2010 38th Annual Smelt Classic
Lower Columbia College - Nov 5-6 | Status: Completed
Judge Philosophies
A.J. McIlvain - Clark CC
Abigail Rine - George Fox
n/a
Andrew Griggs - George Fox
n/a
Anita Aguilera - Lower Columbia
Anna Patterson - Lower Columbia
n/a
Ariane O'Brien - Humboldt
n/a
Beth Hewes - CSI
n/a
Bohn Lattin - UP
Brian Simmons - UP
<p>I consider my role as the judge in a debate round as being similar to that of a U.S. Supreme Court judge. Such a judge not only assess "who won" arguments between debaters, such a judge also assess the quality of arguments made "to the judge" simply becasue the arguments were brought into the round. That said, I strongly believe in the necessity for debaters to honor their opponent's arguments by directly clashing with them. I am impressed by debaters that demonstrate critical thinking--questioning assumptions, pointing out contradictions, showing how contentions don't meet stated values or criteria. I believe IPDA ought to be a highly communicative event filled with what Qunitillian might call "good people speaking well." That doesn't mean you have to talk to me like I am Forrest Gump, but it does mean that style matters. Finally, I believe there is a proper decorum and courtesy in any forensic context; be nice to each other! </p> <p>FYI: My background: I was a policy debater in high school, a CEDA debater at Oklahoma Christian University, a CEDA graduate assistant at Pepeprdine University and now I coach IPDA at University of Portland where we previously competed in and I coached BP and NPDA.</p>
Bruce Steele - SFCC
n/a
Castro-Anderson Maggie - Lower Columbia
Chris Richter - Seattle
n/a
Collin Anderson - Lower Columbia
Corbin Persenghetti - Lower Columbia
Craig Rickett - SFCC
n/a
Craig Lay - Seattle
n/a
Daaa Coach Broyles - Pacific
n/a
Dan Adler - Seattle
n/a
Dani Eagan - Lower Columbia
Daniel Schabot - Cameron
n/a
Dave Kosloski - Clark CC
David Childers - MHCC
David Maile - Pacific
n/a
Denise Vaughan - Bellevue
<p>General information:</p> <p>I did LD in High School, CEDA in College and now coach NPDA. I am open to a variety of forms of debate. Each round should take on its own form. Any form or strategy is fine as long as everyone is the room can communicate. I attempt to bring as little to the debate as possible although no judge can be totally tabla rosa.<br /> <br /> Specific information:<br /> <br /> Topicality: I appreciate strategic interpretations of resolutions and will give a fair amount of room for the government to interpret the resolution. They key is that everyone has some ground and some ability to debate. I will also give a fair amount of room for novices to work on format and learn the rules. </p> <p>Counterplans: CPs are great. Condo is ok if well argued. Disclose condo or no condo in the first speech. My strong feeling is that it should not be about tricking the other team but going after a higher level of argumentation.</p> <p><br /> The kritik: Kritiks are great--aff or neg. Make a good, well-reasoned argument and have a reason for the K. Then make sure to engage. </p> <p><br /> Theory: Great. Go nuts.<br /> <br /> Disads: Cool. Link them.<br /> <br /> </p>
Diane Valdivia - MHCC
Emily VanGerpen - Humboldt
n/a
Emily Spannring - Lower Columbia
Eric Chambers - UP
Erik Sande - Boise State
Ernest Dunlap - Boise State
Evan Whipple - NU
n/a
Forest Ledbetter - OSU
n/a
Gary Gillespie - NU
n/a
Gary Gillespie - NU
n/a
Gordon Painter - Lower Columbia
Greg Young - Humboldt
n/a
Heather Jacobs - Lower Columbia
Jackson Miller - Linfield
n/a
Jeff Stoppenhagen - Boise State
Jeri Dalgleish - Lower Columbia
Jessie Fast (wing judge) - NU
n/a
John Jablonski - Clark CC
Kami Todd - Lower Columbia
Kelly Welch - Portland State
n/a
Kerrie Hughes - CCC
n/a
Kristanna Eveland - Lower Columbia
Kristin Guttormsen - Lower Columbia
Lee Kessler - Lower Columbia
Liz Kinnaman - MHCC
Mark Porrovecchio - OSU
n/a
Michael Favale - George Fox
n/a
Molly Shove - Portland State
n/a
Morgan Mansker - OSU
n/a
Morgan Mansker - OSU
n/a
Morgan Chinn - NU
n/a
Nik Vaughn - Clark CC
Patrick Lairson - CCC
n/a
Rory Richard - Lower Columbia
Sallie Fisher - CBC
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>
Sean Partch - Seattle
n/a
Seth Evans - Portland State
n/a
Shannon Valdivia - MHCC
Stephanie Stanley - Portland State
n/a
Stephanie Karp - Portland State
n/a
Tom Hyatt - Bellevue
Tori Zanzalari - MHCC
Wayne Spain - Lower Columbia
Winston Hemphil - SFCC
n/a