Judge Philosophies
Aidan Burgeson - CDA
n/a
Andrea Benson - U-High
n/a
Andrew Myers - Mead
Andy Simmons - Ephrata
n/a
Antonio Dinaro - Gonzaga Prep
Anya Gumke -
n/a
Bill Wagstaff - Mead
Bobbi Croneberger - U-High
n/a
Britney Porter - Central Valley Hig
Caleb Majeski - Mead
Cara Urich - TEC
n/a
Cara Langsfield -
n/a
Carol DeMuth - LC Tigers
n/a
Cheryl Gotzian - Oaks Christian
n/a
David Spivey - Mead
Donna Boudreau - LC Tigers
n/a
Elliny Hiebert - CDA
n/a
Gwen Kelley - CDA
n/a
Ingrid Lavoie - Oaks Christian
n/a
Jackson Eubanks - Lake City
n/a
Jeff Street - U-High
n/a
Joe Phipps - Rogers
n/a
Josh Smith - Lake City
n/a
Josh Mhyre - CDA
n/a
Josh Mhyre - Mead
Katie Gumke -
n/a
Kevin Kimball - Oaks Christian
n/a
Kristen Danielson - Saint George
Kristin Dierdorff - Oaks Christian
n/a
Lani Ghirarduzzi - CDA
n/a
Lindsay Oden - Lake City
n/a
Liz Bremner - Republic
n/a
Llanda Milsap - U-High
n/a
Lori Cossette - Gonzaga Prep
Marissa Owen - Lake City
n/a
Matt Fedrizzi - CDA
n/a
Mike Stovern - Mead
<p> </p> <p>I will follow my flow fairly closely, and I consider drops concessions, but please don't tell me that what your opponent dropped is a voter. Instead, tell me about the impact of that concession. Primarily, I will make my decisions based upon the quality of your voting issues when they are filtered through your value/criterion. Please give me voters that show impact and demonstrate an effective use of how your criterion upholds your value. Show me what the world is like under the side of the resolution that you are defending. I am willing to vote on anything as long as you can support it, or your opponent doesn’t discredit it.</p> <p> </p> <p>Your criterion should serve as a weighing mechanism and a means to uphold your value. All contentions should uphold your value unless you have a contention with the purpose of showing how the opposing side is immoral/impossible. Rebuttals should have no new evidence.</p> <p> </p> <p>Remember to roadmap and signpost. Feel free to speak quickly, but slow down on tag lines and be clear. Be polite; you are attacking a position not a person.</p>
Mike Page - TEC
n/a
Millayna Klingback -
n/a
Mr. Rollins - U-High
n/a
Pat Simmons - Ephrata
n/a
Paul Kanellopoulos - Saint George
Randy Brown - U-High
n/a
Renatta Rollins - U-High
n/a
Rob Peterson - Oaks Christian
n/a
Sally Conner - Central Valley Hig
<p>I have judged debate events for about 15 years, most frequently congress, with occasional LD and PF. I enjoy rounds that stay away from excessive jargon and debaters focus on clear communication. I think that the value is important in a LD round, and I think that evidence is important in a round, but that it is an even more important skill to focus on deciding what evidence is important to include in a round, and to explain the relevance of this information. I do not enjoy speed.</p>
Sam Normington - Saint George
<h2> <span style="background-color: rgb(175,238,238)"><span style="background-color: rgb(175,238,238)"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: en-us; mso-fareast-language: en-us; mso-bidi-language: ar-sa"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: en-us; mso-fareast-language: en-us; mso-bidi-language: ar-sa">I competed in policy debate in high school and have been coaching all forms of debate the past ten years. I traditionally judge policy debate, so often find myself preferring its trappings.<br /> Speed, topicality, kritiks, are all fine by me, use them or don't, doesn't bother me. I will do my best to evaluate the round using the framework the debaters put forth. I like clash, and I like impact calculus. </span></font></span></span></span></h2>
Scott Peterson - Gonzaga Prep
Scott Kaster - U-High
n/a
Thomas neumann - U-High
n/a
Tim Harper - Gonzaga Prep
<p> <strong class="_36"><a data-hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/hovercard.php?id=1450020135" href="http://www.facebook.com/tim.harper.359" id="js_1">Tim Harper</a></strong></p> <div class="_53" id="id.255042037952260"> <div class="_3hi"> <div class="_1yr"> </div> <div class="_38 direction_ltr"> <p> Judging philosophy:</p> <p> Experience: I have been debating for 6 years – Three for Ashland High School and three for Gonzaga. I am a senior and captain of the Gonzaga debate team. I have 20+ rounds of experience on this year’s topic.</p> <p> Preferences:</p> <p> General: <br /> I default to an offense-defense paradigm.<br /> I don’t think a conceded argument automatically constitutes a win—you must explain the arguments you want me to evaluate and extrapolate why I should do so. why do I care and what does it mean to the rest of the debate? That said, concessions are tie-breakers. <br /> I will read evidence. Most likely, I will read lots of it. However putting evidence in my hands means I will give it only as much weight as it deserves and not necessarily as much as you tell me it does. Make sure if you tell me to read a card that you are willing to stake the debate on it being as good as you think it is.<br /> I reward concise, articulate, well-reasoned arguments over pedantic soap boxing. With this in mind, you will be well served to remove filler phrases from your vocabulary – “pull the trigger,” “at the point where,” “extend across the flow” etc, etc… <br /> If you could choose to be funny or be smart and professional while debating in front of me, I prefer the latter.</p> <p> CP: I will accept a lens of sufficiency for evaluating counterplans and believe the aff must win a large risk of a solvency deficit, permutation or disadvantage to the counterplan to win a debate against a counterplan that resolves a large portion of the aff. <br /> I am not adverse to conditions, multi-plank advantage, process, or consultation counterplans. <br /> Theory arguments except conditionality are a reason to reject the team unless persuasively proven otherwise.</p> <p> DA: I think a DA that turns the whole case can outweigh the whole aff without substantive case defense, but you are well suited to cover your bases and sufficiently mitigate aff advantages to be safe. <br /> For the aff, I will vote on terminal defense on a disadvantage, however because I default to offense-defense, the threshold for winning zero risk of the DA is somewhat higher than winning some risk of offense, especially if there is a counterplan that solves all of the aff.<br /> Impact calculus should not be ignored – it can often be the tie-breaker in close case v. disad debates.</p> <p> Topicality: I will default to competing interpretations but will usually lean aff unless the T argument is particularly compelling or the affirmative is very obviously non- or anti-topical.</p> <p> Kritik: Although I am not a K debater, I increasingly find myself voting for K teams because highschool debaters largely do not a) understand or b) forward a framework argument. <br /> That said, I will likely understand and simultaneously detest your kritik. If you think your opponent is smart enough to read my philosophy (an admittedly unlikely proposition) and therefore decide to go for framework, you are likely in a less-than-desirable position.</p> <p> I will evaluate alternatives in the following manner—It will either need to establish a competing role of the ballot through which I should view the alternative, or I will default to assuming it operates within the same worldview of the aff and therefore should be able to outweigh or solve those competing impacts.</p> </div> </div> </div>
Tom Staal - TEC
n/a
Tyler Kuisti - Lake City
n/a
Victoria Dykes - Gonzaga Prep
Wendy Needham - U-High
n/a