FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alice Huang - Kamiak

n/a

Andrea Lairson - Bear Creek

Ashley Meissner - Bear Creek

Bill Nicolay - Snohomish

n/a

Bob Gomulkiewiz - Bear Creek

Carl Coken - Eastlake HS

Corey McCool - Annie Wright

n/a

Dan Teimouri - Newport

Tabula Rosa, will judge on most any issue so long as it is presented fairly and persuasivley. Come from an LD background, but comfortable with speed and policy arguments. Prefer that debaters empahsize the standard/framework debate.

Deborah Burns - Snohomish

n/a

Don Davis - Newport

n/a

Gina Su - PCCS

n/a

Gwen McCartt - SWHS

n/a

Jacob Ball - Kamiak

n/a

Jamis Barcott - Kamiak

n/a

Javier Salido - Bear Creek

n/a

Joel Underwood - Seattle Academy

n/a

John Julian Sr - Newport

Overall - The team who makes my job easiest, the side who walks me through their logic and makes complete, warranted, and comprehensible arguments is the team most likely to win my ballot.  The harder I have to work to fill in details on your behalf, the less likely it is that you will win. a priori ->  DECORUM is the supreme a priori voter.  Treat one another as colleagues.  Respect is your code word.  Rudeness is not equal with aggression - you can be the latter without being the former.  Being a jerk does not show strength... it shows you're a jerk. Event Specific: CX - I am a stock issues judge.  I will accept Kritiks as long as Aff Case properly bites it and the logic is solidly established.  I enjoy a good Counterplan.  Speed at your own risk... clarity is preferred.  If I'm not writing, you're going too fast. LD - I am an old school values debate judge.  I expect a proper framework (Value is the ideal your case upholds, Criterion is the weighing mechanism for the round).  If you choose to take a non-traditional V/C or framework option, explain it to me well enough that I can actually do something with it.  Speed is a very bad idea in LD - Consider me a Comm judge with a flow pad.  Jargon doesn't impress me in LD.  Logic, rhetoric, deep philosophy, and passion do. PF - Public Forum is intended to appeal to a wide audience.  It is patterned after a TV show.  I don't flow when I watch TV... don't expect a rigorous flow in PF from me.  Convince me of your overall point of view is valid.  Do so by making logical, well constructed arguments.  You can leverage common knowledge if it is truly common.  Pathos > logos in this event. Underview - Decorum, then logic, then rhetoric, then appeal to my preferences.  Do this, and you're golden.  Both sides doing this is Nirvana.  I haven't been in a state of Nirvana in 15 years.  Make the effort anyway.

Joseph Hyink - PCCS

n/a

Joyce Chambers - Snohomish

n/a

Jyoti Bawa - Eastlake HS

Linan Tong - Interlake

Lisa Weber - Newport

Martha Daman - Eastlake HS

Speak clearly with good diction.  Do not speed or I won't catch all of the arguments you make, making it difficult to be able to side with your team.  Be respectful to opponents and always check to make sure everyone is ready before starting.

Marvin Tut - Kamiak

n/a

Megan Vujica - GPS

n/a

Michael Cruz - Snohomish

n/a

Paige Carruth - Bear Creek

n/a

Pam Elliott - Snohomish

n/a

Peter Conrick - Redmond

Ray Lauer - Eastlake HS

Rob Sorensen - Bear Creek

I’m a traditional judge – I consider the value/criteria debate to be most important.  Your contentions should flow naturally from your VC and should be clearly and intentionally related. I’m quite skeptical of theory and kritiks, so if you want to run these, you will need also to argue convincingly as to why I should vote on these sorts of things.  I expect debaters to actually engage the resolution, rather than trying to redefine or avoid the commonsense intention of the resolution.  Don’t try to spread.  I value clarity, fluency, and eloquence and have limited tolerance for speed.  I will not vote for a debater whose case I cannot easily follow and flow.<o:p></o:p>

Ryan Evans - PCCS

n/a

Sarah Lim - Interlake

Sarah Sherry - Puyallup

Coach since 1996 - started team at Clover Park High School (3 years) (Coach at Puyallup High School since 2000) Competed in high school and college - Policy, LD, Interp Charter Board member of The Women's Debate Institute General - (scale of 1-10) 1=low, 10 high Speed - 7ish - 8 if it's really clear Topicality - 3 - I have little regard for T, if you are going for it, it better be your only card on the table and the violation should be crystal clear. Kritical Arguments - depends - I'm very interested in language kritiques (hmmm . . . that may be a bit of a double turn on myself), but generally speaking I have little tolerance for po-mo philosophy - I think the vast majority of these authors are read by debaters only in the context of debate, without knowledge or consideration for their overall work. This makes for lopsided and, frankly, ridiculous debates with debaters arguing so far outside of the rational context as to make it clear as mud and a laughable interpretation of the original work. It's not that I am a super expert in philosophy, but rather a lit teacher and feel like there's something that goes against my teaching practice to buy into a shallow or faulty interpretation (all of those dreary hours of teacher torture working on close reading practices - sigh). Outside of that, I'm interested on a 7ish level. Framework - 9 - I'm all in favor of depth v. breadth and to evaluate the framework of a round or the arguments, I believe, can create a really interesting level of comparison. Theory - 8ish. While I'm generally fascinated, I can, very quickly be frustrated. I frequently feel that theory arguments are just "words on the page to debaters" - something that was bought on-line, a coach created for you, or one of the top teams at your school put together at camp. It quickly falls into the same category as po-mo K's for me. Just a me thing - not sure what else to label this, but I think that I should mention this. I struggle a lot with the multiple world's advocacy. I think that the negative team has the obligation to put together a cohesive strategy. I've had this explained to me, multiple times, it's not that I don't get it - I just disagree with it. So, if at some point this becomes part of your advocacy, know that you have a little extra work to do with me. It's easiest for my teams to explain my general philosophy, by simply saying that I am a teacher and I am involved with this activity bc of its educational value, not simply as a game. So go ahead and lump perf con in with the whole multiple worlds advocacy Ok, so my general paradigm is 1.) play nice. I hate when: debater are rude to their own partner, me, the other team. Yes, it is a competition - but there's nothing less compelling than someone whose bravado has pushed passed their ability (or pushed over their partner). Swagger is one thing, obnoxiousness is another. Be aware of your language (sexist, racist, or homophobic language will not be tolerated). 2.) Debate is a flexible game; the rules are ever changing. The way that I debated is dramatically different then the way that is debated today, versus the way that people will debate 20 years from now. I believe this requires me to be flexible in my paradigm/philosophy. However, I, also, believe that it is your game. I hate it when teams tell me over and over again what they believe that they are winning, but without any reference to their opponent’s positions or analysis as to why. Debate is more of a Venn diagram in my mind, than a "T-chart". I don't actually believe that anyone is "tabula rasa". I believe that when a judge says that, they are indicating that they will try to listen to any argument and judge it solely on the merits of the round. However, I believe that we all come to rounds with pre-conceived notions in our heads - thus we are never "tabula rasa". I will try my best to be a blank slate, but I believe that the above philosophy should shed light on my pre-conceived notions. It is your job as debaters, and not mine, to weigh out the round and leave me with a comparison and a framework for evaluation.

Scott Hess - THS

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.

Shawn Marshall - Cedar Park

n/a

Shelly Casale - Bear Creek

Stan Leszynski - Bear Creek

n/a

Stephen Thornsberry - Redmond

The following is roughly taken from the NFL LD judging guidelines. <ol> <li>Communication should emphasize clarity. Accordingly, I will only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that is clear and understandable. Throughout the debate, the competitors should display civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.</li> <li>Remember that the resolution is one of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be rather than what is. This value is prized for being the highest goal that can be achieved within the context of the resolution.</li> <li>The better debater is the one who proves their side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.</li> <li>Logos and ethos are equally considered. It should be noted that ethos is quite often ignored in LD. I don't ignore ethos and will often vote for the debater who expresses better confidence in delivery.</li> <li>There must be clash concerning the framework and contentions. Cross-examination should clarify, challenge, or advance arguments.</li> <li>Any case reliant on much theory will need to carefully define key terms. Common terms like "self" and "other" will need to be defined if they are used in a manner that is not part of common usage.</li> </ol>

Steve McCartt - SWHS

n/a

Susan Mohn - Interlake

Susan Diamond - Bear Creek

Taylor Connelly - GPS

n/a

Taylor Reynolds - Puyallup

Vivian Hom - Bear Creek

n/a

Wei Wu - Interlake

Zach Maghirang - Puyallup

Background: In the process of helping revive the University of Washington Policy Debate program 3 years debating policy at Puyallup High School 4th in the Washington State tournament two years in a row, along with breaking at the Whitman tournament all three years Overview: I’ll default to policy-making if no framework is presented, but with that being said, I’ve run my fair-share of performance AFFs and the K so I’m prepared to listen to anything. You could say I’m tabula-rasa, but of course everyone has certain ideas about thing. Realize that no matter what position you decide to run, I want it to be clearly developed and in-depth, not just buzzwords and blippy cards. Do what you do best! Things to know: - I can flow your speed as long as you’re clear and I appreciate if you’re organized. - I’ve only judged one tournament on the topic so far, so don’t expect me to know your AFF that’s about some contrived acronym like SGURY. Make reference to what you mean at least once, so I know what you’re talking about. - My facial expressions are usually a good clue to see if I understand what you’re saying. - Tag team is cool just don’t overwhelm the person who’s supposed to be cross-exing - Prep stops when you take the USB drive out of the computer. Let me know if you are having issues. - I enjoy short, concise overviews before your speech. - Most cases I reject the arg, not the team, unless there is a VERY compelling reason. - Be nice. I like nice people. Specific Positions: AFF: - If performance, explain why you’re performance is important and how it relates (or why it doesn’t) to the topic. - Use your evidence from the 1AC, it’s there for a reason. - 2AR should tell me where I should vote and why, and then go on to explain further why they win and respond to the NEG's arguments. NEG: - Very similar to the AFF - 2NR should tell me where I should vote and why, and then go on to explain further why they win - I enjoy impact analysis. - Narrow yourselves down to a few positions by the end of the debate, don’t spread yourselves thin and go for too many positions in the end. - Condo’s cool within reason. 5 CPs, and 3 Ks is probably abusive.   Topicality: - Fun fact: I was awarded “Topicality Whiz” at the Whitman Debate camp. - THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I WILL AUTOMATICALLY VOTE ON T, if fact, I probably have a pretty high standard here. - Explain why your standards are better than theirs and how they improve debate. AFF, respond in the same way. - Make sure you explain why I am voting for fairness and the real-world impact it brings, not just “T is a voter for Education and Fairness” - I can be convinced to look at T from both competing interpretations and reasonability, though I’ll probably default to reasonability if there’s no argument for competing interps. DAs: - Impact comparison - Links are necessary - Yeah, they’re cool. CPs: - Explain the Net Benefit! - I’d prefer it if discussions of textual vs. functional competition weren’t brought up - However, theory against Consult, Process, and Conditions CPs is very welcome Kritiks: - Clearly explain all parts of your K, but especially explain how the K links to the AFF, and how your alt solves. - Don’t group perms, each should be answered specifically. Watch out for the “Perm: do the plan then the alt in all other instances.” - I like overviews explaining the K, but more than 1-3 minutes and it’s getting excessive. All in all, I’ll evaluate the round to the best of my ability! I know that I can be a bit unclear or confusing, so if you have any paradigm questions, or questions about my decision, please ask before and/or after round. You’re welcome to email me at Zmaghirang52@gmail.com as well!

2013 Grizzlies Forensics Invitational