Judge Philosophies
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>
Anya Gumke - Mt Spokane
n/a
Bill Wagstaff - Mead
Cara Langsfeld - Mt Spokane
n/a
Carolyn Petek - LC Tigers
n/a
Charles Manchester - Mead
Daron Fredericks - Central Valley Hig
David Smith - U-High
n/a
Holly Musgrave - U-High
n/a
Jason Day - Mead
Joe Phipps - Rogers
n/a
Liz Bremner - Republic
n/a
Lori Cossette - Gonzaga Prep
Mike Page - TEC
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>
Scott Kaster - U-High
n/a