Julie Jones - Emerald Ridge

n/a

---

Kevin Davison - Bear Creek

<p> <strong>For Lincoln Douglas</strong></p> <p> I&#39;m a traditional LD judge: I vote off the Value and Value Criterion primarily, moving to contention level arguments supported by reasoning and evidence. &nbsp;I am not <em>tabla rasa, </em>so RA&#39;s will have to pass a reasonable amount of scrutiny, but can be won off of if deemed reasonable. &nbsp;Keep out of definitional debates. &nbsp;I don&#39;t like spreading, and will vote against it in favor of a well reasoned argument as listed above. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;But in case that is not sufficient, I vote off a simple cost-benefit analysis, with neither side gaining presumption. &nbsp;I look primarily to the contentions between well warranted and articulating a reasonable position. &nbsp;I favor a warranted argument over a non-warranted argument. &nbsp;I will accept review of evidence, visuals, etc. &nbsp;Debaters may try to provide an alternative weighing mechanism, but it must set a reasonable standard. &nbsp;Please keep it to the spirit of the type of debate.</p>

---

Steven Helman - Kamiak

n/a

---