Judge Philosophies

Adam Key - TSU

n/a


Cory Paul Harrison - Ohio U

n/a


Darrell Farmer - UNL

n/a


David Trumble - St. A\'s

n/a


Dylan Kristufek - CMU

n/a


Emily Thieman - Miami U

n/a


Eric Bonilla - Akron

n/a


Gus Foote - Ohio U

n/a


Jack Clancy - Akron

n/a


Jeff Toney - Pacific


Jeremy Coffman - TSU

n/a


Joe Packer - CMU

n/a


John Schultz - Purdue


Justin Rudnick - Ohio U

n/a


Kaitlin Dockry - Akron

n/a


Katie Hodgdon - CMU

n/a


Kristi Scholten - Truman

n/a


Lanie Presswood - Ohio U

n/a


Marlin Bates - Pacific

<p>ection 1 &ndash; General Information</p> <p>Dr. Marlin Bates</p> <p>University of the Pacific</p> <p>Years judging LD:&nbsp; I judged your coaches.</p> <p>Years coaching:&nbsp; I coached your parents.</p> <p>Decision calculus:&nbsp; I will generally decide where and how I am instructed to decide by the debaters themselves.&nbsp; I am generally open to any arguments.&nbsp; However, in my old age, I have determined the following:</p> <ol> <li>This is a communication event.&nbsp; Communicate. Speed is discouraged.&nbsp; I am fully capable of flowing any speed demon.&nbsp; However, I choose not to.&nbsp;</li> <li>Cross-examination is binding &amp; important.&nbsp; You should address your questions and answers to the critic, not each other.</li> <li>Be polite and have fun.</li> </ol> <p>Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters.&nbsp; Please be specific and clear.&nbsp; This may include your background, delivery preferences and general thoughts on paradigms (stock issues, policy maker, tabula rasa, etc).</p> <p>Section 1 &ndash; General Information</p> <p>Dr. Marlin Bates</p> <p>University of the Pacific</p> <p>Years judging LD:&nbsp; I judged your coaches.</p> <p>Years coaching:&nbsp; I coached your parents.</p> <p>Decision calculus:&nbsp; I will generally decide where and how I am instructed to decide by the debaters themselves.&nbsp; I am generally open to any arguments.&nbsp; However, in my old age, I have determined the following:</p> <ol> <li>This is a communication event.&nbsp; Communicate. Speed is discouraged.&nbsp; I am fully capable of flowing any speed demon.&nbsp; However, I choose not to.&nbsp;</li> <li>Cross-examination is binding &amp; important.&nbsp; You should address your questions and answers to the critic, not each other.</li> <li>Be polite and have fun.</li> </ol> <p>Please begin by explaining what you think is the relevant information about your approach to judging that will best assist the debaters.&nbsp; Please be specific and clear.&nbsp; This may include your background, delivery preferences and general thoughts on paradigms (stock issues, policy maker, tabula rasa, etc).</p> <p>If someone wants to run a procedural, I will evaluate it based on the arguments in the round.&nbsp; As with ALL arguments, I have no pre-existing prejudices.</p> <p>In general, I think critiques discussed at high rates of speed are antithetical both to the event and to the subject matter under discussion, but, as I just said, I have no biases to vote for or against them.</p> <p>Stand up when speaking.</p>


Michael Baumann - Ohio U

n/a


Mike Storr - Miami U

n/a


Nick Garcia - OSU

n/a


Shaunte Caraballo - TSU

n/a


Wendy Larcher - UC

n/a