FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alex Belisle - Timberline

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Belisle%2C+Alex

Allen Jackson - Centennial

4 years High School Debate 4 years Judging High School Debate   I can follow fast debate, but stress clarity, especially the tag line and warrants of a piece of evidence.   I am partial to topicality arguments so long as you do the work on standards and voters. I believe this is a good neg tool to check off topic affs.   DAs- I like impact turns and calculus. Trying to non-unique a DA is rarely enough to sway me.   K's- I have a fairly high threshold for these arguments, but you shouldn't assume that I'm familiar with the literature you've read. Avoid jargon, and spend time relating your argument to the aff.   Framework- A clear framework is necessary to evaluate any argument, you would do well to establish and argue for impact evaluation through your framework.   I am not easily offended and will not dock you for presenting certain arguments, but be respectful of everyone involved in the round.

Anastasia Tracy - Timberline

Andrew Moseley - Jerome

n/a

Beverly Hines - Mtn. View (ID)

n/a

Bob Crighton - Mtn Home

n/a

Brenda Woods - Kimberly

n/a

Brittany Clark - Nampa

n/a

Camilla Boylan - Mtn. View (ID)

n/a

Capital Judge 1 - CapitalID

n/a

Carol Hill - CRHS

n/a

Carrie Rose - Mtn. View (ID)

n/a

Catherine Lea - Vallivue

n/a

Cory Barham - Renaissance

n/a

Cydney Linch - CRHS

n/a

Dale Cluff - EHS

Dalton Montgomery - Weiser ID HS

n/a

Dan Aalbers - Borah

n/a

Darlene Eslinger - TFHS

n/a

David Nishimoto - Vallivue

n/a

Debbie Baird - Skyline

n/a

Deena Watson - Mtn. View (ID)

n/a

Dennis Eslinger - TFHS

n/a

Destiny Straub - CRHS

n/a

Donnie Drobny - Borah

n/a

Drew Yo9ungwerth - Boise High

n/a

Drew Wegert - EHS

Ellen Weygint - Mtn Home

n/a

Eric Agnew - Bonneville

n/a

Frank Walline - Bonneville

n/a

Geoff Thatcher - Renaissance

<div style="margin: 0px;"> Background:</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Competitor in all debate forms for multiple high schools for 4 years</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Parli competitor for the College of Western Idaho for 1 year</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Assistant Coach for Renaissance High School for 1 year (CX, LD, PF, IEs)</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;">  </div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Philosophy:</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> I’m open to new and unique arguments however I believe that both sides still have their respective burdens to prove or disprove the argument. Having said that, I evaluate arguments based both on how those arguments appear on the flow AND how those arguments have been proven within the debate round; so quality of argumentation over quantity. Also if one side drops an argument that argument must have some merit to it to count as a voting issue in the round.</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;">  </div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> CX Issues:</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> T is a fine to run however it should not be used as a time suck.</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> SPEC arguments are fine to run once again not to be used as a time suck and you must prove violation to have it be a winning issue </div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> CPs are great </div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Ks are legit for aff and neg unless proven otherwise. I tent to vote on Ks when they are consisted with the neg strategy and don’t contradict itself or the rest of the off-case aurguments</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Impact Calc: probability> magnitude> time frame. Meaning if you have nuke war but there is only a 0.0000001% chance of it happening I will tend not to vote on it</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;">  </div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> LD Issues:</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> I am most used to a traditional value criterion debate, but I would love to see different strategies.</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Ks are legit unless proven otherwise in the round.</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Plans are OK but will take a lot more work</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;">  </div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> PF Issues:</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> I am most used to a straight-up fact round debate, but I would love to see different approaches to this form of debate.</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Ks and other various arguments are legit unless proven otherwise in the round.</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;">  </div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Any other questions, just ask.</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;">  </div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Parli issues:</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> I’m most used to a cx type round, however I understand high school is different than the type done in college.</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> What I’m expecting is slow cx round with salutations at the beginning and a nice debate</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Imperial evidence is the best evidence.</div>

Gus Cecil - Bonneville

n/a

Hayden Jared - Caldwell

n/a

Heather Clayton - Bonneville

n/a

Heidi Juan - EHS

Howie Long - Nampa

n/a

Igor Autin - Boise High

n/a

Isaac Hessler - Boise High

n/a

JOHN CARR - Kuna

n/a

Jake Howell - Skyline

n/a

Jason Carlson - CRHS

n/a

Jason Desler - CRHS

n/a

Jennifer Smith - CRHS

n/a

Jeremy Siegert - BK

n/a

Jessica Wardwell - Caldwell

n/a

Jim Mosely - Timberline

Jim Howell - Mtn. View (ID)

n/a

Jim Woods - Kimberly

n/a

Joe Allen - Centennial

John petti - Mtn Home

n/a

Judy Ogaard - Mtn Home

n/a

Julia Grief - Timberline

Julie Underwood - Kimberly

n/a

Julie Pipal - Centennial

Justin Bowles - Skyline

n/a

Kallee McGrady - Boise High

Karl Nordstrom - Wood River

n/a

Karlie Boren - CRHS

n/a

Kat Ashcraft - Mtn. View (ID)

n/a

Kat Miller - Nampa

n/a

Kate Loveless - Mtn Home

n/a

Katie Doi - Meridian

n/a

Katrina Hicks - Boise High

n/a

Kelliey Chavez - EHS

I am a communications Lincoln-Douglas judge who likes things in black and white. The debater needs to basically spell it out for me. I like Value to Value and Criterion to Criterion Clash as well as voters. I do not like critiques. I like a steady stream of dialogue but I do not like fast speaking like a policy debate. If I can't follow and do a flow then your arguments will mean nothing to me.

Kelly Reed - EHS

Kimberly Brown - Vallivue

n/a

Kourtney Brown - Timberline

Krisi Howe - Renaissance

n/a

Kristen Drew - Vallivue

n/a

Kristy Forster - Filer

n/a

LJ Spears - Boise High

n/a

Laura Swenson - Jerome

n/a

Leslie Litke - Rocky HS

n/a

Lexi Vandrey - Boise High

n/a

Lincoln Callister - Centennial

Linda Lord - Mtn Home

n/a

Lindsay Jones - Bonneville

n/a

Logan Dennis - Boise High

n/a

Lori Palmer - Mtn. View (ID)

n/a

Lori Wheat - Rocky HS

n/a

Madi Kase - Boise High

n/a

Malachy Lawless - Timberline

Marabie Barck - Renaissance

Maria Kennedy - Boise High

n/a

Mark Engberson - Rocky HS

n/a

Marsha Straub - CRHS

n/a

Mary Frances Booth - Rocky HS

n/a

Matt Vraspir - Renaissance

Meghan McDonagh - Centennial

In LD debate I really like to see good argumentation that aligns with your value and criterion. Clash is important. Don't live in your own philosophical world. Explain why your value and criterion are better. I tend to judge mostly on the flow, so be afraid to lump and dump if you have to because of time constraints. In rebuttals be sure to give me voters and impacts. Have fun and be respectful of your fellow debater.

Michael McDonagh - Centennial

Mike FitzGerald - Columbia

n/a

Mikki Mosell - EHS

Monica Cutler - Nampa

n/a

Mrs. Lovell - Bonneville

n/a

Nampa Judge 2 - Nampa

n/a

Nampa Judge 3 - Nampa

n/a

Nathan Bruner - Timberline

Nick Tinker - CapitalID

PFD Judge1 - CapitalID

n/a

Pam Fleming - EHS

communications judge

Phil Agrusa - EHS

Rachel Tilly - CRHS

n/a

Rachel Baxa - Rocky HS

n/a

Richard Zuercher - Renaissance

Background: CX competitor for Centennial High School (Boise, ID) for 4 years CX competitor for the College of Idaho for 2 years Parli competitor for the College of Idaho for 1 year Asst Coach for the College of Idaho 3 years (Parli, IEs, IPDA) Head Coach for Renaissance High School for 4 years (CX, LD, PF, IEs) Philosophy: I am usually open to most arguments made in the debate and will leave the debaters the responsibility to both justify their own arguments and attack those of their opponents.  Having said that, I evaluate arguments based both on how those arguments appear on the flow AND how those arguments persuade my thinking in the debate round.  For instance, a neg team may drop a conditionality bad argument on the flow, but it may not be a voting issue because there was no demonstrable impact in the round.  Just because the issue is dropped does not make the issue magically convincing - that work must still be done by the debaters.  CX Issues: T is a voting issue unless proven otherwise in the round. SPEC arguments are not a-priori arguments unless proven otherwise in the round. CPs are legit unless proven otherwise in the round.  I think Dispo is the most legit way to run a CP, but not necessarily the case.  There are a variety of reasons to run CPs in a variety of ways.  I don't tend to vote on theory issues unless there is actual in-round abuse.  Ks are legit for aff and neg unless proven otherwise.  I tent to vote on Ks when they are consistent with the neg strategy.  Reading a Statism K while simultaneously running an agent CP seems to defeat the purpose of the criticism and damages your cred.  It doesn't mean that I won't vote for it, it just means that you have to do some extra work justifying your contradiction.  Impact Calc:  I lean on probability before magnitude unless proven otherwise in the round.    LD Issues: I am open to a variety of argumentation and strategy.  I am most used to a value criterion debate, but I would love to see different strategies and theory. Ks are legit unless proven otherwise in the round. Plans are OK unless proven otherwise in the round.   PF Issues: I am open to a variety of argumentation and strategy. I am most used to a straight-up fact round debate, but I would love to see different strategies and theory. Ks and other various arguments are legit unless proven otherwise in the round.   Any other questions, just ask.

Robin Jensen - Columbia

n/a

Rose Regner - EHS

Ryan Buell - Wood River

n/a

Ryan Brubaker - Meridian

n/a

Sabonn Dammarell - Columbia

n/a

Sara Bell - Weiser ID HS

n/a

Scott Landrum - Timberline

Scott Cooper - EHS

Scott Anderson - Rocky HS

n/a

Seth Vick - CapitalID

<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "> Tabula Rasa (default to policy maker if you don't put me in another paradigm)</div> <div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "> Speed is fine, slowing down on tags is helpful for flowing</div> <div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "> Theory is fine, I default to competing interpretations unless you argue otherwise</div> <div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "> Kritiks are fine, just be prepared to do the work</div> <div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "> As my paradigm shows, I'm pretty much prepared to handle whatever you want to throw at me. I debated for Capital High School 05-07, and have judged constantly since then. I'm big on impact analysis, if you want me to vote for you then the best way to accomplish that is to give me the whole story about why aff advantages outweigh negative impacts or vice versa. Slow down on tag lines and citations to make sure that I get the complete idea, I don't mind if you buzz through the card as long as you're understandable. Other than that, it's your round.</div>

Shawna Castro - Skyline

n/a

Skyler Bagley - Columbia

n/a

Skyline Judge 1 - Skyline

n/a

Skyview Judge 1 - Skyview

n/a

Skyview Judge 2 - Skyview

n/a

Skyview Judge 3 - Skyview

n/a

Steve Hudson - Mtn Home

n/a

Sue Parrett - Skyline

n/a

Susan Worst - Wood River

n/a

Tabitha Miller - Renaissance

n/a

Tegan Downs - Bonneville

n/a

Trudy Goris - EHS

Ty Polidori - Meridian

n/a

Tyra Tipple - Borah

n/a

Victoria Armstrong - Mtn Home

n/a

Wendy Gordon - EHS

I have judged policy debate for 2 years now. This doesn’t mean I understand it all. I am a hard core comms judge. If I can’t understand you I won’t vote on it. You have to paint a picture for me. If you do not explain your world and why I should vote for it I probably won’t. I know enough about policy to get me by but don’t assume I know what you are talking about. SLOW! I can’t follow speed. I like good traditional policy debate without the jargon and speed! Aff: I want traditional aff’s. I do not like performance aff’s and I WILL NOT VOTE ON THEM! Kritikal advantages are also another no no. DA’s Explain it to me show me why your way is better! CP’s RUN THEM BECAUSE I HATE JUST OUTRIGHT REJECTING THE AFF! I love a good CP that can tie the world together. Kritik’s NO. That’s all I am going to say. Topicality: Prove it to me cause I won’t vote on potential abuse. Theory: Same as T. Run a traditional case and you should be fine with me as long as you impact calc it out.

2013 Treasure Valley Invitational/Sen. Frank Church Debates