FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Amy Trim - CBC

n/a

Anna Hoover - CBC

n/a

Ben Cecka - Clark CC

My competitive background is purely in NPDA, of which I was a competitor in for just shy of 2 years at the collegiate level. I've been judging it for a cumulative 3 years, along with some experience in IPDA and BP/Worlds.   I consider myself tabula rasa as well as a flow judge, and I will pay special attention to your rebuttal. If you have a winning argument in a member speech, but fail to give it due attention at the conclusion, I will do the same. I will happily entertain any and all arguments (creativity should be rewarded), provided that you articulate them fully and, most importantly, tell me why I care (impact). I prefer rational and realistic arguments over fantasy, but don't let that preclude you from using some humor and having fun when possible. T, K, and various types of CP's are fine as long youclearly link and warrant them. With regard to speed, I will sympathize with teams that are struggling to keep up if a) I agree, and b) they voice that concern early in the PMC -- waiting until theLOC is too late. Lastly, Wheaton's Law matters.

Beth Hewes - CSI

n/a

Chris Lamm - CBC

n/a

Chris Reinhold - Clark CC

Christina Garza - CBC

n/a

Connor Moore - CBC

n/a

Daniel Schabot - Lower Columbia

Dr. Dan Schabot Lower Columbia College Years Debating: 5 total (1 years NFL LD; 4 years CEDA/NDT ) Years Coaching/Judging: 15 Total (2 years CEDA/NDT; 13 Years NPDA)   General Philosophy: Each team should make good (well supported and well-reasoned) arguments and clash with each other. I prefer 2 or 3 in depth positions to 5 or 6 blipped positions.   Specifics: Affirmative teams:  At this point in my judging life I am no longer interested in listening to debates that do not at least make an attempt to address the topic in the resolution.  You can run any position you want as long as you explain why what you are arguing deals with the topic.   Negative Teams:  I also feel that negative teams have the responsibility to address affirmative arguments as well as presenting their own.  Positions just run for the sake of filling time (such as generic T) have little weight with me.  Each position should be part of a coherent strategy to win.   Speed and Presentation:  If you feel the need to go fast that is fine.  However, running a bunch of positions just so you can go fast is useless.  Speed as a strategy (in and of itself) will not be rewarded.     RFD:  My preferences are listed above.  I have and will vote for just about any argument type. A team must clearly explain why their advocacy is superior to other team’s advocacy to win a round.

Dave Kosloski - Clark CC

Debra Wagar - CBC

n/a

Don Humphrey - CBC

n/a

Eli Navarro - CBC

n/a

Fernando Mendez - CBC

n/a

Ginny Quinley - CBC

n/a

Jessica Horst - CBC

n/a

Jim Wutzke - CBC

n/a

Kevin Uretsky - CBC

n/a

Leah Moore - Lower Columbia

Lester Churchill - CBC

n/a

Mariah Julson - CBC

n/a

Michael Dugaw - Lower Columbia

Nik Vaughn - Clark CC

Robert Haun - CBC

n/a

Robert Chisholm - CBC

n/a

Sara Seyller - Clark CC

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.   Overall, in each form of debate I am well versed in rules and expectations and hold firm to them.  They are there for a reason and ought to be respected.  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. 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. As far as Procedurals, liked or otherwise, is becoming an important if not critical component to debating in NPDA.  As such, I am open to all forms of arguments so long as they are connected to the case, it doesn’t take much to make it applicable.  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.  I leave it up to the competitors to set the rounds as they see fit.  In IPDA and BP there is a heavier reliance on style and persuasion rather than procedurals.  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.  In these rounds, the devil is in the details.  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.  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.

Sarah Iverson - CBC

n/a

Taylor Esvelt - CBC

n/a

Veda Guynes - CBC

n/a

2013 Northwest Forensics Conference Div III Community College Championships