FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam Blood - UWF

n/a

Amber Benning - KWU

n/a

Amorette Hinderaker - TCU

n/a

Amy Martinelli - UF

n/a

Ant Woodall - KWU

n/a

Brandy Gottlieb - UWF

n/a

Breanna Prater - TCU

n/a

Brian Flatley - Lafayette

n/a

Britt McGowan - UWF

n/a

Carlos Tarin - UTEP

n/a

Chip Chism - UWF

n/a

Chris Cohen - Lynn

n/a

Chris Outzen - UWEC

n/a

Cierra Coleman - TCU

n/a

Clara Adkins - Marshall

n/a

Cody Campbell - KWU

n/a

Derek Durphy - UWF

n/a

Donte Sheppard - 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.

Ginger Brauneis - UWF

n/a

Glenyz Pereira - UCF

n/a

Isabel Dunkelberger - TCU

n/a

Jennifer Torres - Doane

n/a

Jimmy Griffin - UWF

n/a

Joan Nkansah - UWF

n/a

Johnny Marks - UWF

n/a

Jonathan Bridenbaker - VSU

Jonathan Conway - UCF

n/a

Joseph Boone - VSU

Josh Reed - UWF

n/a

Kaitlin Broadnax - UWF

n/a

Kate Hamm - Lynn

Kellie Roberts - UF

n/a

Kevin Doss - LSCO

n/a

Keyshawn Rodgers - UWF

n/a

Kiefer Storrer - KWU

Iâm back.

Competitive history; 4 years KS High School Policy, 4 years College Parli. Some IPDA and LD tournaments sprinkled in there. Entering my 8th year coaching Parli/LD/IEs.

I like clash. I donât want to work when judging debate. Super down for Kâs especially if they are implicative of the debate community itself. But I can get down with some regular old net beneficial debate too. Really just like, respect each other, have fun.

I can flow speed but the technological limitations of online tournaments might make this something you should think about more in depth than usual.

Anything else, just ask.

Kristi Gilmore - UWF

n/a

Kurt Wise - UWF

n/a

Laura Kirby - UWF

n/a

Lauren Cappas - UWF

n/a

Leslie Nuñez - Noctrl

Lizzy Brown - UWF

n/a

Maddy Bass - UWF

n/a

Matthew Maddex - UCF

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!

Michael Wyatt - UWF

n/a

Michael Tate - KWU

Mike Eaves - VSU

Procedurals:

T-I have no artificial threshold on topicality. I will vote on abuse. Typically, cross x checks back on T.

Ks-framwork is paramount and the alternative. Please do not run "Vote Neg" as the sole alternative. There

should be more thought on the alt.

Speed. I have a high school and college policy background. I coached CEDA from 93-00 and coach NPDA, parli style

from 01-present

Counterplans--PICS are fine. Agent CPS are fine. In the end, I am tabula rasa and will default to impact calc to resolve plan debate

Das--uniqueness is key. Internal links are important. Please watch double turning yourself in the 2AC. I do not like performative contradictions and will vote against them

Performance/Project-I am progressive and liberal here. Run it and defend it. If you are on the other side, debate it straight up. A counter-performance is a legit strategy.

Have fun. I dislike rude debaters. I will vote on language abuse if a team calls it (ex: sexist, racist, etc lang)

Morgan Ratliff - UWF

n/a

Nancy Jackson - Marshall

n/a

Nicole Fink - UWF

n/a

Nicole Allen - UWF

n/a

Nikolas Welker - BGSU

I hate debaters ... especially with sauerkraut ... because that is nasty.

Noah Hunt - UWF

n/a

Paul Pilger - UWF

n/a

Paul Wesley Alday - BGSU

I strongly believe that waffles are superior to pancakes and that soy milk is not really milk.

Phil Travis - UWF

n/a

Quinn McKenzie - Marshall

n/a

Robert Brown - Spelman

I debated in HS (LD) and in College (CEDA now NDT) and have coached for the past four years with teams that do BP, NPDA, IPDA and Civic Debate. I have also taught Arg & Debate.

I am a tabby judge: which means that I do not come to the round with any prior knowledge. As a result, I will not finish arguments for debaters.

Debaters should be prepared to match claims with warrants and have well-thought out link stories. They should also be prepared to explain why their harms outweigh their opponents, if the debate is a policy/value one.

But I firmly believe that the debate space is created by the debaters and the easiest way to judge a round is if there is appropriate clash of ideas where the debaters explain why their ideas, on the whole, win out.

Robyn Pierce - UWF

n/a

Salette Ontiveros - UTEP

n/a

Sarah Nichols - TCU

n/a

Scott Kamen - Lafayette

n/a

Scott Placke - Lafayette

n/a

Sean Roan - UWF

n/a

Shawn Greiner - Georgia Tech

n/a

Shea Blood - UWF

n/a

Stephania Ortez - VSU

n/a

Taylor Holcomb - TCU

n/a

Teri Thompson - Spelman

n/a

Theodore Wilson - FSCJ

n/a

Thomas Gay - USF

Overall Debate Philosophy:

Background--Did a year competing in CEDA/policy in high school, NPDA/parli in college. Currently coaching at college level with students in NPDA and IPDA formats (and IEs).

General--I try to be tabula rasa/clean slate as much as possible... I'm not looking for you to say and do what you think I want you to say and do. Put forth your strongest case and argumentation in the way you feel is best appropriate. My preference was for parli over policy, so that means I don't like overly technical debate, right? Nope! If that's where the round goes, then you should absolutely go there. I'll put a few more thoughts below but typically my approach is anything goes as long as you keep it respectful, don't be ugly to one another, don't lie, etc.

Voters/Weighing--I won't get upset if everything isn't individually labeled and such but I would encourage you to give me clear/distinct voters and if you want input in how I should evaluate/weigh arguments in the round (and you should), then tell me!

Speed--Back in my day, speed was for cars or drugs**, not parli debate! I now spend most of my time sitting in a rocking chair yelling at the occasional cloud that passes by. Speed has become more of a thing in NPDA, which I don't particularly like, but it's where we're at. I can generally keep up without issue and am mainly concerned here that the pacing works for both teams. This is still supposed to be a communication event so winning by spreading or bullying someone out of a round isn't something I'm looking to get behind. With that said, sometimes you have a lot of ground to cover and, again, as long as both teams are on the same level, then I'm happy to meet you there. With IPDA, speed should be less of a purposeful element though again, sometimes you have a ton of ground to cover in that middle Aff speech... which I'm good with b/c if we start the round at a reasonable pace, speeding up slightly for that effort or the concluding speeches doesn't take us into troublesome territory.

**I did not do speed as a drug (or in parli) back in my day and am not advocating for it today.

Organization--Do I like it when debaters are well organized? Sure! Was I when I competed? Not particularly! While clearly defined outlining and signposting can be helpful, I'll usually be able to flow and follow you based on the argumentation as long as you're being clear enough.

Essentially, you should be in control of the round. Be nice/courteous to each other and have fun!

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.

2021 UWF Marks Invitational