don't find the affirmative has a right to define all that persuasive, especially when the affirmative's approach is abusive. Give me an interpretation, reasons to prefer, and voters. While proven abuse isn't required, it is more persuasive.
3) I like big-magnitude impacts. They are easier to understand and weigh. Having said that, I will evaluate or try to evaluate the round under any criteria that you offer for me to use.
4. I don't need "thank yous," I would much prefer you spend that time warranting out your arguments.
5) I tend to operate in an offense paradigm, which just means that I'm probably not voting for you on the negative unless you give me a reason to vote for you and not just reasons why I wouldn't vote for the affirmative.
6) Be nice to each other!
Mel Turnage - UCF
n/a
Melanie Magness - Hired
n/a
Ocean Wang - Hired
n/a
Sam Schepps - Hired
n/a
Samantha Erfe - Hired
n/a
William Murphy - MDC
1. I expect civility and politeness.
2. I prefer policy style arguments, more stock issues. I will entertain K, but don't usually excite me.
3. While I prefer substance over style, I do expect a more conversational pace, especially as I'm getting older and hearing problems get in the way.
4. Criteria should make sense in the context of the topic.
5. I have 30 years experience in forensics.