FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Amber Canady - TCC

n/a

Amy Arellano - Z-Hired

n/a

Brenna Welch - NSU

n/a

Cameron Piercy - Z-Hired

n/a

Charles Hoot - Z-Hired

n/a

Chris Medina - Wiley

Chris Vian - Z-Hired

n/a

Christina Ivey - Z-Hired

n/a

Craig Dudley - Z-Hired

n/a

Daniel Schabot - Cameron

n/a

Daniel Herwig - NSU

n/a

Deidre Galloway - Pitt State

n/a

Esther Davison - Z-Hired

n/a

Gail Stucky - Bethel College

n/a

Garret Castleberry - OU

n/a

Gary Harmon - KWU

I have coached a long time.  I am familiar with theory and practice.  I believe argumentation is a search for the probable truth and not game playing.  I believe arguments should be prima facie when presented.  I don't hear as well as I used to.  It does affect my ability to listen to speed.  If you are clear, I can handle a pretty fast rate.  However, use speed only when you have so much to say that you need it to meet time restraints.  Speed plus poor use of time is not good.  Procedurals should only be used when there is abuse. I enjoy good argumentation.

Gina Clemens-Fox - Z-Hired

n/a

Heather Odle - NSU

n/a

Jacob Stutzman - OKCU

22 years in debate, HS policy, NFA-LD, but mostly NPDA (judging for the last 14 years).  This year I’ve been in tab a lot, so I haven’t judged many rounds. I want the debaters to decide the form and substance of the round.  I’m not opposed to any particular argument or strategy that you feel fits the purpose of the debate. Framework debates are good, but rarely dispositive. Absent a specified framework for viewing the round, I default to whatever makes it easiest for me to render a decision. I get very frustrated by debaters who do not think their way through the round. This shows up when debaters don’t make connections between positions or go after obvious deficits in the other team’s arguments. If you can’t compare solvency of the plan vs. the CP or give me specific link analysis on the K, then something is wrong. On the flip side, debaters who do those things usually make it easy for me to vote for them. Smart debaters are the ones who take the easy ways out of the round. I’d like a copy of plan and CP/alt text. Perm text too, if possible. I tend to prioritize probability in impacts, so tell the better story on your positions. Regardless of how fast you’re going, I’ll let you know if you’re not clear. Please take into consideration the size and shape of the room and any other atmospheric factors that may complicate my hearing you. I prefer that you only call points of order on arguments that are likely to be very important to my decision. Calling points simply to disrupt the speaker or to contest minor arguments will be given very little leeway before I start docking speaker points. Absent punishment for that sort of stuff, exclusive language, or otherwise improper behavior toward your opponents, speaker points are usually 25-29, very rarely above that, and are decided based on the amount of enjoyment I get out of your participation in the debate round. Make smart choices and explain those choices to me well, and you’ll come in at the top of that scale. Don’t assume I know your lit on the K. Explain the warrants to me and make the links very explicit.

Jeff Gentry - OU

n/a

Kellie Howell - Z-Hired

n/a

Kenny Hopkinson - Hutchinson CC

n/a

Kristopher Copeland - NSU

n/a

Lacinda Brese - SE

n/a

Megan Stoneberger - Pitt State

n/a

Molly Brown - ORU

n/a

Robert Greenstreet - ECOK

n/a

Sara Straub - Z-Hired

n/a

Stephanie Schartel Dunn - Z-Hired

n/a

Tai Du - OKCU

Tracy Floreani - Z-Hired

n/a

Travis Roberts - Hutchinson CC

n/a

Victor Muse - TCC

n/a

2012 Oklahoma Intercollegiate Forensics Association