Tournament Time: 7:49 AM Eastern
Judge Philosophies
Adam Blood - UWF
n/a
Allison Winter - UF
n/a
Alyx Dickson - TJC
Not listed as a judge for this year.
Amanda Stevenson-Holmes - BU
n/a
Amy Martinelli - UF
n/a
Andy Stowers - UCF
n/a
Anthony Ruse - UWF
n/a
Asher Anderson - UWF
n/a
Athena du Pre - UWF
n/a
Becky Bush - BU
n/a
Brandon Thigpen - UCF
n/a
Brandon Reynolds - LSU
https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=21586 - You'll need an account to view it. Hopefully you have one.
Brendon Poor - UCF
n/a
Brennan Hindman - UWF
n/a
Carly Middleton - BU
n/a
Chase Thompson - UCF
n/a
Christina Gesmundo - Polk State
n/a
David Harpool - Newberry C
n/a
Elizabeth Medina - UCF
n/a
Elizabeth Royappa - UWF
n/a
Elyse Rose - UWF
n/a
Eric Hamm - Lynn
I am a reformed policy debater. I love theory but hate speed. I believe that debate is a communication activity, and that speeding makes the activity inaccessible and less valuable. That said, I am usually OK with critical positions run on the Aff or the Neg (though Aff K need to have substantial "role of the ballot" discussions). Topicality, along with other procedurals, is always a fun position; I especially prefer good debate on the standards/reasons to prefer level. Counterplans do not have to be non-topical (with theory to support), but mutual exclusivity is important to avoid a permutation, which usually does not have to be understood as advocacy (but this can be challenged).
The two areas, besides my distaste for speed, that might be understood as more conservative would be regarding the neutrality of political assumptions and my skepticism of performative advocacy cases. I am open to political arguments from anywhere on the political spectrum. I will not take as an assumption "Trump bad," nor the contrary "Trump good." Defend these positions. For performance, perhaps my skepticism comes from the fact that I haven't yet heard it run well. Perhaps you can convert me. Identity positions have a higher threshold to clear.
With value-based debate, I expect clear discussion of the value and criterion. I enjoy getting into the philosophical weeds. I am a philosophy professor who specializes in 19th and 20th century continental philosophy. I also have an economics background, so feel free to get wonky.
Greg Moser - BU
n/a
Hannah Fortin - Harding
n/a
Hannah Bowman - UCF
n/a
Isa Landry - Harding
n/a
Janeen Banasiak - UCF
n/a
Janis Crawford - BU
n/a
Jazlyn Khan - BU
n/a
Jess Tischmacher - Harding
n/a
Joan Andrews - TJC
Not listed as a Judge for this year.
Jonathan Bridenbaker - LSU
n/a
Jonathan Conway - UCF
n/a
Jordan Lipner - UCF
n/a
Julien Freeman - UWF
n/a
Kate Cook - Lynn
Katie Garratt - UWF
n/a
Kaylyn Allen - UWF
n/a
Kurt Wise - UWF
n/a
Laura Kirby - UWF
n/a
Lauren Strickland - UWF
n/a
Lee McKinney - UWF
n/a
Libby Hutchinson - UWF
n/a
Lyssa Dougan - BU
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.
Maggie Brown - UWF
n/a
Matt Johnson - Florida College
n/a
Michaela Jacobs - UWF
n/a
Mike Gray - Troy
n/a
Niamh Harrop - UCF
n/a
Nicky McHugh - UCF
n/a
Nicole Willis - UWF
n/a
Olivia Gardner - UWF
n/a
Pearl Ruiz - PerU
n/a
Sam Schepps - UCF
n/a
Sarah Dickens - UWF
n/a
Seth Fendley - UCF
n/a
Shaun Brandes - UCF
n/a
Stasia Raebel - BU
n/a
Stefani Strout - UWF
n/a
Stella St. Peter - UCF
n/a
Susanna Li - MDC
n/a
Sydney White - UWF
n/a
TXST-Tyler Cole - TxState
NFA LD/CX/Policy: To boil my judging paradigm in its most simplistic terms, a view myself primarily as a policymaker. My vote almost always goes to the side that present the best policy (AFF) or argues the status quo is better (NEG) or there is a better alternative (NEG). While stock issues certainly plays a role in arriving to a decision, I would NOT go so far as to say the AFF has to win every single stock issue to win my ballot.
On Speed: Dont. Just dont. While many organizations try to be inclusive, this is the one area I find just about every national/state organization (outside of IPDA) proves itself to be hypocritical in doing absolutely nothing to police the practice of spreading, while championing themselves as being an inclusive organization. While some organizations allow judges to call speed or clear, I will not be engaging in such practice. Debate is an advanced level of public speaking. If you are not able to engage in the first principle of human communication (as outlined by Dr. Steven Beebe) be aware of your communication with yourself and others, it begs the question why is one operating on an advanced level when the basics have yet to be mastered? I should not have to tell you when you are speaking faster than what you would expect to see in a normal conversation. I am a human, talk to me like I am a human and not some robot. Ill end with this, I absolutely loathe my states senator, Ted Cruz, but I have to recognize that even a broken clock can be right. Senator Cruz states that spreading is a pernicious disease that has undermined the very essence of high school and college debate. Speed has the potential to cost you the round. If both sides decides to speed read/spread/whatever you want to call it, I am likely to default neg. If you do decide to spread and you don't give me the time or day to write down your tagline you risk your arguments not making it to the flow/influencing my decision.
On Speechdrop: As my stance on spreading may indicate, I place a high value on the public speaking aspect of this activity. As a result, I do not add myself to any speechdrop. I am here to listen to the debate, I am not here to read the debate. The only time I will request to see your evidence is if there are any ethical concerns made by the opponent about how the evidence is being utilized/interpreted.
On signposting: Extending on the ideas from above. Please, please, please signpost. I find many debaters have become accustomed to judges being on the speechdrop and they rely on the judge reading the case instead of hearing the case. If you do not prepare me to listen/flow the taglines, you risk it not making it on the flow/not being evaluated. When flowing I do not write down the author of the evidence, but rather the claim that that piece of evidence is making. When referring to your opponents arguments, it would be wise to refer to the claim and not the author. If you just refer to the author there is going to be a solid chance that I will not know where you are at on my flow.
On K debate: While my educational background is rooted in rhetorical analysis, as a policymaker I find a lot of the rhetorical K debates functionally inoperable in winning my ballot. I can maybe think of 4 times at most that I have voted on the K, and 3 of those times the K centered on spreading. I am not saying you cant run the K, I will listen to it, but strategically you must ask yourself is it worth the time for this judge.
On Disclosure of the ballot: Having been to a great deal of tournaments that have run behind, and having been kept out of my hotel room beyond midnight due to a 1.5+ hours worth of disclosure (despite the fact the president of the organization telling the judges to keep disclosure to a minimum) my stance on disclosure is this as follows. We place strict time requirements for debaters, similar restrictions must be placed on judges/the disclosure process. Until national and state organizations place strict rules/regulations on the disclosure process, and until those rules are adopted at the local level I will not be disclosing the round. At the most I will announce a winner for the round, but outside of that all commentary will be reserved for the ballot. If I find you during the course of the tournament I may come talk to you about the round, and if you see me during the course of the tournament please feel free to ask me questions. However, these conversations will not take place in the same room as the debate to ensure that the next round in the room will not start behind.
UIL/NSDA LD paradigm: When it comes to LD debate I find myself normally more a traditionalist judge. I favor the quality of your arguments over the quantity. With that being said I would prefer that spreading be kept to a minimum, or if possible, not present in the debate at all. In addition to that, I believe that LD debate is centered around the value/criterion debate, as a result, I will not vote on any plan text presented by either side. I also appreciate debaters who treat their value/criterion as a fundamental to not only their case, but also on their arguments against their opponents case. I also believe highly that this event is centered on the competitors ability to communicate, with that being said, roadmaps and signposting every argument is a very effective way of winning my ballot. Please do not read me a list of evidence and dont tell me exactly where you want that piece of evidence. Ill flow the evidence, but I will not assume where you want me to put that evidence on my flow, nor will I speculate how that evidence is supposed to be used in round.
Tal Argov - Lynn
n/a
Tea Sterling - UCF
n/a
Tiffany Harper - UWF
n/a
Tralon Glover-Williams - UF
n/a
Will Hollis - UWF
n/a
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.