Judge Philosophies
Anna Sherman - Grants Pass
n/a
Art Dingle - Brookings
n/a
Barbara Wilson - Brookings
n/a
Caroline Campbell - South Medford
n/a
Daniel Boyd - Butte Falls
Darren Dirk - North Bend
n/a
Jan Pizzo - Butte Falls
<p>Two years high school speech</p> <p>Judging since 1980</p> <p>First coaching assignment 1981</p> <p>Debate coach 1993-1994 and 2004 to present.</p> <p>LD: Clash between aff and neg. Value/Crit should be integrated throughout cases. Analysis and cards are both important. Speaking speed should not be as fast as Policy. Line by line rebuttals are important. Debaters will be expected to know the rules, especially concerning new arguments. Ethical behavior is always a must.</p> <p>Policy: T, K and CP arguments are all fine. Generic disads and random T arguments tend to strike me as lazy. Old style stock issue debate is fine. My paradigm is: "Don't do anything to drive people out of the event." Line by line or grouping are both fine. Spread/speed okay. Speed should not be so fast that I need your written case/cards to understand the debate. Do not panic if I use a paper flow pad, I just like it better than the computer. Also, do not panic if I stop flowing, it does not mean I am not following the debate. Tag team does not work for me when it results in only one partner doing the C-X. Debaters will be expected to understand the rules, especially concerning new arguments. Ethical behavior is a must. Policy-maker slant. Therefore, tell me why we need new legislation/law/plan, how it will fix the problem and why the plan is better than the status quo. Give me justification for voting for the plan on aff. On neg, tell me either why the status quo is not bad, why the aff plan will not work, why the aff plan is not needed or how the plan will create bigger issues. Alternatively, a K or CP is also a fine neg. approach as long as it connects. Traditional stock issue take-outs on-case of aff is also fine. For example, minor repair arguments work with me.</p> <p>PF: I will try my best to judge this form of debate from the perspective of a lay judge. Therefore, theory arguments, excessive speed or spread and jargon will be judged less favorably than in LD or Policy. Communication, illustrations, eye-contact and writing style will have more emphasis. Ethical behavior is a must.</p> <p>Oral critiques provided when permitted by the tournament.</p> <p><br /> </p>
Josh Scheirman - North Bend
n/a
Kimberly Campbell - NMHS
n/a
Lynn Pizzo - Butte Falls
Marcia Stewart-Warren - Butte Falls
Terri Dirk - North Bend
n/a