Judge Philosophies
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
Alex Abel - Timberline
Ana Sanchez - Vallivue
n/a
Becky Harvey - Skyline
n/a
Becky Hoth - CapitalID
Blaine Lamberson - Columbia
n/a
Brad Gardner - Columbia
n/a
Brandon Weedon - Centennial-ID
n/a
Brittany Smith - Boise High
Caleb Smith - Meridian
n/a
Camilla Boylan - Mtn. View (ID)
n/a
Chris McGrew - Nampa
n/a
Chris Peterson - Weiser ID HS
n/a
Christine Negri - Mtn Home
n/a
Craig Handy - Mtn Home
n/a
Cydney Middleton - Timberline
Dane McGrady - Boise High
Danica Ersland - Centennial-ID
n/a
Debbie Bonde - CapitalID
Debbie Conner - Vallivue
n/a
Devon Downey - Columbia
n/a
Diedre Nelms - Boise High
Gayle Weatherby - Nampa
n/a
Gus Voss - Timberline
Jacob Harvey - Skyline
n/a
Jason Obert - Skyview
n/a
Jason Harvey - Skyline
n/a
Jeanine Rueb - Rocky HS
n/a
Jeff Stoppenhagen - Weiser ID HS
n/a
Jennifer Johnson-Waskow - Skyview
n/a
Jeremy Marcotte - Skyline
n/a
Joe Weatherby - Skyview
n/a
John Rickerd - Centennial-ID
n/a
Josh Shapel - Renaissance
Jourdan Walker - Columbia
n/a
Joy Garrison - Kuna
n/a
Justin Bowles - Skyline
n/a
Kat Boylan - Rocky HS
n/a
Katherine McConnell - Boise High
Ken Boylan - Mtn. View (ID)
n/a
Lee Troxler - Centennial-ID
n/a
Leslie Litke - Rocky HS
n/a
Luke Felt - CapitalID
Mary Ersland - Centennial-ID
n/a
Max Lord - Boise High
Michael McDonagh - Centennial-ID
n/a
Michael Harvey - Skyline
n/a
Michelle Hernandez - Kuna
n/a
Nancy Baskin - Timberline
Nick Tinker - CapitalID
Paige Hart - Vallivue
n/a
Pamela Braden - Nampa
n/a
Paul Moses - Boise High
Rachel Trompke - Rocky HS
n/a
Raif Armstrong - Mtn Home
n/a
Rich Ryan - Mtn Home
n/a
Richard Zuercher - Renaissance
<p> Background:</p> <p> CX competitor for Centennial High School (Boise, ID) for 4 years</p> <p> CX competitor for the College of Idaho for 2 years</p> <p> Parli competitor for the College of Idaho for 1 year</p> <p> Asst Coach for the College of Idaho 3 years (Parli, IEs, IPDA)</p> <p> Head Coach for Renaissance High School for 4 years (CX, LD, PF, IEs)</p> <p> Philosophy:</p> <p> 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. </p> <p> CX Issues:</p> <p> T is a voting issue unless proven otherwise in the round.</p> <p> SPEC arguments are not a-priori arguments unless proven otherwise in the round.</p> <p> 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. </p> <p> 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. </p> <p> Impact Calc: I lean on probability before magnitude unless proven otherwise in the round. </p> <p> </p> <p> LD Issues:</p> <p> I am open to a variety of argumentation and strategy. </p> <p> I am most used to a value criterion debate, but I would love to see different strategies and theory.</p> <p> Ks are legit unless proven otherwise in the round.</p> <p> Plans are OK unless proven otherwise in the round.</p> <p> </p> <p> PF Issues:</p> <p> I am open to a variety of argumentation and strategy.</p> <p> I am most used to a straight-up fact round debate, but I would love to see different strategies and theory.</p> <p> Ks and other various arguments are legit unless proven otherwise in the round.</p> <p> </p> <p> Any other questions, just ask.</p>
Ryan Schulz - Rocky HS
n/a
Sam Pagano - Rocky HS
n/a
Sari Trompke - Rocky HS
n/a
Seth Vick - CapitalID
<p> </p> <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>
Sharon Brown - Weiser ID HS
n/a
Shawna Castro - Skyline
n/a
Susan Worst - Wood River
n/a
Tabitha Miller - Nampa
n/a
Teddi Short - Mtn Home
n/a
Thad Ross - Nampa
n/a
Tina Kohli - Mtn. View (ID)
n/a
Todd Paille - Mtn Home
n/a
Victoria Armstrong - Mtn Home
n/a
Waylon Yarbrough - Columbia
n/a