Judge Philosophies
Adrick Moore - Lake City
n/a
Aidan Burgeson - CDA
n/a
Alek Balasz - Mead
Alexis Di Sanza - Central Valley Hig
<p>Policy:</p> <p>I typically prefer policy-based arguments, and do not have as much experience with kritiks. However, if that’s what you run, I’ll listen. Just be aware that I do not know the literature as well and I have a slightly higher threshold for explanation. I default to an offense/defense paradigm unless you tell me otherwise. CX is binding.</p> <p>Topicality: I tend to lean aff on topicality arguments. The best way to win T in front of me is to articulate external impacts. Specific impacts are superior to potential abuse, and comparison of standards is very important for both sides. T is not an RVI.</p> <p>Theory: I am more sympathetic to aff conditionality arguments than other judges when the negative reads multiple conditional counterplans, especially if any those counterplans have multiple conditional planks. However, the aff has to develop these conditionality arguments throughout the round, and have a counter interpretation. Blippy tags won’t cut it.<br /> Most other theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, not the team.</p> <p>CPs/DAs: The more specific, the better. I tend to believe that counterplans should be both textually and functionally competitive.<br /> Even though I evaluate a round based on offense/defense, I will assign zero risk of a disad if you are substantially winning a defensive argument.</p> <p>Kritiks: As I mentioned, I am not as familiar with this style, but I have both seen and run kritiks, and I can figure out what you’re saying and vote on it if you explain your link/impact/alternative clearly. Please avoid buzzwords, as I don’t regularly read much literature that is often introduced in kritik debates.</p> <p>LD:</p> <p>Do what you do best, and I will follow. Non-traditional formats are fine.<br /> I evaluate LD debates in a very similar manner as I do policy, offense is important. Value to value clash is very important but should not be separate from the rest of the debate.<br /> I really don’t think Topicality or theory are RVIs. I have an extremely high threshold for this argument. I have never voted on an RVI and going for one will result in low speaker points. That being said, I can tell the difference between good theory arguments and dumb ones.<br /> I flow the affirmative and negative on two separate sheets of paper. You will be expected to adjust your speeches and signpost accordingly.</p>
Arienne Baker - Lake City
n/a
Ashley Alexandrovich - CDA
n/a
Becky Johnson - CDA
n/a
Bill Wagstaff - Mead
Bonnie George - Charter
n/a
Cali Nieland - Charter
n/a
Carletta Brenneman - CDA
n/a
Clay Bistline - CDA
n/a
Dave Collins - Mead
<p>I'm Dave Collins. I'm one of the assistant coaches at Mead. I debated last year at Eastern Washington University, but I've debated for a couple of other schools as well. I would be happy to tell you about it after the round, if you want. But you don't care about where I have debated, you care about my judging philosophy. So here it is.</p> <p>I feel the most equatable way to determine who won is to based my decision off the flow. This is where I will default. If, however, you feel that I should be a stock issues judge, then persuade me to do so and I will vote on the stock issues. Likewise for discourse, or T, or whatever. Most of my background is in critical argumentation, but that doesn't mean I haven't also voted on T. I will vote on any argument that is impacted out.</p> <p>Speed is fine, but a lack of clarity is not. I will let you know verbally if you aren't being clear a few times, then I'll just stop flowing. Debate is a communication activity and if I can't understand what you are saying, then you are going to have a tough time getting my ballot. I feel similiar about tag team cross-ex. In addition to being a communication activity, debate is also a team activity, and if you don't let your partner answer cross ex questions than your speaker points will reflect that.</p> <p>But mostly, have fun! We are giving up our weekend to be here, so we should enjoy ourselves. I've been known to give slightly improved speaker points to teams that incorporate memes into their speeches. </p>
David Spivey - Mead
David Smith - U-High
n/a
Denis Hanson - Central Valley Hig
Elliny Hiebert - CDA
n/a
Gary Gallipeau - CDA
n/a
Hailey Clawson - Mead
Holly Kirkman - U-High
n/a
Holly Musgrave - U-High
n/a
Jackson Eubanks - Lake City
n/a
Jessica Brock - CDA
n/a
John Furbee - Charter
n/a
Jordan Welter - U-High
n/a
Justin Peterson - Lake City
n/a
Kaitlyn Cambensy - Mead
Kirsten Ridgewell - CDA
n/a
Lindsay Oden - Lake City
n/a
Lori Jackson - CDA
n/a
Maiya Jeffers - U-High
n/a
Mary Draben - CDA
n/a
Matt Hall - Lake City
n/a
Max Brady-Hoover - U-High
n/a
Nichole Clegern - Central Valley Hig
Rachel Rice - CDA
n/a
Renee Abbey - Lake City
n/a
Rhiannon Kubes - U-High
n/a
Sam Normington - U-High
n/a
Scott Odell - Charter
n/a
Scott Menzer - CDA
n/a
Stacey Peters - Central Valley Hig
Steve Otten - Gonzaga Prep
n/a
Taylar McClure - Lake City
n/a
Taylor Stewart - CDA
n/a
Valeri Schwaderer - CDA
n/a
Zach Culpepper - Lake City
n/a