Judge Philosophies
Brandi Thompson - Hired
n/a
Cooper Ezell - TJC
Dan Crawford - Hired
n/a
Danny Moss - Hired
n/a
Daren Carpenter - TJC
What is the most
important criteria you consider when evaluating a debate?
In IPDA, I am looking for logical argumentation, public
speaking skills, source support and courtesy. This should be a â??real worldâ?
discussion on an important issue. My background is as an Interp/Speaking
coach. However, I have judged IPDA for
over four years.
What are your
expectations for proper decorum from the debaters?
Courtesy is extremely important. Of course, students should
point out flaws in their competitor's argument. However, the attitude should be
"I think my way is better" not "you are wrong, stupid or deliberately
misleading us." Also, I expect excellent public speaking skills. I will be looking for proper posture, fillers
and eye contact. As the Phi Rho Pi IPDA
rules state, â??extemporaneous delivery is required.â? The Phi Rho Pi ballot also asks for judges to
rate students on source support. So, I will be listening for sources (just like
in Extemp).
What
strategies/positions/arguments are you predisposed to listen to and consider
when you vote?
I will listen to any logical argument. Do not waste time
pointing out an infraction that would lead to a technical win in parliamentary
debate. Instead, use your time refuting
the logic your competitorâ??s argument. Please
do not keep telling me that I should vote for you. Instead, use this valuable time to support
your argument. Students will be keeping up with their own time.
How do you evaluate
speed, jargon, and technical elements?
All parliamentary and LD debate jargon should be completely
avoided. To be clear, if you use speed, I will simply put my pen down and those
comments will be disregarded. Your speed should be the same as we were speaking
in the elevator about the weather. Debate jargon and spreading comments will
not benefit you and should be avoided. I will not be flowing the debate. Instead,
I will be listening and evaluating your argument logically.
Floyd McConnell - SJC
I am an old school judge.Ã? I am looking for authentic communication skills.Ã? These include the following:
1.Ã? No spreading-- I want to hear clear and normal speaking speeds.Ã? I know we get anxious at times, keep it to where the average person can understand you.Ã? It gives me a headache, I don't want to listen to it.Ã? I will say "clear" once. That is your signal to slow down after that, I am no longer following your arguments.Ã? Ã?
2.Ã? Please polite to your opponent.Ã? Rudeness will not be acceptable.Ã? Ã?
3.Ã? I realize we are in "Space," however please make sure you are wearing something you would wear to a job interview.Ã? Most of us only have to be dressed from the waist up.Ã? At least make that effort, even if it is from your place of residence.Ã? Ã?
4.Ã? Argumentation:Ã? I am open to all arguments, as long as they are organized.Ã? I love a great debate, stay organized, on point and signpost.Ã? Please don't me work hard for your ballot.Ã? Ã?
5.Ã? I prefer if you are on camera when you are not speaking.Ã? Ã? Let's not be looking down at phones... etc..Ã? It is really obvious.Ã? Ã?
For policy I love the stock issues. As for Kritiks, No. This communicates to me you have no arguments. I have only seen/ heard 2 great K arguments in 25 years.
Have a great tournament!!!
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!
Kevin Doss - LSCO
n/a
Khristi Prince - Hired
n/a
Melissa Witt - Hired
n/a
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 clashclash 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.
Skyler Walker - Hired
n/a
Travis Smith - Hired
n/a
Uche Akoma - 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.