Judge Philosophies
Bonnie Gabel - McHenry
n/a
Brandon Wood - COD
Dana Trunnell - PSC
n/a
Ed Schwarz - PSC
n/a
Jeff Przybylo - Harper
Josh Green - PSC
n/a
Kacy Abeln - COD
Kelsey Figiel - COD
<p>Organization is key! Along with that, please do not speed, as that does not show me your critical thinking or argumentation skills. When you present a weighing mechanism, please bring it throughout the entire debate. For me, that continues the organization of the debate from start to finish. Finally, respect each other! Enjoy yourself and learn something from your competitors! </p>
Lauren Morgan - COD
<p>I coach parliamentary debate at a community college on a circuit that emphasizes clear communication (no speed and spread), use of general knowledge, and persuasiveness. My teams do not debate on NPDA or IPDA circuits, so I am not used to hearing speed and spread; it is difficult for me to follow. I appreciate debaters who are able to adjust their speaking style. I stress use of the weigining mechanism; if it is the criteria by which debaters ask me to judge the debate, I expect debaters to make use of the weighing mechanism throughout the debate. I am also <em>not</em> impressed by "preponderance of evidence," especially if it is simply meant to overwhelm the other team. I expect strong argumentation (reasoning and evidnece), but teams may utilize different types of evidence (i.e. reasoning by sign). Avoidance of logical fallacies is paramount. Topicality arguments are okay, but a team must have very strong, clear reasoning to call T. If teams are condescending or overly aggressive in their communication style, that is cause for me to stop listening and may cost you the debate. </p>
Matt Beifuss - COD
Nathan Carter - NOVA
n/a
Paul Cummins - Southeastern IL
n/a
Sarah Metivier Schadt - McHenry
n/a
Terri Musser - Highland
n/a
Tim Anderson - Elgin
n/a
Tim Sheehan - Ivy Tech
n/a
Tom Tracy - Harper
n/a
Tyler Billman - Southeastern IL
n/a