Judge Philosophies
Al Primack - Pitt
n/a
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