Judge Philosophies
Amanda Johnson - SPU
n/a
Amber Diaz - UP
Anton Olson - SPU
n/a
Ashley Barnes - Lane
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>
Catherine Miller - NCU
Dan Broyles - Pacific
n/a
Darren Meaney - MHCC
Dave Jenkins - CWI
n/a
David Childers - MHCC
David Maile - Pacific
n/a
Doyle Srader - NCU
<p>Doyle Srader</p> <p>Associate Professor of Communication</p> <p>Northwest Christian University</p> <p>Debated LD/CX/NDT 1981-1992.</p> <p>Judged NDT/CEDA/NPDA/NFA LD/IPDA 1992-2005, off and on.</p> <p>Since 2007, judged mostly BP and IPDA, and once in a blue moon, NPDA.</p> <p>Very not current, but very caught up on sleep.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>You, and your arguing</strong></p> <p> </p> <p>Whispering lunar incantations</p> <p>Dissolve the floors of memory</p> <p>And all its clear relations</p> <p>Its divisions and precisions,</p> <p>-T. S. Eliot, Rhapsody On A Windy Night</p> <p> </p> <p>And I must borrow every changing shape</p> <p>To find expression … dance, dance</p> <p>Like a dancing bear,</p> <p>Cry like a parrot, chatter like an ape.</p> <p>- T.S. Eliot, Portrait of a Lady</p> <p> </p> <p>HURRY UP PLEASE IT'S TIME</p> <p>If you don't like it you can get on with it, I said.</p> <p>Others can pick and choose if you can't.</p> <p>- T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land</p> <p> </p> <p>Our dried voices, when</p> <p>We whisper together</p> <p>Are quiet and meaningless</p> <p>As wind in dry grass</p> <p>Or rat's feet over broken glass</p> <p>In our dry cellar</p> <p>- T.S. Eliot, The Hollow Men</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Me, and my deciding</strong></p> <p> </p> <p>HERE I am, an old man in a dry month,</p> <p>Being read to by a <s>boy</s>, waiting for rain.</p> <p>- T.S. Eliot, Gerontion</p> <p> </p> <p>I am moved by fancies that are curled</p> <p>Around these images, and cling:</p> <p>The notion of some infinitely gentle</p> <p>Infinitely suffering thing.</p> <p>Wipe your hand across your mouth, and laugh;</p> <p>The worlds revolve like ancient women</p> <p>Gathering fuel in vacant lots.</p> <p>-T. S. Eliot, Preludes</p> <p> </p> <p>Would it have been worth while,</p> <p>To have bitten off the matter with a smile,</p> <p>To have squeezed the universe into a ball</p> <p>To roll it toward some overwhelming question,</p> <p>To say: “I am Lazarus, come from the dead,</p> <p>Come back to tell you all, I shall tell you all”-</p> <p>If one, settling a pillow by her head,</p> <p>Should say: “That is not what I meant at all.</p> <p>That is not it, at all.”</p> <p>- T.S. Eliot, The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock</p> <p> </p> <p>He laughed like an irresponsible foetus.</p> <p>-T. S. Eliot, Mr. Apollinax</p> <p> </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>This, and the difference it makes</strong></p> <p> </p> <p>I saw the ’potamus take wing</p> <p>Ascending from the damp savannas,</p> <p>And quiring angels round him sing</p> <p>The praise of God, in loud hosannas.</p> <p>-T. S. Eliot, The Hippopotamus</p>
Eric Sanders - Lane
n/a
Hilda Fyock - CWI
Jef Petersen - CWI
Jennifer Page - MHCC
Jerry Mooney - IDAHO
Johnny Rowing - CWI
<p><strong>General Comments - Across Styles</strong></p> <p>I will generally prefer Aff framework. I believe they have the peragotive to frame the round. They must do so fairly and in a predictable fashion.</p> <p>Signpost your argumentation. Help me to flow by telling me what you are entering/answering.</p> <p>Listen. I want you to honor your opponent by giving ear to their thoughts and arguments. On a related note, I do not like it when your arguments are mischaracterized (straw man). </p> <p>Please sum up the round for me in 3-4 big picture/summation voters. I will do my level best to vote based solely upon what the summation speeches tell me to vote on.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>IPDA</strong></p> <p>I appreciate creative opens/salutations and courtesy.</p> <p>Be kind and considerate to one another.</p> <p>Unless the aff framework is wanky . . . I expect us to debate under their framework. It bothers me when we don't.</p> <p>I don't like C/Ps.</p> <p>If we are running a policy resolution . . . I prefer Harms Plan Solvency Advantages as the stock issues framework. I don't understand Uniqueness - Link - Impact as acceptable framework for a policy res.</p> <p>Please make sure that you define and describe your weighing mechanism (WM) for the round and . . . please frame your argumentation around that WM. Don't tell me this is the WM and then never mention it again until your final speech. </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>NPDA</strong></p> <p><em>Open - Junior</em></p> <p>If you are a junior and/or open level NPDA debater . . . I doubt that you will like me. </p> <p>I am more of a Comms judge. I do not like excessive speed. I do not like K's. I really dislike Affirmative K's. I don't like unnecessary Topicality, etc. I really prefer for issues to be explored rather than generic philosophical questions or debating about debate styles.</p> <p>T - I won't vote on potential abuse. I need to see actual in round ground loss. </p> <p>So - if you draw me - I expect less speed (I drop my pen when you are too fast). I expect the issues to be described. I expect jargon to be defined.</p> <p><em>Novice</em></p> <p>Novice level NPDA debaters may find me as a more satisfactory judge. I don't believe K's should be ran at the Novice level. I can usually help novice debaters improve through comments on structure and the implications of D/As to case - presumption - solvency attacks - etc. </p> <p> </p> <p>BP</p> <p>I will most likely be in the wing, if I am a BP judge. I have very little experience in this style. But, we now have 2 teams competing in this style and I would love to serve on a panel.</p> <p>Big picture - I prefer for this style to be considerate and I put an emphasis on unique contributions to the round both in the manner in which points are rebutted and the manner in which unique positive argumentation is offered. </p>
Joni Carlo - CWI
Kat Sillonis - IDAHO
Kerrie Hughes - CCC
n/a
Kym Davis - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Leah Griffin - SPU
n/a
Liz Kinnaman - MHCC
Lori Welch - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Marcy Halpin - LCSC
n/a
Margaret Hardy - UP
Michael Dugaw - Lower Columbia
Michelle Bennett - CWI
Mike Ingram - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Patrick Lairson - CCC
n/a
Ron Price - IDAHO
<p> </p> <p>Background: Did policy and LD in high school. Debated for Boise State. Have been the assistant coach for C of I for the past 8 yrs. Have been involved with this activity for the past 15 yrs or so.</p> <p>Please make your arguments logical and cohesive. Ok with speed, but if you are not organized or clear then your arguments may get “lost” somewhere and it’s up to you to “find” them again. Will vote on Topicality; include standards, voters, etc. Ok with critical arguments but make sure your advocacy doesn’t contradict itself. Make sure your links story is solid. A to B to C works, but A to B to Z is a no go. Have a plausible link/ impact story (not everything has to lead to or end in nuke war and extinction). Also not a huge fan of morally repugnant arguments (i.e. all gays will psychologically damage their children when raising them) so don’t make them. Hmmm, so basically I will vote on the most convincing and logical arguments you present in the round so make smart choices and arguments, have fun and we’ll see what happens on the flow.</p>
Shannon Valdivia - MHCC
Shannon Scott - SPU
n/a
Stephen Trickel - Lane
n/a