Judge Philosophies
Beau Woodward - UP
<p>I am ok with meta debate arguments (Topicality, Ks, etc.) as long as they are called for. </p> <p>In NPDA, I don't mind speed, as long as it is understandable. We don't pass cards so please be clear. In IPDA, speed is not encouraged because the format encourages the public to attend and judge. </p> <p>I really like structure and clear links. I am not going to do work for you, so make sure you are laying out a link story that is rational. </p> <p>Impacts are necessary for me to judge the round, so give them to me. I love values and critiria, and I will use any resolutional analysis you give me. </p> <p>Please try to act like your opponents are people, with valid opinions and points of view. </p>
Bonnie Ellis - Lower Columbia
n/a
Chris Josi - MHCC
<p>Judging a round isn’t very complicated, unless you make it. That being said, I love<br /> rounds where I REALLY have to think about who I pick at the end. I’ve been noticing a lot of<br /> competitors arguing with their critics. I don’t like being argued with about my decision. Asking<br /> questions is perfectly fine, but I leave my speaker points unmarked until I reach the ballot table.<br /> On topicality: I am fine with legitimate topicality. Every good neg team knows to prep<br /> procedurals before entering a round, in the event they need them. However, I dislike teams<br /> running topicality as a time suck. I think it subtracts from debate, especially when aff answers<br /> your topicality with on simple delink,<br /> but still has to go through the entire process anyways.<br /> On kritiques: I am also fine with legitimate kritiques. However kritiques get a little more<br /> grey area to work with. This is because kritiques have been utilized to make stances in the<br /> debate community itself, I am a little more lax with them, especially for those who know how to<br /> prepare and link to any resolution. This leans more into program/kritikal aff territory though, but<br /> I feel the same way about these as well. Kritiques are not a “time and place” arguments like<br /> topicality, but more about knowing the art and properly applying it.<br /> Rate of delivery. I am fine with debaters going quickly as long as they properly tagline<br /> everything. For example, when you are at the link level, give me one quick one word to explain<br /> it, then go into details. I comprehend faster than I write, and if you don’t tell me what’s<br /> important, I may write down the wrong information, and that puts your team in a bad position.<br /> The details I can listen too, and I just need a word to spark my memory when going over the<br /> debate.<br /> Attitude in round. I enjoy light hearted debate, but not at the expense of anyone in the<br /> round, or outside. Unless it's a jab at a politician, they aren’t people.</p>
Cody Shaw - MHCC
Dan Broyles - Pacific
n/a
Daryl Pipkin - Lower Columbia
n/a
Emily Spannring - Lower Columbia
Kori Thornburg - CBC
n/a
Krista Simonis - UP
Kristanna Eveland - Lower Columbia
Kym Davis - OSU
n/a
Lilly Huynh - Pacific
n/a
Liz Kinnaman - Clark CC
n/a
Mark Porrovecchio - OSU
n/a
Micah Waterlander - MHCC
<ul> <li>Background of the critic: I competed in high school policy as well as competing 2 years in NPDA in college. This is my 2nd Year coaching, I coach both IPDA and NPDA formats.</li> <li>Approach of the critic to decision-making: I consider myself to be pretty tabula rasa and will vote for whatever the debaters tell me is important for me to vote on. I think that the trichotomy argument is a worthwhile argument, as well as most procedural arguments. I will vote on T if there is clear abuse, but I don't think the team has to only go for Topicality to show abuse. While I will listen to any argument ran in front of me I don't particularly like kritiks, especially in NPDA style debate, since any real evidence need to back up the kritik can't be brought into round. Furthermore, I think the kritik needs to show real world impacts to outweigh. But with that being said, if the kritik is necessary for your strategy then by all means run it. Also, I tend to think that a lot of debate hinges on solvency so this could win or lose a round easily. </li> <li>Communication/presentation: I'm pretty comfortable with most aspects of speed, but feel like clarity and signposting should falter because of your speed. Also I am a pretty expressive judge so if you pay attention you will know if I am getting down what you are saying. </li> </ul> <ul> <li>Preferences on calling Points of Order: I have no issue with POI being called, I think that if it is warranted you should call your opponent out on it. </li> </ul>
Mike Ingram - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Phil LePoidevin - MHCC
Rebecca Korf - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Rebekah Moreno - Lower Columbia
Richie Laursen - Clark CC
n/a
Ryan Rhoades - MHCC
Sallie Fisher - CBC
n/a
Sam Director - Whitworth Univ
n/a
Shannon Valdivia - MHCC
Valerie Schiller - UP
n/a