Judge Philosophies
A Free LD Judge For Writing Extemp Topics and Running Extemp Prep - Gonzaga Prep
Aidan Burgeson - CDA
n/a
Alayna Becker - Ferris
n/a
Alexis DiSanza - Mead
Andre Cossette - Gonzaga Prep
<p> I've been judging Policy, LD, and now Public Forum for 30 years or more. I hate Kritiks that are used just to win rounds, unless they're Kritiks criticizing the state of debate these days. They have to be read slowly for me to understand them, though: philosophy read at 400 words per minute just goes over my head (I have enough trouble understanding philosophy read at 100 words per minute). As I advance in age, my ability to process information at a rapid rate diminishes, so if you can boil the round down to a few simple principles, then I become a thinking judge instead of a judge who merely connects points on the flow. I like to hear evidence being read, so sometimes I'll slow down debaters when they read their cards so I can understand the warrants and not just mindlessly write down the taglines. I have a decent knowledge of theory because debate theory rarely changes over the years (sometimes the names of the arguments change but the logic stays the same), so if you use words like "conditionality" and "permutation" and "reciprocity", I'd know what you were talking about. </p> <p> And, I usually don't disclose (except for Novices who might benefit from some education), and I don't like shaking hands with the debaters after the round.</p>
Andrea Benson - U-High
n/a
Andrew Myers - Mead
Brian Yates - Oaks Christian
n/a
Caleb Majeski - Mead
Capri Holden - Central Valley Hig
<p>I have been judging debate for over 10 years. I believe in a traditional values debate. Above all else the value should be held paramount. . . AND. . . Contentions that clearly connect back to the value criterion are essential in proving the resolution to be true/false.</p>
Cara Langsfield -
n/a
Cassandra Novotney - Republic
n/a
Chris Zhang - Mead
Colin Griffith - Ferris
n/a
Dan Sjolund - Ferris
n/a
Daron Fredericks - Central Valley Hig
Dave Carlson - Wenatchee
n/a
David Spivey - Mead
David Smith - U-High
n/a
Don Hendrixson - Ephrata
n/a
Edgar Lincoln - Central Valley Hig
Gabe Majeski - Mead
Holly Meginniss - NC HS
n/a
Ingrid Lavoie - Oaks Christian
n/a
Irene Kubes - U-High
n/a
JW Trull - CDA
n/a
Jackson Eubanks - Lake City
n/a
James Heath - Gonzaga Prep
Jessi Shoemaker -
n/a
JoAnn Flaherty - NC HS
n/a
Joe Phipps - Rogers
n/a
Josh Smith - Lake City
n/a
Josh Mhyre - Mead
Justin Ploeger -
n/a
Karen Edgel - Republic
n/a
Katie Gumke -
n/a
Kevin Kimball - Oaks Christian
n/a
Krishen Talarico - Ferris
n/a
Kristen Danielson - Saint George
Lani Ghirarduzzi - CDA
n/a
Lindsay Oden - Lake City
n/a
Liz Bremner - Republic
n/a
Llanda Milsap - U-High
n/a
Lori Cossette - Gonzaga Prep
Mandy Manning - LC Tigers
n/a
Manuela Zigarlick - Republic
n/a
Marissa Owen - Lake City
n/a
Matt Fedrizzi - CDA
n/a
Matt Cardenas - Ferris
n/a
Matt Ockinga - Wenatchee
n/a
Mike Anstine - Mead
Mike Page - TEC
n/a
Millayna Klingback -
n/a
Misty Stephens -
n/a
Molly Severens - Republic
n/a
Nathan Everett - Ferris
n/a
Nichole Clegern - LC Tigers
n/a
Pat Simmons - Ephrata
n/a
Paul Kanellopoulos - Saint George
Robert Aneiro - U-High
n/a
Sally Conner - Central Valley Hig
<p>I have judged debate events for about 15 years, most frequently congress, with occasional LD and PF. I enjoy rounds that stay away from excessive jargon and debaters focus on clear communication. I think that the value is important in a LD round, and I think that evidence is important in a round, but that it is an even more important skill to focus on deciding what evidence is important to include in a round, and to explain the relevance of this information. I do not enjoy speed.</p>
Sam Normington - Saint George
<h2> <span style="background-color: rgb(175,238,238)"><span style="background-color: rgb(175,238,238)"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: en-us; mso-fareast-language: en-us; mso-bidi-language: ar-sa"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: en-us; mso-fareast-language: en-us; mso-bidi-language: ar-sa">I competed in policy debate in high school and have been coaching all forms of debate the past ten years. I traditionally judge policy debate, so often find myself preferring its trappings.<br /> Speed, topicality, kritiks, are all fine by me, use them or don't, doesn't bother me. I will do my best to evaluate the round using the framework the debaters put forth. I like clash, and I like impact calculus. </span></font></span></span></span></h2>
Sara Major - Pascal Academy
n/a
Sara Compton - Ephrata
n/a
Sarah Gill -
n/a
Scott Peterson - Gonzaga Prep
Taylar McClure - Lake City
n/a
Tim Harper - Gonzaga Prep
<p> <strong class="_36"><a data-hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/hovercard.php?id=1450020135" href="http://www.facebook.com/tim.harper.359" id="js_1">Tim Harper</a></strong></p> <div class="_53" id="id.255042037952260"> <div class="_3hi"> <div class="_1yr"> </div> <div class="_38 direction_ltr"> <p> Judging philosophy:</p> <p> Experience: I have been debating for 6 years – Three for Ashland High School and three for Gonzaga. I am a senior and captain of the Gonzaga debate team. I have 20+ rounds of experience on this year’s topic.</p> <p> Preferences:</p> <p> General: <br /> I default to an offense-defense paradigm.<br /> I don’t think a conceded argument automatically constitutes a win—you must explain the arguments you want me to evaluate and extrapolate why I should do so. why do I care and what does it mean to the rest of the debate? That said, concessions are tie-breakers. <br /> I will read evidence. Most likely, I will read lots of it. However putting evidence in my hands means I will give it only as much weight as it deserves and not necessarily as much as you tell me it does. Make sure if you tell me to read a card that you are willing to stake the debate on it being as good as you think it is.<br /> I reward concise, articulate, well-reasoned arguments over pedantic soap boxing. With this in mind, you will be well served to remove filler phrases from your vocabulary – “pull the trigger,” “at the point where,” “extend across the flow” etc, etc… <br /> If you could choose to be funny or be smart and professional while debating in front of me, I prefer the latter.</p> <p> CP: I will accept a lens of sufficiency for evaluating counterplans and believe the aff must win a large risk of a solvency deficit, permutation or disadvantage to the counterplan to win a debate against a counterplan that resolves a large portion of the aff. <br /> I am not adverse to conditions, multi-plank advantage, process, or consultation counterplans. <br /> Theory arguments except conditionality are a reason to reject the team unless persuasively proven otherwise.</p> <p> DA: I think a DA that turns the whole case can outweigh the whole aff without substantive case defense, but you are well suited to cover your bases and sufficiently mitigate aff advantages to be safe. <br /> For the aff, I will vote on terminal defense on a disadvantage, however because I default to offense-defense, the threshold for winning zero risk of the DA is somewhat higher than winning some risk of offense, especially if there is a counterplan that solves all of the aff.<br /> Impact calculus should not be ignored – it can often be the tie-breaker in close case v. disad debates.</p> <p> Topicality: I will default to competing interpretations but will usually lean aff unless the T argument is particularly compelling or the affirmative is very obviously non- or anti-topical.</p> <p> Kritik: Although I am not a K debater, I increasingly find myself voting for K teams because highschool debaters largely do not a) understand or b) forward a framework argument. <br /> That said, I will likely understand and simultaneously detest your kritik. If you think your opponent is smart enough to read my philosophy (an admittedly unlikely proposition) and therefore decide to go for framework, you are likely in a less-than-desirable position.</p> <p> I will evaluate alternatives in the following manner—It will either need to establish a competing role of the ballot through which I should view the alternative, or I will default to assuming it operates within the same worldview of the aff and therefore should be able to outweigh or solve those competing impacts.</p> </div> </div> </div>
Trisha Nicholls - TEC
n/a
Tyler Kuisti - Lake City
n/a