FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Achord - Lake City

n/a

Adrick Moore - Lake City

n/a

Aidan Burgeson - CDA

n/a

Alek Balasz - Mead

Alexis Kostun - CDA

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.

Anya Gumke - Mt Spokane

n/a

Arienne Baker - Lake City

n/a

Ashley Alexandrovich - CDA

n/a

Audra Bradstreet - U-High

n/a

August Mattson - CDA

n/a

Beverly Corradini - TEC

n/a

Bill Wagstaff - Mead

Bill Bailey - NC HS

n/a

Brad Read - LC Tigers

n/a

Brianna Johnson - Central Valley Hig

Caleb Jewett - Mt Spokane

n/a

Cami Anderson - TEC

n/a

Capri Holden - Central Valley Hig

I have been judging debate for over 10 years. I believe in a traditional values debate. Above all else the value should be held paramount. . . AND. . . Contentions that clearly connect back to the value criterion are essential in proving the resolution to be true/false.

Cara Langsfeld - Mt Spokane

n/a

Charles Ratliff - Charter

n/a

Clay Bistline - CDA

n/a

Colleen Wells - Central Valley Hig

Dalton Deatrich - Mead

Danielle Dunbrosky - U-High

n/a

Darci Bierman - LC Tigers

n/a

Dave Carlson - Wenatchee

n/a

David Smith - U-High

n/a

Denise Lambert - LC Tigers

n/a

Dillon Johnson - CDA

n/a

Donna Boudreau - Central Valley Hig

Donna Herold - Ferris

n/a

Donovan DiDio - CDA

n/a

Ellen Ohara - LC Tigers

n/a

Elliny Hiebert - CDA

n/a

Evan Carlsson - Mead

n/a

Forrest Ewing - Ferris

n/a

Francie Archer - LC Tigers

n/a

Gabrielle Zigarlick - Republic

n/a

Hailey Clawson - Central Valley Hig

All you need to know is I have a hard time voting on cheap shots. I think debate holds a lot of value independent to winning rounds. I’ll listen to all arguments, but I like the k debate, or the impacts. I really hate topicality and resent it as being a strategic time tradeoff, this being said, I won’t punish you for running it, but I won’t vote on it without some pretty dec explanation to why its unfair. If you don’t give me another way to view the round it’ll be impacts v. impacts. T/Procedurals- I don’t really buy topicality as a good strategic argument, and will likely not vote an affirmative down if there’s a world in which they are topical. I will vote on it if there’s loss of ground on in round abuse, but I’m easily persuaded by aff reasonability arguments. Theory- I need some in round abuse claim to vote, or an independent reason why the theoretical objection is bad for debate. I’ll listen to your shells in the through the 2ac, but if you’re going to advance theory into the rebuttals, you better be doing a little more work on it. My personal belief is education outweighs fairness, but I will listen to another theory debate. Theory/topicality as the easiest way to win is not a good strat in front of me. I generally view it as a cop out and kind of unfair, however, I see the strategic value in some theory so by all means run it. Stocks- I debated in Colorado, can be easily persuaded to vote on things like Solvency and Inherency, but it’s not necessary you incorporate them if that isn’t your thing. I’m sympathetic to a good stocks debate, but will not stick you with it. I’ll listen though, you can definitely win a round on inherency, I did many times in high school. Case in general- I need to have a good vision of the way the affirmative functions or voting affirmative is an uphill battle. I don’t know a lot about the resolution this year, so the case debate is really important. I probably don’t know your acronyms, but I can also probably keep up. The rebuttals should be very clear on the case debate. I’ll vote on neg on presumption if the aff can’t prove plan is better than sqou, however presumption flips aff when the neg goes for an advocacy other than sqou. CP’s- I’m a fan, they’re good and fun and I’ll listen to them, but make sure it’s competitive. PICS are good and inevitable, although I’ll listen to theory all across the board. I’m not a fan of delay cps or consult cps, but I’ll listen and evaluate fairly. K’s Probably my favorite debate argument. I think the aff should be able to, and needs to defend the methods and ideologies they’re using. That being said, I won’t reward you for simply reading and going for a kritik, the round still needs clash and that’s a neg burden. In fact, if your kritik does NOT provide clash, I’ll vote aff on presumption in about 10 seconds. I appreciate a K that has a solid alt that can be enacted outside of the round, but it’s not necessary. I better have a good idea of why endorsing the negative alt is good in context of the impacts, because I won’t reward the neg for noticing something wrong with the squo and recognizing the affirmative does it. I really enjoy the value to life debate, but want it to go deeper than the few cards y’all have in your files. The K v Policy debate always requires a lot of articulation in the rebuttals for why my endorsing either side is net good. K Aff’s I’m game. F/W- Necessary. This goes without saying, but if you don’t win your framework, you’ll likely lose. I care about debate and find these debates really interesting and important. Have fun with them and don’t be afraid to articulate yourself without evidence on framework, I think it’s as much about the personality and opinions of the individual debater as it is about the lit. Just because you outcarded the other team does NOT mean you’ve won. Speaks: I’ll reward persuasion. Prep: Whatever man. Be fair, that’s all. That’s true for ethics in general, actually. I’m more likely to vote for you if you’re not engaging in shady business.

Holly Musgrave - U-High

n/a

Irene Beimers Kubes - U-High

n/a

Jackson Eubanks - Lake City

n/a

James Elias - Gonzaga Prep

n/a

Jason Stein - Charter

n/a

Jenn Dempsey - Central Valley Hig

~~Background: I competed in debate all four years of high school - primarily in LD, but also competed in Public Forum and Congress. Since graduating I have judged primarily in Eastern Washington.   To me, the most educational aspects of debate include exposure to multiple subject areas and the ability to clearly articulate well-reasoned arguments. I like v/vc debate and want your case to clearly link to those. Real world evidence and practical application goes a long way for me, but I also appreciate the philosophical side of LD. Although I can handle speed, I expect that you can utilize tone, speed, and inflection to provide clarity. I care far more about quality of evidence and reasoning than sheer volume of cards. Also, please give impacts rather than merely pointing out drops and give me clear and compelling voters.   A certain level of civility and professionalism are preferred. If you are especially hostile in round I will drop your speaks.

Jenna Bauer - CDA

n/a

Jessica Brock - CDA

n/a

Jim Heath - Mt Spokane

n/a

Jodi Fitzgerald - Wenatchee

n/a

Joe Engel - Gonzaga Prep

n/a

Joel Underwood - Seattle Academy

n/a

John Furbee - Charter

n/a

Jonanthan Moore - LC Tigers

n/a

Jordon Newton - Lake City

n/a

Josh McDougal - NC HS

n/a

Julie Hope - Ferris

n/a

Kimberly Hartman - Mt Si

Kristin Dierdorff - Oaks Christian

n/a

Kyle Hendrix - Eastside Catholic

n/a

Laura Read - LC Tigers

n/a

Liz Bremner - Republic

n/a

Lori Cossette - Gonzaga Prep

Maegan James - NC HS

n/a

Margot Cioccio - TEC

n/a

Mark Ornelas - Central Valley Hig

Matt Campbell - Ferris

n/a

Meagan Thew - Central Valley Hig

Michael Fredericks - Oaks Christian

n/a

Mike 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 Gordon - Ferris

n/a

Mike Page - TEC

n/a

Mimi Price - CDA

n/a

Mitsu Gunsolas - U-High

n/a

Mrs Rogers - Gonzaga Prep

n/a

Mysti Reneau - Central Valley Hig

Nichole Clegern - Central Valley Hig

Nick Kuisti - Lake City

n/a

Parrish Strong - Ferris

n/a

Peter Cossette - Gonzaga Prep

n/a

Phletha Wynn - U-High

n/a

Rachel Rice - CDA

n/a

Robyn Valov - Charter

n/a

Ruth Ptak - Mt Spokane

n/a

Sadie Comer - Lake City

n/a

Sam Normington - U-High

n/a

Sandy Hartzell - Charter

n/a

Sarah Sandford - Lake City

n/a

Scott Menzer - CDA

n/a

Sydney Kastner - U-High

n/a

Syed Khusro - Ferris

n/a

Tabitha Hamilton - Central Valley Hig

Tom Townsend - Ferris

n/a

Torr Bonney - Charter

n/a

Tyler Kuisti - Lake City

n/a

Wyatt Volkmann - Central Valley Hig

Zach Cheeley - Oaks Christian

n/a

2013 Central Valley Bear Brawl