Judge Philosophies
zz-bye
n/a
Worrell - OHHS
n/a
Aly Hoover - Bellingham
Bill Nicolay - Snohomish
n/a
Bob Gomulkiewiz - Bear Creek
Dawna Lewis - Edmonds Heights
n/a
Deanna Carveth - Snohomish
n/a
Emiliana Morales - Bellingham
Emiliana Morales - Squalicum
n/a
Eric Hare - Snohomish
n/a
Erin Gibson - Anacortes HS
n/a
Hanna Ermie - Mount Vernon
Heather Helman - GPS
n/a
Jamis Barcott - Snohomish
n/a
Joe Mecham - Kamiak
n/a
Joyce Chambers - Snohomish
n/a
Kevi Perkins - Snohomish
n/a
Kevin Kindelberger - OHHS
n/a
Kevin Davison - Bear Creek
<p> <strong>For Lincoln Douglas</strong></p> <p> I'm a traditional LD judge: I vote off the Value and Value Criterion primarily, moving to contention level arguments supported by reasoning and evidence. I am not <em>tabla rasa, </em>so RA's will have to pass a reasonable amount of scrutiny, but can be won off of if deemed reasonable. Keep out of definitional debates. I don't like spreading, and will vote against it in favor of a well reasoned argument as listed above. If both competitors spread, I will default to the weighing mechanism listed above</p> <p> <strong>For Public Forum<br /> </strong></p> <p> I feel it should go without saying that Public Forum should have no paradigms. But in case that is not sufficient, I vote off a simple cost-benefit analysis, with neither side gaining presumption. I look primarily to the contentions between well warranted and articulating a reasonable position. I favor a warranted argument over a non-warranted argument. I will accept review of evidence, visuals, etc. Debaters may try to provide an alternative weighing mechanism, but it must set a reasonable standard. Please keep it to the spirit of the type of debate.</p>
Luke Pollster - Snohomish
n/a
Megan Nguyen - Kamiak
n/a
Mike Fitzgerald - Snohomish
n/a
Ms. Lashua - Kamiak
n/a
Ryan Cully - BEHS
n/a
Sarah Tisinger - Anacortes HS
n/a
Shaina Doyle - Anacortes HS
n/a
Shelly Casale - Bear Creek
Steve McCartt - SWHS
n/a
Steven Helman - Kamiak
n/a