Judge Philosophies
Aaron Yared - UW Bothell
n/a
Andy Christensen - ISU
n/a
Denise Vaughan - UW Bothell
<p> </p> <p>General information:</p> <p>I did LD in High School, CEDA in College and now coach NPDA. I have been coaching for 8 years and have been involved in the activity for many more. I don't keep track of the specific number of rounds I have judged this year. More than 40. 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 /> Arguments matter to me more than style. </p> <p>I judge in a clear order. Kritik (if they are in the round) then procedurals (again, if they are present in the round) then case (government must prove that it is worth attempting plan) then weighing advantages against disadvantages. <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. I am not a huge fan of PICs. I would be open to argumentation on the issue.</p> <p>Points of Order are fine.</p> <p>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>Theory: Great. Go nuts.<br /> <br /> Disads: Cool. Link them.</p>
Jacob Landsberg - UW Bothell
James Grigsby. - UW Bothell
n/a
Maria Raza - UW Bothell
n/a
Matthew Bennett - UW Bothell
Sarah Partlow Lefevre - ISU
<p> I have been doing NDT/CEDA policy debate since 1991. I debated for four years at the University of Utah, assistant coached for 6 years at the University of Kansas, and I have been the Director of Debate at Idaho State since 2001. I am fairly open to any type of well explained and warranted arguments. I like it when debaters provide a good meta analysis in rebuttals. I can generally flow unless you are extremely blippy and very fast. I like both policy and critical arguments. I think the debaters should debate about the rules of debate. So I am open to procedurals and framing arguments. I want the rebuttals to write my ballot for me. I also vote on defense but prefer offense. </p> <p> </p>