Judge Philosophies
Amy Grondin - Sherwood
n/a
Andy Besel - Ridgefield H.S.
n/a
Bekah Kolb - Barlow
n/a
Brian Collins - MVHS
n/a
Catie Easter - Barlow
n/a
Chris Kautsky - THS
Christine Dean - Ridgefield H.S.
n/a
Cortnie Wrede - MVHS
n/a
Deb White - Lincoln
n/a
Debra Fisher - MVHS
n/a
Dennis Griffith - Ridgefield H.S.
n/a
Diana Richards - Ridgefield H.S.
n/a
Erica Milanowski - Ridgefield H.S.
n/a
Erin Annis - Skyview
n/a
Garrett Broberg - Lincoln
Garrett Broberg - Four-year competitor at El Dorado High School (Placerville California) competed primarily in Congress. 2016 California State Champion Presiding Officer, TOC semi-finalist, etc... I have however competed and judged all debate events (Nationals in PF) (Parli TOC Qualifier). LD– Speed: I am the last judge that will tell you “no spreading†as long as your opponents are okay with speed, go for it Topicality – As far as I am concerned, Topicality outweighs theory. T is needed in order to establish how we can create theoretical justification within the resolution. Theory – It’s fine but please slow down if you are giving several rapid-fire theory arguments that are not much more than tags. My default is the impact to a theory argument is to reject the argument and not the team. If you want me to put the round on it, I will, but I need more than "voter" when the argument is presented. I need clearly articulated reasons why the other team should lose because of the argument. Ks: I like them and I think they can be good arguments. I like specific links and am less persuaded by very generic links such as "the state is always X." Unless told otherwise, I see alternatives to K's as possible other worlds that avoid the criticism and not as worlds that the negative is advocating. With that in mind, I see K's differently than counterplans or disads, and I do not think trying to argue Kritiks as counterplans (floating PIC arguments for example) works very well, and I find critical debates that devolve into counterplan or disad jargon to be confusing and difficult to judge, and they miss the point of how the argument is a philosophical challenge to the affirmative in some way. Framework arguments on Ks are fine too, although I do not generally find persuasive debate theory arguments that Kritiks are bad (although I will vote on those if they are dropped). However, higher level debates about whether policy analysis or critical analysis is a better way to approach the world are fine and I will evaluate those arguments. Public Forum – There are a few things that I look for and require in PF. First and foremost: If it's in the final focus, it ought to be in the summary. I reserve the right to look at evidence to see if it comes from a credible source, or to see if it's been distorted, or simply to see if it says what I think I heard it say. Debaters should call out sketchy evidence, but I may call it out myself even if your opponents don't. I expect to hear some qualification for your author and the DATE (the year, at minimum) out loud. If you cite evidence simply as "according to Princeton," I will be very sad, and my sadness may affect your points. When evidence is called, prep time starts when the full text evidence is pulled up. Try to terminalize and specify impacts. "Helps the economy" (for instance) is not very impressive as an impact. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, DON’T HESITATE TO ASK!
Gregory Walls - Prairie
n/a
Griffin Gonzales - Cleveland
Haritha Ravi - MVHS
n/a
Holly Forrest - UHS
n/a
Ian Bisbee - Ridgefield H.S.
n/a
Jackson Taylor - Ridgefield H.S.
n/a
Jacob Anderson - Ridgefield H.S.
n/a
Jeb Barsh - Cleveland
n/a
Jenny Owen - Lincoln
Previous debate and practical experience: High school policy debate (1977-1981); legal career; past seven years judging all forms of debate, individual events & Student Congress in Pacific NW for 15-20 tournaments/year as well as 2-3 ToC Tournaments/year; and, six years of coaching a large, comprehensive speech and debate team. I value and thank debaters for pre-round research and preparation, but I view the actual round as the place where even more is required, namely: Engagement, clash, aggressive advocacy/defense of positions, respectful behavior and proportionality. Use of canned arguments, kritiks and counterplans without specific links into the actual debate fail even if they are entertaining, well planned and/or superior to the alternative. I prefer the substance of the debate over the form. Taglines make flowing easier, but do not warrant claims nor constitute extensions of arguments per se. I try to flow all of the debate but not robotically. I aim to judge competitors on their round at hand, not on all the arguments that could have/should have been made, but were not. I do not view the ballot as my chance to cure all that is wrong in the world though I wish it were that easy. I offer a caveat: Rude or malicious conduct are ill-advised. I will default to the rules of that form of debate (to which I will refer if they are called into question) as the base for my decision within the context of debate before me.
John Staskal - Cleveland
John Stump - Cleveland
Jordan Stevenson - MVHS
n/a
Josette Bisbee - Ridgefield H.S.
n/a
Jozef Standow - Cleveland
n/a
Kaitlyn Metscher - EHS
n/a
Kathy Weinberg - Prairie
n/a
Keegan Williams-Thomas - Cleveland
Kimi Schuurmans - UHS
n/a
Kristin Wilson - Barlow
n/a
Kyria McGill - Ridgefield H.S.
n/a
Lauren Cushner - MVHS
n/a
Lisa Griffith - Ridgefield H.S.
n/a
MIke Sandstrom - MVHS
n/a
Matthew Kittredge - Lincoln
n/a
Melissa Delamare - Lincoln
n/a
Melissa Force - MVHS
n/a
Nancy Bisbee - Ridgefield H.S.
n/a
Nicky Stump - Cleveland
Norm Sanford - EHS
n/a
Patrick Cannon - Lincoln
Patrick Gonzales - Cleveland
Paula Sheridan - MVHS
n/a
Rachel Wilczewski - Barlow
n/a
Regina King - THS
Robert Cozzi - MVHS
n/a
Ruifeng Guo - Lincoln
n/a
Russell Hanes - Angry Pigeons
n/a
Scott Hess - THS
<p>I expect students to have a well-documented case. Tell me your sources. I want strong authority, recent data, and compelling reasoning. Presenting your own case, however, is only part of the game. Rebuttal of your opponents' case should show strong preparation and arguments supported by equally strong evidence. Finally, good arguments don't occur without clear speaking skills. All speeches must be understandable, flowable, and articulate with good road mapping and impacts.</p>
Scott Rowland - Elma H.S.
n/a
Shelly Heaps - CCS
n/a
Stephanie Munoz - Prairie
n/a
Surendra Gupta - MVHS
n/a
Suzanne Campbell - Sherwood
n/a
Tyler Bieber - Ridgefield H.S.
n/a
Zack Tompkins - Prairie
n/a