Judge Philosophies

Alec Baker - Lewis & Clark

n/a


Daaa Coach Broyles - Pacific

n/a


Darren Meaney - MHCC


David Childers - MHCC


David Maile - Pacific

n/a


Denise Vaughan - Bellevue

<p>General information:</p> <p>I did LD in High School, CEDA in College and now coach NPDA. &nbsp;I am open to a variety of forms of debate. &nbsp;Each round should take on its own form. &nbsp;Any form or strategy is fine as long as everyone is the room can communicate. &nbsp;I attempt to bring as little to the debate as possible although no judge can be totally tabla rosa.<br /> <br /> Specific information:<br /> <br /> Topicality: I appreciate strategic interpretations of resolutions and will give a fair amount of room for the government to interpret the resolution. &nbsp;They key is that everyone has some ground and some ability to debate. &nbsp;I will also give a fair amount of room for novices to work on format and learn the rules. &nbsp;</p> <p>Counterplans: CPs are great. &nbsp;Condo is ok if well argued. &nbsp;Disclose condo or no condo in the first speech. &nbsp;My strong feeling is that it should not be about tricking the other team but going after a higher level of argumentation.</p> <p><br /> The kritik: Kritiks are great--aff or neg. &nbsp;Make a good, well-reasoned argument and have a reason for the K. &nbsp;Then make sure to engage.&nbsp;</p> <p><br /> Theory: Great. &nbsp;Go nuts.<br /> <br /> Disads: Cool. &nbsp;Link them.<br /> <br /> &nbsp;</p>


Ethan Epstein - Reed


Forest Ledbetter - OSU

n/a


Gary Gillespie - NU

n/a


Jennifer Page - MHCC


John Jablonski - Clark CC


Kelly Welch - Portland State

n/a


Kerrie Hughes - CCC

n/a


Lindsay Bing - Portland State

n/a


Liz Kinnaman - MHCC


Mark Porrovecchio - OSU

n/a


Mary Painter - Lower Columbia


Morgan Mansker - OSU

n/a


Morgan Chinn - NU

n/a


Patrick Lairson - CCC

n/a


Sara Seyller - Clark CC

<p>I have enjoyed participating in the collegiate debate community since 2007. I have participated in, coached, and judged NPDA, IPDA, and BP debate. I think any form of debate is both fun and educational!! While I enjoy sharp, pointed styles I am averse to disrespectful treatment of competitors, and find that it detracts from the whole of the debate.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Overall, in each form of debate I am well versed in rules and expectations and hold firm to them.&nbsp;&nbsp;They are there for a reason and ought to be respected.&nbsp;&nbsp;This does not mean I lack flexibility, but it does mean that outright violations will be noted in nowhere else but in speaker point awards.</p> <p>In many ways I consider myself a hybrid, I am a flow judge with a speed govern of just short of ludicrous speed (IE spittle running down face as they gasp for air every few minutes), but I also appreciate arguments that use persuasive rhetoric and style rather than reliance on an excess of words to win solely by tabulating dropped arguments.</p> <p>As far as Procedurals, liked or otherwise, is becoming an important if not critical component to debating in NPDA.&nbsp;&nbsp;As such, I am open to all forms of arguments so long as they are connected to the case, it doesn&rsquo;t take much to make it applicable.&nbsp;&nbsp;I am not a big fan of winning on dropped arguments alone unless the drop so large that the gaping hole left is enough to sink the case.&nbsp;&nbsp;I leave it up to the competitors to set the rounds as they see fit.&nbsp;</p> <p>In IPDA and BP there is a heavier reliance on style and persuasion rather than procedurals.&nbsp;&nbsp;As such, I tend to be less about detailed flows and more attentive to the connections made both within the cases and through clash provided connected to the opponents case.&nbsp;&nbsp;In these rounds, the devil is in the details.&nbsp;&nbsp;I am most appreciative of competitors that can connect to the people in the room by explaining how it might impact us, why it matters to us, or the harms and benefits we would be exposed to should something occur.&nbsp;&nbsp;Ivory tower syndrome, arguing so far up in the building that it become abstract concepts of competing theory, is extraordinarily hard to do given the time frame and is more often isolates competitors and judges from the argument rather than including them.</p>


Shannon Valdivia - MHCC


Shayna O&#039;Dea - Portland State

n/a


Shelbe Kukowski - NU

n/a


Tom Hyatt - Bellevue