Judge Philosophies
Beth Hewes - CSI
n/a
Brooke Adamson - NNU
n/a
Christie Cremer - CWI
Daniel Brubaker - CSI
n/a
Gary Gallipeau - CWI
Hawley Williams - CWI
Heather Reed - CWI
Jackson Miller - Linfield
n/a
Jeff Reed - CWI
Jennifer Conner - Pacific
n/a
Jim Gatfield - CWI
<p>I am a Comms judge.</p> <p>Make it your goal to teach me and your opponent something. This is a chief aim of debate.</p> <p>Approach debate as a conversation . . . not an opportunity to overwhelm your opponent.</p> <p>I prefer eloquence over speed. </p> <p>Respect your opponent . . . respect the event . . . show me that you want to be here. </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>NPDA Debate</strong></p> <p>I don't like K's. I don't vote on them. I view them as too generic and think they largely avoid an opportunity to explore a specific issue. </p>
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>
Kathryn Wells - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Kayla Griffin - Boise State
Lauren Bramwell - Boise State
Letha Quinn - NNU
n/a
Lisa Webb - CWI
Lori Welch - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Mack Sermon - CWI
<p>Mack Sermon –College of Western Idaho</p> <p>I have 35 years experience in competition, judging and coaching, mostly in the Great Northwest. I have heavy experience with IEs, NDT, CEDA, NPDA, IPDA and NFC-LD. </p> <p>Debates should focus on Aristotle’s big 3: ethos, pathos and logos- and keeping it fun and educational.</p> <p>-Your character, ethos, is established in and out of the debate by your behavior with opponents, teammates and me. Be on your best behavior and treat everyone with respect.</p> <p>-Emotion, or pathos, is demonstrated by the conviction and selection of your arguments, fairness to your opponents. Your delivery should make me believe that you really care about the issue.</p> <p>-To me, logos is most important. A case must be logical. This requires that you make a claim, provide proof of some sort, develop a warrant, then pull it all together for a case. Please, please, do not simply make claims and expect me to accept them as truth.</p> <p>-Speed: Sure I could talk as fast as any of them, but I think the most educational pace is only modestly faster than conversational but definitely not spewing- I will give one warning.</p> <p><strong>Novelties:</strong> I’m fine with <strong>counterplans </strong>if you admit and meet the requirements of a counterplan—but I’m bored by agent change, study, delay counterplans. I will listen to <strong>Topicality </strong>or structured definition arguments but since you are basically accusing your opponents of cheating, presumption is with the AFF. I’m not opposed to the concept of the <strong>Kritik </strong>but I only voted for them about 25% in true policy-- Far, far less in NPDA and IPDA. There just isn’t enough time in the shorter forms, without substantial evidence, to perform the type of dialectic discussion that Aristotle advocates, so a Kritik is just too complex to work.</p>
Manda Hicks - Boise State
Maria Mangus - CWI
Mark Galaviz - Boise State
Megan Hudson - CWI
Mike Ingram - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Nicole McMillin - CWI
Perri Gardner - CSI
n/a
Rebecca Korf - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Sam Director - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Stephanie Saracco - OSU
n/a
Tanner VanWyck - Carroll
n/a