Judge Philosophies
Aaliyah Drayton - VSU
n/a
Adam Parrish - UCF
n/a
Adam Blood - UWF
n/a
Al Primack - Pitt
To all interested in a PhD program in communication
The University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) has a strong communication program that emphasizes rhetoric and public affairs, critical media studies and media theory (including: media criticism, media political economy, film, and media history), and argument. Our program only accepts students we can guarantee funding to (tuition remission, teaching assistantships/fellowships, and health insurance). The debate program is looking for high-character coaches that are interested in making debate accessible, educational, and inclusive. Grad students that work with the team receive at least one course release, work a relatively light coaching/judging schedule, and have opportunities to develop skills and competencies around directing a program and planning events. Applications are typically due by early January. For more information, email me atdebate@pitt.edu
Background
I competed in speech and debate at the college level from 2010-2014. My primary debate event was NPDA, but I also competed in some LD and attended policy camp and workshops. My favorite things to run were performance-based critical arguments (e.g., hip-hop), critical race theory, feminist criticism, queer theory-based arguments, but I mostly debated case in NPDA due to partner preference. I coached IEs and some NPDA at CSU Long Beach from 2014-2016. I have been the director of the William Pitt Debating Union since FA 2023.
I do not need content warnings for sensitive topics, but you should always check with your opponent, read other judges paradigms for elimination rounds, and consider providing them if there is an audience.
Labeling
I have realized that I have a strong preference for debaters to label the parts of their arguments (e.g., tell me if something is your link, your solvency, your impact, etc.) and when responding to your opponents arguments, let me know which specific aspect of the argument, or which card, or which claim you are responding to if engaging in direct refutation. I miss the days of "The link is... the internal link is... the impact is... on their solvency... In response to [Author, Date]..." Nowadays, I find I get lost sometimes when, for example, the 1NC does something like "On case" or the aff says "On the econ DA" and then the debater reads a ton of cards without indicating first the specific thing to which each card is being used as a response.
Speed
I prefer debates at a conversational rate of speech. Sometimes I struggle to hear or process spreading (I cannot actually make out the words, and the sound at that speed doesn't help me process the card information before me). Also, for how my mind functions, I have trouble communicating my need for people to slow down because I am so over-focused on trying to comprehend verbal messages.
Affs
I am open to anything, but regardless of the argument you run, you need to provide the grounds and warrant for your claims. Regardless of your aff type, be sure you also have your best, most relevant cards in your 1AC. There are too few speeches in LD to add too much to the backend.
Advantages/Disadvantages
I need a solid link story for ad/disads and I need clearly articulated impact calculus between them. I am a fan of analysis at the link level as I think there is a strong burden for the Aff to show a propensity for their ability to solve or garner an advantage, and I think the same rule applies to disads for the negative. I also prefer more specific evidence than generic evidence. Also, dont make me do the work of impact calculus; thats your burden.
Counterplans
I am open to all sorts of CPs, but the negative needs to defend a CPs theoretical legitimacy if challenged. I also require a clear link story and explanation of exactly how a CP avoids a disad and/or garners a unique benefit that the Aff doesnt. I do think it is ethically best if the neg is upfront about the conditionality of their CP (unconditional, conditional, dispositional) and I am open to argumentation about CP theory. Losing a CP is not an RVI as only the aff has the burden to prove their case.
Kritiks and Framework
I am open to K debate, but I need your Ks philosophical premises explainedclearly. In all my days of performing critically oriented academic research and graduate coursework on queer theories, critical race theory, settler colonial studies, psychoanalysis, etc., I can tell you that everyone has their own Lacan, Foucault, "Butler," Fanon, etc. If you dont want my very particular rhetorical interpretation of your critical argument to guide my evaluation of the round, then please summarize the key theses (or common knowledge) you want me to use when understanding your critical lens - even if it means putting that in your tag or an overview in your constructive speech. In other words, I do not want to intervene, so guide me clearly through the terrain of your argument so that I can reasonably follow without having to review my own version of the map I drew myself the last time I traveled in the critical territory you bring the round to.
All criticisms need to have a 1) strong link story to the specific thing being critiqued (the specific plan or take on the resolution, the specific language used in round, the specific aspects of intercollegiate debate being criticized, etc.; 2) a clearly defined alternative; and 3) an impact.
All criticisms also need a clearly articulated framework that includes: roles for the judge and debaters, role of the ballot, and an understanding of what our debate is. Try to avoid convoluted alternatives, or be ready to explain or "paint a picture" of what the alternative means. If you ask me to prefer deconstructive textual activism over the 1ac, I need to know what your definition of deconstructive textual activism is and how your K functions as that sort of activism or relates to the world of such efforts. You need to make clear to me what your advocacy or alternative is, what my role is in evaluating the round, and what function my ballot serves in the round. Additionally, I am not a fan of alternatives that cannot be enacted. I will take your alt or advocacy quite literally within the context of your argument.
Topicality
I like very specific and contextually relevant definitional work. I am not a fan of T debates where the interpretation comes from a lower-court ruling on an unrelated legal matter or the Merriam Webster's dictionary. Give me relevant legal interpretations (statutory or judicial), industry interpretations, or something actually related to the topic. All words have commonly understood meanings, but with respect to the resolution, we are working with contextually specific interpretations of terms.
If the aff is using the resolution's terms metaphorically, they should be up-front for that and have good responses for the standards debate (and should probably be pre-empted in the framework).
I like a very organized T. I also like T to provide specific articulations of abuse in round, how it might ripple out to the community, and possibly some examples.
If you are running a distinct kind of T (effects, extra, etc.), for the benefit of everyone in round, please explain how that is distinct from just regular T. It's not that I don't know it, but it's that sometimes in the middle of a round during a long day, any little bit of work you can do to reduce a judge's cognitive load is beneficial to you.
Cross Examination
I will typically flow cross-ex but I will not consider it within my evaluation of the round unless those comments are brought up within round (i.e., "In cross-ex they said [xyz], which means [abc])." I really do not like the performance of antagonism, hostility, or aggressiveness that often comes with cross-ex.
Rebuttals
Final rebuttals should provide the judge any necessary instructions for evaluating the round. I don't just need an overview of your argument (although that is helpful), but I need: your impact calculus, judge instructions, and a way to understand the framework/theory debate (if relevant).
Also, the best rebuttals tend to collapse and do great comparative work. Some of the rebuttals that are most difficult to evaluate attempt to go for everything.
Allison Winter - UF
n/a
Amy Martinelli - UF
n/a
Anna Jurlina - UCF
n/a
Anthony Ruse - UWF
n/a
Anthony Penders - UIndy
n/a
Asher Anderson - UWF
n/a
Becky Bush - BU
n/a
Bill Kuehl - Newberry College
n/a
Brandon Cominsky - UCF
n/a
Brandon Reynolds - LSU
n/a
Brennan Hindman - UWF
n/a
Christa Carns - UCF
n/a
Christine Hanlon - UCF
n/a
Desiree Flores - UCF
n/a
Elizabeth Medina - UCF
n/a
Elyse Rose - UWF
n/a
Emily Bergman - CCU
n/a
Gabby Lamura - VSU
n/a
Greg Moser - BU
n/a
Hannah Bowman - UCF
n/a
Heiddy Reyes - CCU
n/a
Hunter Fenn - UCF
n/a
Jackie Lewis - UCF
n/a
Janis Crawford - BU
n/a
Jazlyn Khan - BU
n/a
Jen Burg - UCF
n/a
Jessie Paxton - UCMO
n/a
Jonah Cole - Lynn
n/a
Jonathan Bridenbaker - LSU
n/a
Jorri Bright - UCF
n/a
Josh Conway - UCF
n/a
Julien Freeman - UWF
n/a
Justin Salahuddin - UCF
n/a
Katheryn Burke - UIUC
n/a
Kimberly Davis - FSCJ
I am a Director of Forensics and teach Communication courses. I have former experience competing in Limited Prep.
In debate, I value logical arguments presented in a clear, organized and concise manner. Signposts are helpful. Be civil and respectful. I am not a fan of jargon and speed. Speak clearly to be heard and understood by everyone. Use evidence and references appropriately. I evaluate the round based upon who offers the best overall argumentation. Remember to have fun.
Lakelyn Taylor - UCF
n/a
Lauren Lupkowski - BU
n/a
Lee McKinney - UWF
n/a
Lenora Haddad - CCU
n/a
Lindsay Gagnon - Maricopa
Logan Gerhard - UCF
n/a
Lyssa Dougan - BU
n/a
Madeline Magness - UCF
n/a
Matt Johnson - Florida College
n/a
Mea Brahier - UWF
n/a
Michael Moeny - UCF
n/a
Michaela Jacobs - UWF
n/a
Michelle Dusseau - UCF
n/a
Mike Eaves - VSU
Procedurals:
T-I have no artificial threshold on topicality. I will vote on abuse. Typically, cross x checks back on T.
Ks-framwork is paramount and the alternative. Please do not run "Vote Neg" as the sole alternative. There
should be more thought on the alt.
Speed. I have a high school and college policy background. I coached CEDA from 93-00 and coach NPDA, parli style
from 01-present
Counterplans--PICS are fine. Agent CPS are fine. In the end, I am tabula rasa and will default to impact calc to resolve plan debate
Das--uniqueness is key. Internal links are important. Please watch double turning yourself in the 2AC. I do not like performative contradictions and will vote against them
Performance/Project-I am progressive and liberal here. Run it and defend it. If you are on the other side, debate it straight up. A counter-performance is a legit strategy.
Have fun. I dislike rude debaters. I will vote on language abuse if a team calls it (ex: sexist, racist, etc lang)
Mike Gray - Troy
n/a
Monica Mayer - UCF
n/a
Niamh Harrop - UCF
n/a
Nicky McHugh - UCF
n/a
Nicole Young - UCF
n/a
Renata Kolodziej-Smith - UCF
n/a
Robert Littlefield - UCF
n/a
Ronnie Stanley - NWFSC
n/a
Ryan Louis - UCF
n/a
Sakshi Shukla - UCF
n/a
Seth Fendley - UCF
n/a
Shelby Cumpton - UCMO
Love good speaking, strong argumentation, and a little humor here and there. Don't run preponderance of evidence in front of me; I care about actual argumentation, not just evidence. If you want to win my ballot, don't get caught up in the technicalities or terminology; just make a better argument.
Tralon Glover-Williams - UF
n/a
Will Hollis - UWF
n/a
Will Hamman - UCF
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.
Xander Stein - Lynn
n/a