Judge Philosophies
Andrea Baber - NCU
n/a
Colin Hesse - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Daniel Schabot - Lower Columbia
<p>Dr. Dan Schabot</p> <p>Lower Columbia College</p> <p>Years Debating: 5 total (1 years NFL LD; 4 years CEDA/NDT )</p> <p>Years Coaching/Judging: 15 Total (2 years CEDA/NDT; 13 Years NPDA)</p> <p> </p> <p>General Philosophy:</p> <p>Each team should make good (well supported and well-reasoned) arguments and clash with each other. I prefer 2 or 3 in depth positions to 5 or 6 blipped positions.</p> <p> </p> <p>Specifics:</p> <p>Affirmative teams: At this point in my judging life I am no longer interested in listening to debates that do not at least make an attempt to address the topic in the resolution. You can run any position you want as long as you explain why what you are arguing deals with the topic.</p> <p> </p> <p>Negative Teams: I also feel that negative teams have the responsibility to address affirmative arguments as well as presenting their own. Positions just run for the sake of filling time (such as generic T) have little weight with me. Each position should be part of a coherent strategy to win.</p> <p> </p> <p>Speed and Presentation: If you feel the need to go fast that is fine. However, running a bunch of positions just so you can go fast is useless. Speed as a strategy (in and of itself) will not be rewarded. </p> <p> </p> <p>RFD: My preferences are listed above. I have and will vote for just about any argument type. A team must clearly explain why their advocacy is superior to other team’s advocacy to win a round. </p>
Elissa Mathews - RCC
n/a
Elizabeth Case - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Geoff DeJavier - RCC
n/a
J Wylie - Lower Columbia
Justin Wiley - MHCC
Kaitlyn Green - RCC
n/a
Khai Devon - MHCC
Kym Davis - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Leah Moore - Lower Columbia
Liz Kinnaman - Clark CC
n/a
LynDel Simmons - Lane
n/a
Mike Ingram - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Peter Milliron - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Phil LePoidevin - MHCC
Richie Laursen - Clark CC
n/a