Judge Philosophies
Alicia Jekel - PCCS
n/a
Bill Nicolay - Snohomish
n/a
Cailey Lin - IHS
n/a
Cale Coryell - Snohomish
n/a
Carl Shultz - Eastlake HS
n/a
Carrie Walker - Kamiak
n/a
Daniela Hodeg - Kamiak
n/a
David Jung - BC ACADEMY
n/a
Diane Vasquez - Eastlake HS
n/a
Eileen Hwang - BC ACADEMY
n/a
Gina Su - PCCS
n/a
Joanna Walker - IHS
n/a
Jyoti Bawa - Eastlake HS
Karen Rossman - Redmond
Ken Boyer - Eastlake HS
n/a
Kevin Ma - BC ACADEMY
n/a
Merrily Foreman - Redmond
Mike Fitzgerald - Kamiak
n/a
Natalia Munoz - Kamiak
n/a
Nicolas Wong - Eastlake HS
n/a
Stephen Thornsberry - Redmond
<p>The following is roughly taken from the NFL LD judging guidelines.</p> <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>
Steven Helman - Kamiak
n/a