Judge Philosophies
Aaron Kelley - 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.
Bonniejean Alford - CTC
n/a
Chris Dickson - Hired
n/a
Danny Moss - Hired
n/a
Dillon McCoy - SAC
INTERP: I consider interp to be my strong suit and seek to provide extremely specific and educational ballots when judging these events. In single voice pieces (non-program such as DI, Prose, Duo), I prefer honest and genuine performances over performances that are forced/on auto-pilot. I like seeing real moments of growth and reflection in your character development as we move through the piece. Characters do not just move from the beginning of the piece to the end of the piece without motivation. Take us on a journey. Show us how your character got there. I am also big on utilizing your performance space. Own your space at the front of the room, and more importantly, immerse us into the performance. As far as programs go, I want to see clean and purposeful tech. If I see blocking in your piece that looks like it is there just for the sake of having blocking, I will note it on the ballot. I'm also big on the motivated flow of the piece. If there are piece transitions that make no sense, I will note it on the ballot. At the end of the day, I make my decisions in the round based on the performance as a whole, but I seek to provide as educational of a ballot as possible to help improve your specific skills as a performer.
LIMITED PREP: For LP speaking events, I look for overall analysis of the question/quotation, a clear thesis/argument that is evident throughout the speech, and clean structure. Make sure all of your points begin with a clear claim that is supported by quality evidence/examples and strong analysis. For extemp, make sure sources are diverse and credible and that you are not using the same source over and over again throughout the speech. For impromptu, make sure each of your examples makes a clear contribution to the overall argument and has a clear link back to the quotation. Broadly, make sure that your arguments flow into each other throughout the speech and that you are making clear links as you move through each point. Time management is also huge for me. Make sure that you are creating balanced points and that you leave yourself enough time for a complete conclusion.
PUBLIC ADDRESS: In PA events, you need to be sure that you establish the relevance of the topic/urgency early on. I need to understand why this topic is important and why we need to talk about it RIGHT NOW. I am also big on topic impact. If I don't understand the target and scope of this topic, your analysis is incomplete. Please make sure the overall structure, as well as the internal point structure, is clear and easy to follow. When citing sources, it is important to establish credibility as well. I prefer to know who wrote the information and why I should listen to what they have to say rather than you just saying, "According to The Verge..." I also look for an overall clean and confident performance. If you are including humor, make sure the comedic timing is good. Just like with interp events, I make my decision in the round based on the speech as a whole, but I seek to provide as educational of a ballot as possible to help improve your specific skills as a public speaker.
As a whole, the primary focus of forensics should be to educate, advocate, and, most importantly, HAVE FUN! So that is what I look for most as a judge! If you have any questions on my specific paradigms or ballots, please do not hesitate to email me at dmccoy19@alamo.edu
Elizabeth Blair - Tallahassee
n/a
Erika Gonzalez Alonso - Hired
n/a
Gavin Dass - Hired
n/a
Janee McGoff - Hired
n/a
Jeffrey Stein - Hired
n/a
Joan Andrews - TJC
Not listed as a Judge for this year.
John Schultz - Tallahassee
n/a
Jordan Innerarity - Hired
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!
Kyle Larson - Hired
n/a
Lisa Moreland - Hired
n/a
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.
Marjorie Sparrow - DMC
IPDA:
IPDA is a layman’s debate and not to be filled with LD jargon. I appreciate logic over emotional appeal. I enjoy creative arguments using solid logic and common sense. Do not speed talk. If I can’t hear or understand what you have said, that in no way helps the argumentation. I love layman’s debate. I believe this skill will serve you for the entirety of your life. The most organized, research driven and logical argument wins the debate.
NPDA:
Use of jargon is acceptable here. Basically the same philosophy as IPDA. Once again, watch your speed when talking.
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 clash...clash 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.
Sarah Spikeston - Hired
n/a
Wade Hescht - LSC-NH
Logic, evidence and organization will always prevail. For IPDA, courtesy also matters to me. I am mainly an interp coach, so slow and steady for me.
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.