Judge Philosophies
Alyson Enk - UWF
n/a
Amy Martinelli - UF
n/a
Anastasia Martinez - UWF
n/a
Barbara Wells - UWF
n/a
Bret Haskell - UWF
n/a
Bryce Pitts - UCF
n/a
Casey Hutson - UWF
n/a
Chris Fenner - UWF
n/a
Christina Gesmundo - Polk State
n/a
Eric Hamilton - UWF
n/a
Gabby Ruiz - UWF
n/a
Heather Riddell - UWF
n/a
Jonathan Conway - UCF
n/a
Kellie Roberts - UF
n/a
Kelly Carr - UWF
n/a
Kristi Gilmore - UWF
n/a
Kurt Wise - UWF
n/a
Laura Kirby - UWF
n/a
Logan Mullins - UWF
n/a
Mark Henry - UWF
n/a
Matthew Maddex - CF
n/a
Micaiala Hamner - UWF
n/a
Milena Ghtait - UWF
n/a
Monica Wilson - UWF
n/a
Nicole Allen - UWF
n/a
Rachel Hyde - UWF
n/a
Rhonda Robinson - UWF
n/a
Sarah Hinkle - CC
I mostly live in the world of IEs (read: 20 years of either
competing or coaching) but have moderate experience training in Worlds and IPDA-style
debate.
I like speakers who are fair and balanced: Ethics, Argumentation, Strategy, and Style.
Construct your case carefully with well-developed arguments. Build a foundation with clean definitions. Create values/criteria so I know how to weigh out the evidence. Provide Impacts and explain how you get there. I want a lively debate with good clash. Be well-versed in the topic while implementing high quality and recent research. Respect each other.
By the end of the debate, I should be able to clearly
understand the significance of your position to the resolution.
I tend to prefer argumentation to be grounded somewhat in
the real world and prefer depth rather than rattling off a list of contentions.
Tell me a story. Paint a picture. Speakers who effectively demonstrate why an issue is significant and/or relevant are building strong ethos. I want to be as
involved as possible.
Have fun and ignore my non-verbals! I tend to look surly but
that's just my face. J
Shea Blood - UWF
n/a
Victor Torres III - CC
I have competed in Speech and Debate in college as well as
coached it at my Alma Mater. I am very familiar with the IE side of things;
however, I can hold my own in comprehension and analysis of debate arguments.
I expect you to tell me where
we are and how to vote. I will watch time, but I prefer you to time yourselves
in case I am flowing. I would also appreciate if the burdens were introduced
early in the debate (e.g., criteria, key values, decision-rules, framework-type
arguments, moral imperatives, and etc.). I would lastly emphasize the
importance of a clear impact analysis. Be clear on your positions and be
careful to present it in a clear an organized fashion that is easy for me to
digest.
With regards to critical arguments, I need you as the debater
to explain to me how your argument impacts the round. These points are
important for me to see in your argument: be sure to explain your view of the
world and of your own argument, link to some sort of advocacy for the other
team and offer a constructive solution. I support critics that offer solutions
to the problems they bring up.
Performance debate arguments are fine; however, I need to
see that you have clear framework on how I should vote. I like to know the role
of the ballot and why I should vote the way I should.
I do not have much experience
as a debate judge so be careful with the technical finer points of your debate
strategy. Also please be aware of your speed. I am fine with you speaking fast;
however, please be cognizant that I may not be able to flow that fast. If there
is some point or argument topic that you would like me to write down, please
repeat it so that I have the signal âOh that is importantâ? and then will write
it down. Be sure to speak clearly, annunciate, and have fun.
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.
Willie Tubbs - UWF
n/a