Judge Philosophies
Amber Benning - KWU
n/a
Amorette Hinderaker - TCU
n/a
Ant Woodall - NSU
n/a
Anthony McMullen - UCA
n/a
Austin Allen - Tx State
n/a
Beth Thompson - WTAMU
n/a
Brandon Andrews - TSU
n/a
Chris Harper - TCU
n/a
Colten Meisner - TCU
n/a
Donna Graves - ECOK
n/a
Gina Jensen - Webster
n/a
Jeremy Hutchins - Tx State
n/a
Jessica Johnson - TSU
n/a
Julie Welker - HPU
n/a
Justin Morse - KWU
Katie Stringer - WTAMU
n/a
Kristen Stout - Crowder
<p>Head Coach Crowder College</p> <p>4 years debating and 3 years judging in NDT/CEDA</p> <p>I generally think debate is a communication activity. However, I think communication happens a lot of ways, potentially at different speeds. As long as you are coherent I can probably follow along. That being said, persuasion is still important and it is worth your time to emphasize important arguments/frame the debate in ways that make it easy for me to evaluate the debate.</p> <p>Topicality: You should defend some interpretation of the topic and prove why the resolution is a good idea. I also think topicality is a viable strategy against affirmatives if you can win that your interpretation is best. A debater need not prove “in round” abuse. They just have to win their interpretation is better for debate and creates a better, more fair topic. If all things are equal I probably default to reasonability because I was a 2a but things have to be really equal, which they rarely are. Reverse voting issues are not a thing. It shouldn’t be that hard to prove your aff is T. </p> <p>Kritiks and CP’s: I am fine with these arguments but the must be competitive and relevant. I have noticed in these debates that people like to throw around a lot of jargon. This is very frustrating to me. Please don’t assume that because you say a few debate words you have made substantive answers to the argument. This doesn’t mean you should avoid theory arguments if relevant. Just only say the things you need. I would be weary of assuming that I think those words mean the same thing as you. </p> <p>Less is more. Please don’t make arguments that are not related to your overall strategy just to make them. This is especially true of SPEC ARGUMENTS. Unless they are relevant to your overall strategy (competition for a CP) or the team has done something egregious I mostly find them a waste of time. I don’t understand trying to go for so many arguments in your last speeches that you are basically just asserting things. Less, well warranted and debated arguments, do much more for me than more arguments that are barely discussed.</p> <p>Don’t steal prep. If you are writing, looking at your papers, organizing, or really anything that is not speaking that’s prep. I SEE YOU PREP STEALERS. QUIT.</p> <p>It is your responsibility to provide a viewing computer or printed copy of the evidence to the other team. No exceptions. If they have a computer you need a flash drive. I have very little tolerance for not making debate accessible for people. I also think flashing your speech before you start is best practice but I understand there is some contention about this part of NFA LD.</p> <p>Disclosure is good. You should do it. </p>
Kristina Campos - ACU
<p>I was a CX debater in high school (in the Dallas, TX circuit), and NDT/CEDA debater at ACU in college (we broke at CEDA nats several years), and now I coach Parli and Worlds at ACU.</p> <p>I have been away from the debate world for the last 12 years while pursuing a Ph.D. and starting out as a professor. So, I understand the basics of all the arguments you will make, however, I might not always know the latest name for it. So, make sure you explain to me what it is instead of assuming I know. </p> <p>--Speed is fine. If I can't understand you, I will let you know. </p> <p>--T debates are fine. </p> <p>--Theory debates are fine.</p> <p>--Critiques are fine. I used to run them all the time and enjoy a good critique debate</p> <p>--Framework debates are fine. </p> <p>--Normal policy debates are fine.</p> <p>--I'm iffy on performance debates, probably not a good idea with me.</p> <p>I prefer a strong overview and/or impact analysis in the PMR and LOR. </p> <p>My default judging paradigm is utilitarian, but I will let you put me in a different paradigm if the argument is good. </p> <p>I am still getting reacquainted with the nuances of arguments that are popular now. So, you probably will want to ask me some more specific questions before the round starts. </p> <p>After reading through other judging philosophies, I realized I have to tell you that I won't vote for teams that are rude or actually abusive to their opponents. (what?!?, how is this not common sense). Please use courtesy and be nice to each other, you can be assertive and make good arguments without being a jerk. I am not impressed by big egos or people who need to make themselves feel stronger by being ugly/rude/offensive to others. That is a good way to lose my ballot. </p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Mark Turner - KWU
<p>I have judged for a long time. My children debated in high school, and I have judged since. I mainly judge individual events. I look for the message being sent by the performer and look for consistancy and support. I expect normal presentation skills. I like to be entertained as well.</p>
Mickey Cox - UT Austin
n/a
Niki Alderson - TCC
n/a
Onyeka Onyekwelu - TSU
n/a
Randy Cox - UT Austin
n/a
Robi Mahan - UT Austin
n/a
Ryan Tinlin - UT Austin
n/a
Shannon McCraw - Southeastern
n/a
Sondera Malry - TSU
n/a
Taylor Katz - ACU
<p>I'm a new member of the debate community, so arguments that are highly technical, overly reliant on jargon, or exotic in nature are not likely your best bet. I'm interested in narrative, so the best way to gain my support is to have a clear story. Give me a strong summary and let me know why you deserve my vote. I'm not particularly familiar with the customs, rituals, or culture of the debate community, so the best thing you can do is be courteous and professional.<br /> <br /> Quickness of speech is welcome if accompanied by an equal measure of clarity of speech. Arguments that are out of place have little impact on me, so make sure to signpost. An argument that doesn't seem to be anywhere may as well not be anywhere.<br /> <br /> Emotional appeals and shock value are more likely to draw my scrutiny than my praise. I respect levelheadedness and clear reasoning. You're welcome to use any kind of argument you'd like, but I tend to find it more compelling when the debate sticks close to the topic at hand and does not become a debate about the nature of debate.<br /> <br /> On a personal note, almost no Star Trek reference will be lost upon me.</p>
Tim Doty - Wayland
n/a
Timothy Betts - TCU
n/a
Tom Serfass - Webster
n/a
Trendi Nwyguen - TSU
n/a
Tricia Diaville - NSU
n/a
Wayne Kraemer - Tx State
n/a
Wendell King II - TSU
n/a