Judge Philosophies
Brian Knous - Hired R6
n/a
Danny Moss - Hired R6
n/a
Deshawn Weston - Hired R6
n/a
Floyd McConnell - Hired R6
n/a
Joan Andrews - TJC
Not listed as a Judge for this year.
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!
Kierra Warren - Hired R6
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.
MacKenzie Clayton - Hired R6
n/a
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.
Mark Morman - Hired R6
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.
Tanya Galloway - Hired R6
n/a
Terry Hunt - CTC
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.