Judge Philosophies
Andrea Harper - Hireds
n/a
Audrey Baker - Truman
n/a
Austin Sopko - Truman
n/a
Ben Davis - Truman
n/a
Elizabeth Hobbs - Hireds
n/a
Evan Kirksey - UCMO
n/a
Jack Rogers - UCMO
n/a
Janine Wilkins - Park
n/a
Jason Roach - Webster
n/a
John Wallis - Webster
n/a
Juliana Ness - Hireds
n/a
Justin Raymundo - Webster
n/a
KIrby Weber - Hireds
n/a
Kylee Johnson - UCMO
n/a
Lora Cohn - Park
n/a
Marisa Mayo - Simpson
n/a
Melissa Benton - Webster
n/a
Naomi Henry - Hireds
n/a
Nik Fischer - Hireds
n/a
Rebecca Walker - Truman
n/a
Ryan Kelly - Hireds
n/a
Shawna Merrill - IC
My competitive background is mainly in parli, but I judged LD throughout the 17/18 season and am currently head coach of a program competing in NFA-LD.
Debate is ultimately a communication endeavor, and as such, it should be civil and accessible. I’m not a fan of speed. I can handle a moderate amount especially as I follow along with your docs (I want to be included on speechdrop, email chains, etc.), but at the point that you’re gasping for air, I’m over it. Using speed as a strategy to spread your opponent out of the round is not okay for me.
I’m not a big T person. While I prefer proven in-round abuse to vote on T, I will vote for competing interpretations if it’s done well. Basically, if you run T, you’d better mean it. Don’t use it as a time sink.
I will vote on Ks if they address the topic/refute the plan. I enjoy a good critical argument, but don’t assume I’m familiar with all of your literature.
My favorite types of rounds are ones that engage in direct clash and cover the flow. Attend to the link stories and connect the dots as to how we get to your impacts. I’ll vote on just about any argument as long as it’s clearly explained and defended.
Bottom line: don’t try to get too fancy. Run arguments you understand and do what you’re comfortable with.
Taylor Corlee - SBU
n/a
Tess O'Connell - UIUC
n/a