Judge Philosophies
Amy Mecklenburg-Faenger - Park
n/a
Andrew Dore - Park
n/a
Bright Ajayi (he/him) - Park
n/a
Camille Abdel-Jawad - Park
n/a
Cari Prewitt Chretien - SBU
n/a
Chris Faenger - Park
n/a
Courtney Rilinger - Park
n/a
David Whitaker - Park
n/a
Eduardo Magalhaes - Simpson
n/a
Evan Kirksey - UCMO
n/a
Fendrich Clark - SE
n/a
Gina Jensen - Webster
n/a
Jason Roach - Webster
n/a
Jessica Paxton - SBU
n/a
John Wallis - Webster
n/a
Jon Hokenson - Park
n/a
Jordan Smith - OU
n/a
Kaila Todd - SFCC
- not a fan of speed as a weapon or spreading the opponent out of the round. I will vote on speed abuse- let's keep debate an inclusive and equitable space, so slow down if your opponent calls speed.
My personal opinion about speed: Quality over quantity, persuade me. I can handle most speed even though I don't like it. If it is too fast, I will say clear up to 2x. If you don't slow down, I will put my pen down and stop flowing. If something isn't on my flow, it's likely not going to be taken into consideration when I make my decision.
- debate is an educational activity first, and I will vote on fairness/ education voters especially with proven abuse.
- Counterplans: (1) CP shifts presumption. If you are running a CP, it needs to be competitive or I will not vote for it. (2) PIC's are rarely persuasive to me. I will vote aff on the perm 95% of the time if neg runs a PIC.
- T should be used to check aff, and not as a time suck. Really not a fan of clearly throw away arguments. Debate is a game, but there are more goals than just winning :)
- IMPACT CALCULUS. Please. Weigh the aff world and the neg world, and do the work of comparing them for me.
- Sign Post/Road Maps (this does not include I will be going over my opponents case and if time permits I will address our case) After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in limbo.
- Framework : Establish a clear framework for the debate and come back to that FW frequently. If you don't provide any, I assume there to be a cost/benefit analysis.
- (for evidence based debate) : I only pull up documents that are shared if there is evidence that I need to check. I flow the round based on what is said in the round. Don't depend on me reading and re-reading your case/evidence to understand it and make the arguments for you- you should present it in a way that I can understand it, and that persuades me.
- Extensions : don't just extend card authors and taglines or arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and compare your impacts. Extend dropped arguments asap and explain their role in the debate. Don't wait until your last speech to bring up subpoint E that hasn't been talked about for the whole debate.
- Narrative : Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story or how your case presents a cohesive story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents case. **Do NOT give me blippy/underdeveloped extensions/arguments. I don't know authors of evidence so go beyond that when talking about your evidence/arguments in round. Your win is still determined by your ability to persuade me on the importance of the arguments you are winning. This is a communication event.
- Flow judge - So PLEASE provide clear verbal organization for me during your speech.
- In your rebuttals, tell me exactly where to vote. I'm a fan of "Judge, pull [the internal link/ framework/ subpoint B] through and put a star by it. You're voting for aff/ neg here because XYZ".
- HAVE FUN! Learn something each round, and most importantly- be you :)
Kena Wolf - Park
n/a
Kylee Johnson - UCMO
n/a
Louis Cohn - Park
n/a
Manny Reyes - UCMO
n/a
Marisa Mayo - Simpson
n/a
Marvel Aryee - Park
n/a
Matt Harris - Park
n/a
Rickie Jackson - Park
n/a
Stacey Locke - SBU
n/a
Susan Keim - Park
n/a
Tara Lindahl - OU
n/a
Taylor Corlee - SBU
n/a
Tom Serfass - Webster
n/a