Judge Philosophies
Ana Sanchez - Vallivue
n/a
Brenda Fries - Kuna
n/a
Bruce Younger - Weiser ID HS
n/a
Butch Bobo - Kuna
n/a
Camilla Boylan - Mtn. View (ID)
n/a
Caroline Lea - Vallivue
n/a
Caroylne Warden - Kuna
n/a
Chelese Thompson - Renaissance
Craig Handy - Mtn Home
n/a
Danica Ersland - Centennial-ID
n/a
Dave Holland - Mtn Home
n/a
Dayna Mitchell - Weiser ID HS
n/a
Debbie Juola - Rocky HS
n/a
Debbie Conner - Vallivue
n/a
Jason Obert - Skyview
n/a
Jason Wang - Mtn. View (ID)
n/a
Jeff Smith - Mtn Home
n/a
Jeff Stoppenhagen - Weiser ID HS
n/a
Jennifer Johnson-Waskow - Skyview
n/a
Jeweliana Perry - Nampa
n/a
Jodi Perry - Skyview
n/a
Joe Weatherby - Nampa
n/a
John petti - Mtn Home
n/a
Joy Garrison - Kuna
n/a
Judy Ogaard - Mtn Home
n/a
Julie Parsons - Nampa
n/a
Justin Sease - Mtn Home
n/a
Kati Searles - Renaissance
Kellie Hannum - Columbia
n/a
Ken Boylan - Mtn. View (ID)
n/a
Lori Smith - Renaissance
Margo Kelly - Columbia
n/a
Michelle Hernandez - Kuna
n/a
Natalie Burton - Meridian
n/a
Paul Wardwell - Caldwell
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
Sheila Clark - Weiser ID HS
n/a
Taylor Galusha - Meridian
n/a
Teddi Short - Mtn Home
n/a
Thomas White - Renaissance
Waylon Yarbrough - Columbia
n/a
Zach Stallman - Rocky HS
n/a