Judge Philosophies
Allison Henri - GMU
n/a
Amy Furber - LPC
n/a
Andrew Eilola - GMU
n/a
Chris Harper -
Colston Reid - GMU
n/a
Corey Reutlinger - GMU
n/a
Dan Broyles - Pacific
n/a
Dave Kosloski - Clark CC
Jacob Abraham - GMU
n/a
Jay Arntson - Glendale CC
Jennifer Conner - Pacific
n/a
Jeremy Hodgson - GMU
n/a
Jim Dobson - LPC
n/a
Joe Dineen - GMU
n/a
Kate DeNardi - GMU
n/a
Kim Perigo - Mesa
<p>~~Content: I am looking for good argumentation structure and realistic/logical arguments—keep your slippery slopes to yourself. I do not appreciate stock cases or arguing definition that go well beyond what would be reasonably inferred via the resolution. I like good empirical analysis based on common knowledge and not one article that one person read. I am fine with debate cases being creative but will always consider topicality as a viable voting criterion. I will always look to the resolutional analysis first when I make my final decision. I crave organization—don’t make me think! It should be clear at the end of the debate what is on the table. Don’t ask me to make inferential leaps or assume that I see that world the way you do. I do not like off-case positions in the MOC unless it is in direction refutation of a new position in the MGC. Critiques should only be used if there is a really compelling reason to offer one. Generic Ks to me are a lazy way to approach debate. So, if you haven’t gotten the hint—I like good resolutional debate with plenty of analysis and impacts. I consider myself tabula rasa and try very hard not to interject my own political leanings into the debate. I will look at what is left on the flow at the end and weigh it out with the voting criteria levied. I do believe that there are three types of resolutions and do not appreciate quasi-advocacy cases—make up your mind, is it fact or policy? I believe that quasi-advocacy is abusive to the Opposition and will listen to any Opposition argument that makes this point. I am a traditionalist to a degree and prefer a stock issues debate for policy. I do not believe that the Government must be predictable but I do believe they must provide fair grounds for the Opposition.</p> <p>Delivery: To me, what sets parliamentary debate apart from other debate forms, is delivery and I expect to see good delivery skills. I do not like speed and will stop flowing if you are pushing me to the point of arthritis trying to keep up with you. I “grew” up in CEDA and believe spread is the worst part of that style of debate and will do everything in my power to keep it from happening in parli. Because of presumption, lack of in-round prep time, lack of cross examination and the block, I think spread is HIGHLY abusive; and therefore, never, ever, ever give my ballot to the team that spreads largely because you didn't win the argument you simply out-talked them. I like compelling, passionate argumentation and can live in complete harmony without one single ad hominen attack. I like wit, humor, and great analysis. I expect delivery to be as important as content and will be willing to give high speaker points to anyone whom possesses both the ability to understand the resolution/debate and the ability to competently deliver the content.</p>
Kim Perigo - CCC
n/a
Kori Thornburg - OSU
n/a
Kristi Stevens - Snow
Latricia Davidson - Brooklyn Colleg
n/a
Linda Farnan - Mesa
n/a
Loren Schwarzwalter - Glendale CC
Malynda Bjerregaard - Snow
Mark Kelton - Evangel
n/a
Melinda Booze - Evangel
n/a
Mickey Cox - GMU
n/a
Patrick Lairson - CCC
n/a
Patrick Lairson - Mesa
Rachel Pollock - Muskingum
n/a
Roxan Arntson - Glendale CC
Sam Hopkins - GMU
n/a
Tim Heisler - LPC
n/a
Tina Lim - San Jose State
<p>You can convince me to vote for any argument as long as you are using reasonable evidence with logical warrants. Do NOT confuse evidence and warrant; they are different for a reason. </p> <p>My preference is for you to tell me what's winning and why with clear impacts. I prefer reasonable impacts to improbable impacts with huge magnitude. I also prefer specific link scenarios over generic links. As for procedurals, I prefer actual abuse. Keep in mind that these are preferences that can change depending on how well you are arguing for your position.</p> <p>As for speaking style, I prefer a conversational style, but can tolerate speed provided that it's clear. The gist of my philosophy is that since we all chose to be here, it's important to be collegial, be smart and have a good time.</p>