Judge Philosophies
- Willamette
n/a
Abigail Rine - George Fox
n/a
Bjorn Stillion Southard - Lewis & Clark
n/a
Brian Swafford - Boise State
Bruce Steele - SFCC
n/a
Craig Rickett - SFCC
n/a
Darren Meaney - MHCC
Dave Kosloski - Clark CC
David Childers - MHCC
Emily Spannring - Lower Columbia
Forest Ledbetter - OSU
n/a
Jackson Miller - Linfield
n/a
Jeff Stoppenhagen - Boise State
John Jablonski - Clark CC
Kerrie Hughes - CCC
n/a
Liz Kinnaman - MHCC
Mark Porrovecchio - OSU
n/a
Mike Dugaw - Lower Columbia
n/a
Nik Vaughn - Clark CC
Patrick Lairson - CCC
n/a
Sara Seyller - Clark CC
<p>I have enjoyed participating in the collegiate debate community since 2007. I have participated in, coached, and judged NPDA, IPDA, and BP debate. I think any form of debate is both fun and educational!! While I enjoy sharp, pointed styles I am averse to disrespectful treatment of competitors, and find that it detracts from the whole of the debate. Overall, in each form of debate I am well versed in rules and expectations and hold firm to them. They are there for a reason and ought to be respected. This does not mean I lack flexibility, but it does mean that outright violations will be noted in nowhere else but in speaker point awards.</p> <p>In many ways I consider myself a hybrid, I am a flow judge with a speed govern of just short of ludicrous speed (IE spittle running down face as they gasp for air every few minutes), but I also appreciate arguments that use persuasive rhetoric and style rather than reliance on an excess of words to win solely by tabulating dropped arguments.</p> <p>As far as Procedurals, liked or otherwise, is becoming an important if not critical component to debating in NPDA. As such, I am open to all forms of arguments so long as they are connected to the case, it doesn’t take much to make it applicable. I am not a big fan of winning on dropped arguments alone unless the drop so large that the gaping hole left is enough to sink the case. I leave it up to the competitors to set the rounds as they see fit. </p> <p>In IPDA and BP there is a heavier reliance on style and persuasion rather than procedurals. As such, I tend to be less about detailed flows and more attentive to the connections made both within the cases and through clash provided connected to the opponents case. In these rounds, the devil is in the details. I am most appreciative of competitors that can connect to the people in the room by explaining how it might impact us, why it matters to us, or the harms and benefits we would be exposed to should something occur. Ivory tower syndrome, arguing so far up in the building that it become abstract concepts of competing theory, is extraordinarily hard to do given the time frame and is more often isolates competitors and judges from the argument rather than including them.</p>
Shannon Valdivia - MHCC
Tori Zanzalari - MHCC
Una Kimokeo Goes - Willamette
n/a
Willow Moline - SFCC
n/a