FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alayna Becker - Ferris

n/a

Alek Balasz - Mead

Amanda Eastbrooks - Rogers

n/a

Andie Chapin - Ferris

n/a

Andre Cossette - Gonzaga Prep

I've been judging Policy, LD, and now Public Forum for 30 years or more.  I hate Kritiks that are used just to win rounds, unless they're Kritiks criticizing the state of debate these days.  They have to be read slowly for me to understand them, though: philosophy read at 400 words per minute just goes over my head (I have enough trouble understanding philosophy read at 100 words per minute).  As I advance in age, my ability to process information at a rapid rate diminishes, so if you can boil the round down to a few simple principles, then I become a thinking judge instead of a judge who merely connects points on the flow.  I like to hear evidence being read, so sometimes I'll slow down debaters when they read their cards so I can understand the warrants and not just mindlessly write down the taglines.  I have a decent knowledge of theory because debate theory rarely changes over the years (sometimes the names of the arguments change but the logic stays the same), so if you use words like "conditionality" and "permutation" and "reciprocity", I'd know what you were talking about.  And, I usually don't disclose (except for Novices who might benefit from some education), and I don't like shaking hands with the debaters after the round.

Andrea Misterek-Bensoas - U-High

n/a

Andrew Myers - Mead

Ashley Alexandrovich - CDA

n/a

Bill Wagstaff - Mead

Bobbi Croneberger - U-High

n/a

Bree Ferris - Mt Spokane

n/a

Britney Porter - Central Valley Hig

Brooke Siglin - Oaks Christian

n/a

Byron Koch - Central Valley Hig

Cara Langsfeld - Mt Spokane

n/a

Cari Fisher - Oaks Christian

n/a

Carolyn Petek - LC Tigers

n/a

Chris True - Oaks Christian

n/a

Chris Regan - CDA

n/a

Daron Fredericks - Central Valley Hig

Dave Spilker - NC HS

n/a

David Spivey - Mead

David Smith - U-High

n/a

Denis Hanson - Gonzaga Prep

Donna Boudreau - Central Valley Hig

Edgar Lincoln - Central Valley Hig

Elliny Hiebert - CDA

n/a

GG Templeman - Lake City

n/a

Gabrielle Zigarlick - Republic

n/a

Grant Montoya - Central Valley Hig

Holly Kirkman - U-High

n/a

Jackson Eubanks - Lake City

n/a

James Heath - Gonzaga Prep

Jean Tobin - Walla Walla

This is my 7th year coaching LD debate. I am familiar with the topics when I judge but not always prepared for unusual arguments, so be sure to clearly explain link/impacts if the argument is outside the norm. I'm comfortable with speed. I will say "speed" if you are speaking too fast for me to flow or understand. I am relatively new to theory arguments, so you should probably slow down on them and make sure they are not too blippy. I'm like logic and consider debate to be a game so theory (especially T) is interesting to me but I don’t like to punish people for their arguments. I prefer it if theory impacts make sense and are logical in the round - such as drop the argument, as opposed to drop the debater. However, that is only my default position. If you argue drop the debater well in the round, I will vote on it. I don't like sexist or racist arguments and I won't vote for them if they are obviously offensive, even if they are dropped.  I try not to make arguments for debaters. Your arguments should be well supported and explained. It is your job to explain the argument in a way that is straight forward and clear. In particular, I do not like extremely odd value/criteria debates where the evidence seems designed to confuse, not explain. And if you are not able to clearly explain your value/criteria/k in c-x, I will not vote for it. I value debaters understanding each other's arguments and responding to them effectively - I see a lot of discussion about disclosure as it applies to evidence but not much about honest disclosure in c-x.  I do convey my opinion on arguments through facial expressions - so if I think you are spending too much time on an argument I will show that visually and if I like an argument I will show that visually. I will vote on value and criteria arguments, but I love case arguments that have clear impacts that relate back to value and criteria. I like impacts to be identified and weighed in final arguments. I'm much more a policy judge than a traditional LD judge.  I do view debate as a game, I'm open to most arguments, I think debate is fluid and debaters are allowed to define and create the game as they go so long as their support for doing so is strong and valid. However, I don't like rudeness. Overwhelmingly for me that is defined as a debater responding to another debater (or more rarely, me) in a condescending manner. But rudeness only affects your speaker points. I like clear, consice, fast, organized debating. I think I generally give higher speaker points (I feel bad when I go below a 27 and will usually give a 30 at least once a tournament). I don't need tons of persuasion vocally - it isn't a performance, but I love and reward clear, intellectual persuasion with high speaker points.

Jessica Brock - CDA

n/a

JoAnn Flaherty - NC HS

n/a

Joan Steberl - Eastside Catholic

n/a

Joe Phipps - Rogers

n/a

Joey Wecker - Ferris

n/a

Jordan Welter - U-High

n/a

Josh Mhyre - Mead

Justine Bunch - CDA

n/a

K. Danielson - Gonzaga Prep

Karen Edgel - Republic

n/a

Kathleen Schrader - Gonzaga Prep

Katie Gumke - Mt Spokane

n/a

Kevin Kimball - Oaks Christian

n/a

Kristen Pool - Gonzaga Prep

Larry Myers - Oaks Christian

n/a

Laryssa Lynch - Mt Spokane

n/a

Lindsay Oden - Lake City

n/a

Liz Bremner - Republic

n/a

Lori Cossette - Gonzaga Prep

Maiya Jeffers - U-High

n/a

Marissa Owen - Lake City

n/a

Michael Stovern - Mead

I will follow my flow fairly closely, and I consider drops concessions, but please don't tell me that what your opponent dropped is a voter. Instead, tell me about the impact of that concession. Primarily, I will make my decisions based upon the quality of your voting issues when they are filtered through your value/criterion. Please give me voters that show impact and demonstrate an effective use of how your criterion upholds your value. Show me what the world is like under the side of the resolution that you are defending. I am willing to vote on anything as long as you can support it, or your opponent doesn’t discredit it.   Your criterion should serve as a weighing mechanism and a means to uphold your value. All contentions should uphold your value unless you have a contention with the purpose of showing how the opposing side is immoral/impossible. Rebuttals should have no new evidence.   Remember to roadmap and signpost. Feel free to speak quickly, but slow down on tag lines and be clear. Be polite; you are attacking a position not a person.

Mike Page - TEC

n/a

Millayna Klingback - Mt Spokane

n/a

Mitsu Gonsoules - Mead

Nick Corr - Ferris

n/a

Nick Kuisti - Lake City

n/a

Patrick Mayer - Lake City

n/a

Paul Kanellopoulos - Saint George

Paul Dillon - Ferris

n/a

Rachel Rice - CDA

n/a

Randy Brown - U-High

n/a

Robin Gray - Oaks Christian

n/a

Sally Conner - Central Valley Hig

I have judged debate events for about 15 years, most frequently congress, with occasional LD and PF. I enjoy rounds that stay away from excessive jargon and debaters focus on clear communication. I think that the value is important in a LD round, and I think that evidence is important in a round, but that it is an even more important skill to focus on deciding what evidence is important to include in a round, and to explain the relevance of this information. I do not enjoy speed.

Sam Normington - U-High

n/a

Sam Normington - Saint George

<h2> <span style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: en-us; mso-fareast-language: en-us; mso-bidi-language: ar-sa"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: en-us; mso-fareast-language: en-us; mso-bidi-language: ar-sa">I competed in policy debate in high school and have been coaching all forms of debate the past ten years.  I traditionally judge policy debate, so often find myself preferring its trappings. Speed, topicality, kritiks, are all fine by me, use them or don't, doesn't bother me.  I will do my best to evaluate the round using the framework the debaters put forth.  I like clash, and I like impact calculus.  </h2>

Sam Steele - TEC

n/a

Sara Major - Oaks Christian

n/a

Scott Kaster - U-High

n/a

Sean Flaherty - LC Tigers

n/a

Taylor Stewart - CDA

n/a

Theora Rice - Central Valley Hig

Tim Harper - Gonzaga Prep

<a data-hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/hovercard.php?id=1450020135" href="http://www.facebook.com/tim.harper.359" id="js_1">Tim Harper</a> <div class="_53" id="id.255042037952260"> <div class="_3hi"> <div class="_1yr">  </div> <div class="_38 direction_ltr"> Judging philosophy: Experience: I have been debating for 6 years – Three for Ashland High School and three for Gonzaga. I am a senior and captain of the Gonzaga debate team. I have 20+ rounds of experience on this year’s topic. Preferences: General: I default to an offense-defense paradigm. I don’t think a conceded argument automatically constitutes a win—you must explain the arguments you want me to evaluate and extrapolate why I should do so. why do I care and what does it mean to the rest of the debate? That said, concessions are tie-breakers. I will read evidence. Most likely, I will read lots of it. However putting evidence in my hands means I will give it only as much weight as it deserves and not necessarily as much as you tell me it does. Make sure if you tell me to read a card that you are willing to stake the debate on it being as good as you think it is. I reward concise, articulate, well-reasoned arguments over pedantic soap boxing. With this in mind, you will be well served to remove filler phrases from your vocabulary – “pull the trigger,” “at the point where,” “extend across the flow” etc, etc… If you could choose to be funny or be smart and professional while debating in front of me, I prefer the latter. CP: I will accept a lens of sufficiency for evaluating counterplans and believe the aff must win a large risk of a solvency deficit, permutation or disadvantage to the counterplan to win a debate against a counterplan that resolves a large portion of the aff. I am not adverse to conditions, multi-plank advantage, process, or consultation counterplans. Theory arguments except conditionality are a reason to reject the team unless persuasively proven otherwise. DA: I think a DA that turns the whole case can outweigh the whole aff without substantive case defense, but you are well suited to cover your bases and sufficiently mitigate aff advantages to be safe. For the aff, I will vote on terminal defense on a disadvantage, however because I default to offense-defense, the threshold for winning zero risk of the DA is somewhat higher than winning some risk of offense, especially if there is a counterplan that solves all of the aff. Impact calculus should not be ignored – it can often be the tie-breaker in close case v. disad debates. Topicality: I will default to competing interpretations but will usually lean aff unless the T argument is particularly compelling or the affirmative is very obviously non- or anti-topical. Kritik: Although I am not a K debater, I increasingly find myself voting for K teams because highschool debaters largely do not a) understand or b) forward a framework argument. That said, I will likely understand and simultaneously detest your kritik. If you think your opponent is smart enough to read my philosophy (an admittedly unlikely proposition) and therefore decide to go for framework, you are likely in a less-than-desirable position. I will evaluate alternatives in the following manner—It will either need to establish a competing role of the ballot through which I should view the alternative, or I will default to assuming it operates within the same worldview of the aff and therefore should be able to outweigh or solve those competing impacts. </div> </div> </div>

Tyler Powers - Lake City

n/a

2011 Central Valley Bear Brawl