FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

zz-bye

n/a

AJ Wilkens - Nampa

n/a

Adam Siler - Boise High

Adam Siler - Timberline

Alex Abel - Boise High

Alex Abel - Timberline

Alex Lange - Rocky HS

n/a

Allen Spurgeon - Timberline

Allen Spurgeon - Boise High

Andrew Orr - Centennial

Becky Hoth - CapitalID

Betsy Lynn - Mtn Home

n/a

Bob Crighton - Mtn Home

n/a

Brad Perkins - Skyline

n/a

Brian Rich - CapitalID

Bryan Rich - Mtn Home

n/a

Camilla Boylan - Mtn. View (ID)

n/a

Carol Hill - CRHS

n/a

Cathie Knapp - Centennial

n/a

Celeste Lucas - BK

n/a

ChaRee Fullbright - Skyview

n/a

Chris Gale - Rocky HS

n/a

Christine Negri - Mtn Home

n/a

Cody Lancaster - Skyline

n/a

Craig Handy - Mtn Home

n/a

DJ Albert - Timberline

DJ Albert - Boise High

Daelene Tibbitts - Mtn Home

n/a

Danica Ersland - EHS

Darci Peterson - Weiser ID HS

n/a

Dave Holland - Mtn Home

n/a

Debbie Bonde - CapitalID

Den Grosshans - Skyline

n/a

Diane Bean - Blackfoot High

n/a

Ed Bowman - EHS

Eric Shostrum - Centennial

Eric Dunford - Wood River

n/a

Erica Chalkus - EHS

Faustina Peters - Nampa

n/a

Geraldine Maniere - Wood River

n/a

Heather Luff - Vallivue

n/a

Heather Soelberg - EHS

Heidi Juan - EHS

Jake Silvester - CRHS

n/a

Janel Morrison - Nampa

n/a

Jason Carlson - CRHS

n/a

Jason Obert - Skyview

n/a

Jason Harvey - Skyline

n/a

Jeanine Rueb - Mtn. View (ID)

n/a

Jeff Stoppenhagen - Weiser ID HS

n/a

Jennifer Smith - CRHS

n/a

Jennifer Johnson-Waskow - Skyview

n/a

Jessica Wardwell - Caldwell

n/a

Jessica Pipken - Rocky HS

n/a

Jim Mosely - Timberline

Jim Mosely - Boise High

Jimmy Vail - Blackfoot High

n/a

Joan Miller - Centennial

Joey Hale - Skyview

n/a

John petti - Mtn Home

n/a

John Carr - Kuna

n/a

Jon Agnew - Blackfoot High

n/a

Judy Ogaard - Mtn Home

n/a

Julie Pipal - Centennial

Julie Eng - EHS

Justin Bowles - Skyline

n/a

Kallee McGrady - Timberline

Kallee McGrady - Boise High

Karol LeMoyne - CRHS

n/a

Kat Ashcraft - Mtn. View (ID)

n/a

Kathy Holland - Mtn Home

n/a

Kelliey Chavez - EHS

I am a communications Lincoln-Douglas judge who likes things in black and white. The debater needs to basically spell it out for me. I like Value to Value and Criterion to Criterion Clash as well as voters. I do not like critiques. I like a steady stream of dialogue but I do not like fast speaking like a policy debate. If I can't follow and do a flow then your arguments will mean nothing to me.

Krista King - Renaissance

Kristina Wood - EHS

Laura Porter - Mtn Home

n/a

Leslie Domenick - Renaissance

Linda Shirley - BK

n/a

Lori Palmer - Mtn. View (ID)

n/a

Louie Murdock - BK

n/a

Luke Felt - CapitalID

Marcy Curr - Blackfoot High

n/a

Marie Day - BK

n/a

Mary McGreaham - EHS

Max Lord - Boise High

Max Lord - Timberline

Michael McDonagh - Centennial

Michael Harvey - Skyline

n/a

Mike Burtosky - Blackfoot High

n/a

Mike Klein - Skyline

n/a

Mikki Mosell - EHS

Molly Vaughn - Centennial

Mrs. Haggard - EHS

Nicole Meyer - Rocky HS

n/a

Patricia Rose - Kuna

n/a

Paul Moses - Boise High

Paul Moses - Timberline

Paul McPherson - EHS

I have been judging debate for three years. Most of my experience is in the public forum model, but I have judged LD as well. My paradigm is communication. If I cannot understand what participants are saying, then I cannot judge properly. I prefer 2-3 well developed, reasoned and defended arguments than a long list of poorly explained arguments. I use the following criteria in deciding a winner: 1) skills in analysis 2) clarity in organization and delivery 3) validity of argument 4) ability in defending position 5) factual back up

Paul Wardwell - Caldwell

n/a

Peter Stewart - Centennial

n/a

Portland O'Connor - Kuna

n/a

Renae Blach - Skyview

n/a

Rich Ryan - Mtn Home

n/a

Richard Zuercher - Renaissance

Background: CX competitor for Centennial High School (Boise, ID) for 4 years CX competitor for the College of Idaho for 2 years Parli competitor for the College of Idaho for 1 year Asst Coach for the College of Idaho 3 years (Parli, IEs, IPDA) Head Coach for Renaissance High School for 4 years (CX, LD, PF, IEs) Philosophy: I am usually open to most arguments made in the debate and will leave the debaters the responsibility to both justify their own arguments and attack those of their opponents.  Having said that, I evaluate arguments based both on how those arguments appear on the flow AND how those arguments persuade my thinking in the debate round.  For instance, a neg team may drop a conditionality bad argument on the flow, but it may not be a voting issue because there was no demonstrable impact in the round.  Just because the issue is dropped does not make the issue magically convincing - that work must still be done by the debaters.  CX Issues: T is a voting issue unless proven otherwise in the round. SPEC arguments are not a-priori arguments unless proven otherwise in the round. CPs are legit unless proven otherwise in the round.  I think Dispo is the most legit way to run a CP, but not necessarily the case.  There are a variety of reasons to run CPs in a variety of ways.  I don't tend to vote on theory issues unless there is actual in-round abuse.  Ks are legit for aff and neg unless proven otherwise.  I tent to vote on Ks when they are consistent with the neg strategy.  Reading a Statism K while simultaneously running an agent CP seems to defeat the purpose of the criticism and damages your cred.  It doesn't mean that I won't vote for it, it just means that you have to do some extra work justifying your contradiction.  Impact Calc:  I lean on probability before magnitude unless proven otherwise in the round.    LD Issues: I am open to a variety of argumentation and strategy.  I am most used to a value criterion debate, but I would love to see different strategies and theory. Ks are legit unless proven otherwise in the round. Plans are OK unless proven otherwise in the round.   PF Issues: I am open to a variety of argumentation and strategy. I am most used to a straight-up fact round debate, but I would love to see different strategies and theory. Ks and other various arguments are legit unless proven otherwise in the round.   Any other questions, just ask.

Robert Gordon - EHS

This is my 5th year judging policy debate I will go through each argument seperately so that you know exactly what I like. General: I am a flow judge. I usually just go off of the flow and if you are able to articulate the arguments to me. I tend to lean more policy maker however seeing as how those are usually the arguments that people are able to explain to me better. Speed it ok with me but go slow on the tag lines and author so that I can flow them the rest you can speed through that is for your opponents not me. Aff: I do not have a whole lot of experience with performance aff’s. If you are going to run one be sure to articulate why I should vote for you and why the performance is relevant. Aff’s with kritikal advantages are fine but yet again impact calc it out and explain why. DA’s: Obviously couldn’t have policy without them as long as you can impact calc them out I will vote on them. I will go off the flow here if you can prove it and the other team doesn’t attack it then it goes conceded. CP’s: PIC’s are fine. And really anything here is fine I am not to picky. I love a good CP that can tie in the DA’s and give an alternate to just full out rejecting the aff. Kritik’s: I am fine with these however explain them to me. Just because you use 13 syllable words does not mean you are going to win. You have to explain to me the world of the alternative; ie. What happens after we reject this one instance of capitalism. Be sure you explain it to me. I see to many K teams running huge words in their K that they don’t even know. THAT WILL NOT WIN YOU THE BALLOT! Impact calc again and line by line Topicality: I have a high threshold for T. Unless it is obvious don’t run it. I am fine if you use T as a gateway issue but if that’s the case and they give you your links don’t carry it into the 2NR. There has to be real abuse I do not vote on potential abuse! Theory: See T. Framework: Again as long as you win the flow and tell me why to prefer yours

Ron Price - Renaissance

Rose Berntsen - BK

n/a

Rubi Gasca - Blackfoot High

n/a

Ryan Schulz - Rocky HS

n/a

Sara Bell - Weiser ID HS

n/a

Seth Vick - CapitalID

<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "> Tabula Rasa (default to policy maker if you don't put me in another paradigm)</div> <div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "> Speed is fine, slowing down on tags is helpful for flowing</div> <div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "> Theory is fine, I default to competing interpretations unless you argue otherwise</div> <div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "> Kritiks are fine, just be prepared to do the work</div> <div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "> As my paradigm shows, I'm pretty much prepared to handle whatever you want to throw at me. I debated for Capital High School 05-07, and have judged constantly since then. I'm big on impact analysis, if you want me to vote for you then the best way to accomplish that is to give me the whole story about why aff advantages outweigh negative impacts or vice versa. Slow down on tag lines and citations to make sure that I get the complete idea, I don't mind if you buzz through the card as long as you're understandable. Other than that, it's your round.</div>

Shawna Capell - Mtn. View (ID)

n/a

Shawna Castro - Skyline

n/a

Steven Santos - EHS

Summer Cook - Mtn. View (ID)

n/a

Susan Graham - Rocky HS

n/a

Susan Worst - Wood River

n/a

Tabitha Miller - Nampa

n/a

Tamera Jolly - Blackfoot High

n/a

Thomas White - Renaissance

Todd Wood - Skyline

n/a

Tom Judge - Renaissance

Trudy Goris - EHS

Walter Sams - Mtn Home

n/a

2012 Treasure Valley Speech Invitational/Sen. Frank Church Debates