Judge Philosophies
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.
Alexandra Nickerson - UIndy
n/a
Allison Winter - UF
n/a
Anisa Lynom - FSU
n/a
Anthony Ruse - UWF
n/a
Arden Kelly - Tallahassee
My background is deeply rooted in the theatre as a professional actor, now director and professor. I coach for an award winning college forensics team in individual events. In a good debate candidate, I look for clarity of thought and driving through your thoughts to reach your point/argument. I also come to each round without bias towards a certain subject with the need for the winner to convince me with facts that outweigh the other competitor. It is very important to have passion in your fight for your side, as well.
Asher Anderson - UWF
n/a
Athena du Pre - UWF
n/a
Baylor Locke - UWF
n/a
Bill Kuehl - Newberry College
n/a
David Harpool - Newberry College
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.
Gabrielle Lamura - VSU
n/a
Gil Carter - UF
n/a
Greg Moser - BU
n/a
Greg Brown - VSU
n/a
Harrison Cook - Troy
n/a
Hyatt Hershberger - UWF
n/a
Janis Crawford - BU
n/a
Jazlyn Khan - BU
n/a
Jesselym Gonzalez - Tallahassee
I am a former competitor and coach although through my years in competition I specialized in I.E events and very little PA. My judging philosophy for IPDA is more so on facts, points and staying on topic with the prompt/argument. I think centralized arguments are very important and I would not like to see a competitor go overboard with his arguments – I would like to see them stay on topic and LISTEN to the other competitor – as well as CHALLENGE what they are saying. They need to keep things as clear as possible. Although things like delivery and confidence are still very important to me – they are not the biggest indicator for my judging criteria. My judging is based on the speech itself and what arguments the competitor is saying. After hearing this, I will choose – in a non-bias way – which competitor made the most compelling arguments, points, and stayed closest to the topic. I will do this without allowing my own opinion to affect the overall score therefore choosing the winner.
Jonathan Conway - UCF
n/a
Jonmichael Seibert - VSU
n/a
Jordan Lipner - UCF
n/a
Josh Conway - UCF
n/a
Jude Bateman - UWF
n/a
Julia Hren - BU
n/a
Julien Freeman - UWF
n/a
Kate Hamm - Lynn
Katie Garratt - UWF
n/a
Kayden Stiltner - UWF
n/a
Kellie Roberts - UF
n/a
Kellie Sparks - UWF
n/a
Kelly Carr - UWF
n/a
Kurt Wise - UWF
n/a
Lauren Lupkowski - BU
n/a
Lyssa Dougan - BU
n/a
Matt Miller - BU
n/a
Matthew Bilello - Lynn
n/a
Meghan Lyons - UWF
n/a
Mike Gray - Troy
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)
Nathan Bedsole - Georgia College
n/a
Nghi Chau - UCF
n/a
Niamh Harrop - UCF
n/a
Nicky McHugh - UCF
n/a
Quinn McKenzie - BU
n/a
Sam Nerro - UCF
n/a
Sandra Taylor - UWF
n/a
Seth Fendley - UCF
n/a
Shea Blood - UWF
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.
Stephanie Wideman - UIndy
n/a
Sydney White - UWF
n/a