FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Amy McCormick - Tahoma High

Andrea Lairson - Bear Creek

Ashley Creek (Skinner) - Tahoma High

Bill Hollands - Hazen

n/a

Bob Gomulkiewiz - Bear Creek

Brendon Keene - MRLH

n/a

Brent DeCracker - Cedar Park

n/a

Brent DeCracker - Cedar Park 2

n/a

Chris Coovert - Gig Harbor

Chris Coovert, Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA Coached LD: 17 years Coached CX: 12 years Competed in LD: 4 years Competed in NPDA: 2 years LD Paradigm: I have been competing in, judging and coaching Lincoln Douglas debate for over twenty years. I have seen a lot of changes, some good, some not so good. This is what you should know<a href="http://wiki.cgm.ucdavis.edu/groups/mah01/wiki/5dbc6/All_about_lego.html">.</a> I will evaluate the round based on the framework provided by the debaters. The affirmative needs to establish a framework (usually a value and criterion) and then show why based on the framework, the resolution is true. The negative should either show why the resolution is not true under that framework or provide a competing framework which negates. My stock paradigm is what most people now call truth testing: the aff's burden is to prove the resolution true and the negatives is to prove it false. I will default to this absent another framework being established in the round. If both debaters agree that I should evaluate as a policymaker, I am able to do that and will. If you both put me in some other mode, that is reasonable as well. If there is an argument, however, between truth testing and another way of looking at the round the higher burden of proof will be on the debater attempting the shift away from truth testing. As far as specific arguments go. 1. I find topicality arguments generally do not apply in Lincoln Douglas debate. If the affirmative is not dealing with the resolution, then they are not meeting their burden to prove the resolution true. This is the issue, not artificial education or abuse standards. I have voted on T in the past, but I think there are more logical ways to approach these arguments. 2. I find the vast majority of theory arguments to be very poorly run bastardizations of policy theory that do not really apply to LD. 3. I have a strong, strong, bias against debaters using theory shells as their main offensive weapon in rounds when the other debater is running stock, predictable cases. I am open to theory arguments against abusive positions, but I want you to debate the resolution, not how we should debate. 4. You need to keep site of the big picture. Impact individual arguments back to framework. Finally, I am a flow judge. I will vote on the arguments. That said, I prefer to see debaters keep speeds reasonable, especially in the constructives. You don’t have to be conversational, but I want to be able to make out individual words and get what you are saying. It is especially important to slow down a little bit when reading lists of framework or theory arguments that are not followed by cards. I will tell you if you are unclear. CX Paradigm I have not judged very much CX lately, but I still do coach it and judge it occasionally. I used to consider myself a policy maker, but I am probably open enough to critical arguments that this is not completely accurate anymore. At the same time, I am not Tab. I don't think any judge truly is. I do enter the room with some knowledge of the world and I have a bias toward arguments that are true and backed by logic. In general: 1. I will evaluate the round by comparing impacts unless you convince me to do otherwise. 2. I am very open to K's that provide real alternatives and but much less likely to vote on a K that provides no real alt. 3. If you make post-modern K arguments at mock speed and don't explain them to me, do not expect me to do the work for you. 4. I tend to vote on abuse stories on T more than competing interpretations. 5. I really hate theory debates. Please try to avoid them unless the other team leaves you no choice. 6. The way to win my ballot is to employ a logical, coherent strategy and provide solid comparison of your position to your opponents. I am able to flow fairly quickly, but I don't judge enough to keep up with the fastest teams. If I tell you to be clear or slow down please listen.

Corey McCool - Annie Wright

n/a

Curtis Hom - Bear Creek

Danielle Jennings - Ingraham

I debated for 4 years at Idaho State University and I currently coach at Ingraham High in Seattle. I love debate and I want to watch you do whatever you do best. I was a K debater and will most certainly be pegged that way, but I do not have any specific ideology. I truly try to be as tab as possible. This doesn't however, mean that I appreciate the "throwing poop and seeing what sticks" strategy. I appreciate specificity and claim-warrant-impact debate. Tagline extensions don't cut it for me. I reward smart debaters, and value quality over quantity, regardless of the substance of the debate. I think CX is more important to a debate than most high schoolers give it credit. I love CX and want you to take advantage of it. I am open to whatever you do best. You dictate the debate

Dawn Cheng - Newport

n/a

Don Davis - Newport

n/a

Dyann Seidl - Trojans

n/a

Ema Shirk - Annie Wright

n/a

Garrett Shiroma - AVI

n/a

Hemanth Srinivas - Sammamish

Background: <o:p></o:p> <ul> <li> Current head coach of Sammamish High School in Bellevue, WA<o:p></o:p></li> <li> Years Coaching: 7<o:p></o:p></li> <li> Years Judging: 8<o:p></o:p></li> <li> Years Debating: 4 (high school policy)</li> </ul>   I have been coaching and judging in the state of Washington extensively for the past 8 years and I am currently one of the coaches at Sammamish High School in Bellevue, WA. I’ve coached competitors locally in WA tournaments, at large national circuit tournaments including NFL Nationals and I’ve enjoyed judging many (likely in the hundreds) policy and LD rounds over that time.   Overall Philosophy: Debate is a competitive, educational activity that requires students to present, understand, strategize and refute various lines of reasoning, with an emphasis on clash and the exclusion of your opponent’s arguments. A judge is an impartial observer of the arguments being presented and should render a decision based on what is presented with as minimal intervention as possible. The less clash, the more judge intervention becomes necessary which could lead to more arbitrary decisions based on a judge’s preference and interpretations. As such, each debater should clearly argue the frameworks presented and how various arguments function underneath them.   Paradigm: In a nutshell, I am a tabula rasa judge and I work hard not to intervene in the round - I will go wherever the debaters take me and render my decision based on what is presented. Speed is usually not an issue, but that is not an excuse to clearly enunciate your words and be articulate. If you slur your words together, or chop off the ends of words to speak just a little faster, I will yell clear once or twice, but continue to do it and you risk me not understanding the point you are making which could cost you the ballot. Regardless of the nature of the argument you present, you must be persuasive and thorough. Fleeting, unwarranted, blatantly false (while I’m a blank slate for the arguments presented, I reserve the right to ignore obvious and patently wrong claims, interpretations, or facts) arguments will not be considered in the decision. The voters and story you pull through in your rebuttals need to be consistent, well explained, and should demonstrate an ability to crystallize the most important issues in the round. <o:p></o:p>   The Ballot:<o:p></o:p> To gain my ballot, clearly tell me which arguments you are winning and/or are most important, why you won those points and why that means you win the round. Every argument cannot be the most important in the round, and if you do choose to present 6 voters, provide analysis as to which ones I should look to first. Similarly, merely claiming “my opponent dropped points X, Y, Z and therefore I win” holds little weight with me – provide reasons why you win, not reasons why your opponent lost. The more direction and guidance you provide, the less I will need to intervene and come to my own conclusions. The ballot is not derived solely from the flow: the winner of the round isn’t simply the one with the most ink on paper and the one with the most extensions. I value quality of argumentation over quantity and I value crystallization in the rebuttals -a demonstration that you understand not only a specific argument and are able to summarize it, but also how all the arguments in a round interact and what that means for the position you are advocating.   Specific Arguments (both for LD and Policy): <o:p></o:p> Topicality – I default to reasonability, but I can be convinced to look at competing interpretations if necessary. I am not usually swayed by potential abuse – prove in-round abuse or some other tangible abuse scenario for me to really vote on this first (if that’s your standard). 5 rapid fire standards with little justification doesn’t convince me very much about the validity of your argument. Given the jurisdictional nature of T, I have a higher threshold for Negatives to really convince that the Affirmative is out of bounds and I should vote them down. <o:p></o:p>   Kritiks – I’m happy to hear this type argumentation and will certainly vote on it if warranted. I’m familiar with most major K’s out there, but I hold a high bar for the person presenting the argument to explain and crystalize their position. Don’t simply read me 8 pages of Zizek without analysis. If so, that shows you know how to read fast, but doesn’t show me anything about your understanding of him and the position you advocate. I expect good crystallization of these philosophical concepts in the rebuttals. <o:p></o:p>   Framework / Theory / Paradigm Shifts – Both are fine and expected if clearly warranted. Winning a framework goes a long way to winning the ballot, but it’s important to spell out how conflicting frameworks play against each other. If you shift my paradigm, that’s totally fine, but stay consistent in your argumentation after you shift it. Don’t adapt the strategy of throwing everything including the kitchen sink at the wall and seeing what sticks. The order of evaluation is theory and other jurisdictional arguments first (like Topicality), then framework / observations, then value / criterion / Ks followed by case /plan / contentions. <o:p></o:p>   Presumption –In policy, presumption flows Neg. I won’t vote for an Aff plan unless there’s a prima facie case and the Aff has proven the need for change. Therefore in the absence of all offense in a round, I will vote Neg and preserve the status quo. Also, in the absence of clear voters and a way of adjudicating the round, I default to a policymaker paradigm. In LD, there is no presumption, and in the absence of offense or clear voters, I default back to a fairly traditional stock issues judge (essentially answer whose contentions when measured through the value criterion, best uphold a value). <o:p></o:p>   RVIs – Similar to above, I’m happy to hear an RVI when warranted, but simply because you beat back a theory position does not lend itself directly to a RVI. Demonstrate an instance of actual abuse occurring in-round, or clearly explain the standard upon which you are resting the RVI, and if warranted enough, then I will vote on it. <o:p></o:p>   To be clear, I will let you tell me what to vote on and how to vote on it, but in the absence of all of this, I default to the roles described above. <o:p></o:p>   Other Things to Consider:<o:p></o:p> Delivery – While I find the delivery of your position important, it is not as important as the arguments themselves. I first and foremost will look to the arguments presented and will render a decision based on them, not on the presentation. I believe debate at its core is an exercise in argumentation (if you want to be critiqued primarily on delivery, go do IEs). That being said, if you’re incomprehensible or disorganized in how you state your position, you’ll not only likely lose the round, you’ll also get low speaker points. On the flip side, I give high marks to people who can not only make good arguments but sound good doing so.   <o:p></o:p> (Policy Specific) Tag Team – Keep it to a minimum in CX – I want to see each person be able to hold their own. No parroting of speeches; in other words, simply having one person stand up and repeat what his/her partner says isn’t convincing and reflects poorly on the team. Use extra downtime if necessary to figure out the contents of the speech.   <o:p></o:p> Speaker Points – There’s no set formula I use to give speaker points, but it’s rare that I give 30s. A 30 to me means you were pretty much perfect and one of the very best I’ve ever seen. Generally a 29+ means you did an outstanding job and I expect you to go deep in the tournament. My average is usually 27. Plus points for being clever, funny, respectful, and minus points for being rude, condescending or demeaning to your opponent.   <o:p></o:p> Evidence – If you want me to see a piece of evidence after the round, make a point to state that in your speech. I will call for evidence as I see fit. Sometimes it is necessary, especially if the debate is centered around a couple key arguments, other times it is not.    If you’ve read this far, congratulations! Hopefully this was helpful. If you still have questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts. When allowed, I try to disclose and provide some feedback to both sides, but when sometimes when a round is very close, I’ll need extra time to work through the issues. If that’s the case, come find me later and I’ll be happy to go over my decision with you. I look forward to judging your round!<o:p></o:p>

Jackie Matthews - MRLH

n/a

Jaime Holguin - Gig Harbor

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000183 EndHTML:0000005304 StartFragment:0000002721 EndFragment:0000005268 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/coov/Downloads/Jaime%20judge%20paradigm.doc Two years of high school policy debate, will be my fourth year of judging. Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and Analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.   Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does need to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round.   Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me the judge to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW.   Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don't just tell me to reject the 1AC and that it somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get strong analysis of the warranted evidence of the neg to vote for a reject alt.   Counterplan: If you show how the CP is a better policy than the Aff, I will vote for it.   Theory: No matter what the theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the argument not the team.   For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don't make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before the round.

Jane McCoy - Eastside Catholic

Please don't shake my hand because it is flu season. I do not like a lot of speed. I like a good criterion and value clash between the two sides. I like real world examples. I will vote on clear voters emphasized especially in the last two speeches.

Jeani Littrell-Kwik - Newport

n/a

Jeff Gans - Eastside Catholic

I am the head coach at Eastside Catholic in Sammamish, WA, and am the former coach at Bainbridge and Mercer Island. My students have competed at the TOC and have won or advanced to significant outrounds at Bronx, Greenhill, Valley, Berkeley, Blake, Stanford, Whitman, the WA State tournament, and Nationals. I have taught for three summers at VBI and serve on the TOC's LD committee. My school debates 15-20 weeks a year, including three or four national circuit tournaments. I default to Competing Interpretations as a paradigm unless told otherwise. I will call "clear" if you're being unclear, "slow" if you're going too fast for me, and "loud" if you're too quiet. In general, you should be louder than you think you need to be. I am willing to vote anywhere on the flow, so long as it is justified and warranted, though I prefer a clear standard (whatever it is) and get frustrated when you don't give me one. Tell me how arguments function and how to order them. This goes for theory and other "pre-standard" issues as well as those that come in traditional case debate. Note: I reserve the right to give stupid/blippy arguments minimal consideration in favor of developed ideas, even if your opponent doesn't attack them. While tek debate does guide my evaluation, the single two-second spike you extend probably isn't enough to invalidate an entire case on its own. I'm a thinking person who considers the merit of your position, not a blank-slate robot. Theory is fine by me, but please be explicit about the violation. The more specific and targeted the interp and violation, the more likely I am to vote on it. Also, you should weigh between competing theory shells, just as you would in any other part of the round. Not doing so just forces me to intervene and decide which shell is more important, which you don't want me to do. Here's what I dislike: <ul> <li>Lies or incorrect information, especially if you're arguing about real-world events. For example, if you tell me that Nixon told Stalin to tear down the Berlin Wall or that American settlers didn't know that the blankets they offered their hosts were infested with smallpox, I will laugh at you.</li> <li>Discursive arguments in theory. I generally see these arguments as being hypocritical and often cynically presented. If you truly think that I ought to vote down your opponent to stop his or her hateful oppression of subaltern groups then you need to never have said a derogatory thing in your life. That said, if I hear you being hateful (in or out of round), you can expect to have a tougher time winning my ballot. The caveat to this is when you present a morally repugnant idea but justify it in-round through some other means. In that case, fire away. For other theory tactics - the standards you use, RVIs, etc. - I'm persuaded by the merits of your argument. It's especially nice when you frame your voters in terms of what my role in the round is as the judge.</li> <li>Skep. My bias is that the whole point of a skep strat is to collapse the debate to presumption, which is a reductive way to debate. Maybe I'm wrong about this; if you're running skep, you should tell me why.</li> <li>Determinism. Call me naive or arrogant, but I like to think that I have control over my own mind and decisions. Furthermore there's no proof in the world that G_d/the Universe/the Master and Commander/Unicron is on your side rather than your opponent's, so even if determinism exists I don't know why I have to vote for you.</li> </ul> I really like alternative frameworks, Kritiks, etc., but they need to be explained in complete detail; don't just assume that we're in the same ideological or philosophical crowd and shirk on your responsibilities by giving me jargon or philosophical shorthand. I flow by hand. Speed doesn't irritate me, but there is a threshold after which I stop flowing and just try to listen to your arguments as best I can. You can help yourself by enunciating and varying your pitch; for clear speakers I'm about an 8.5 on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being Colton Smith or Annie Kors. Don't speed up while reading cards: I like to hear what the authors say, not just your assertions about what's in the evidence. With that in mind, I'll call for cases after the round to re-read cards, though not to reconstruct arguments. If I've missed your tactic due to speed, denseness, or enunciation the first time, it's gone. I tend to give speaks based off in-round proficiency and my own running comparison of you with other debaters I've seen in the pool, with 28.0/28.5 being about average for national circuit debate. (Have no fear, young'uns and lone wolves: I don't give higher speaks based on rep; I'll only compare you with debaters I've actually seen.) Higher speaks do not always go to the winner of the round. Two other requests: First, please begin your speeches at about 85% of your final rate so that I can get used to your voice. Second, don't bend over or scrunch down - it'll constrict your lungs and you won't speak as clearly. This may mean you have to stand up and use one of those silly laptop stands, but whatevs. Feel free to email me if you have any questions. I look forward to seeing some great rounds! <a href="mailto:jeffrey.w.gans@gmail.com">jeffrey.w.gans@gmail.com</a>

Jeffrey Richards - Sammamish

Background: I was a policy debater for Dimond High School in Anchorage, AK; in college, I debated in CEDA 4 years for Northwest Nazarene University in Nampa, ID. I have coached policy, LD, and I.E.'s at Meridian High School in Boise, ID and currently at Sammamish High School in Seattle, WA. I have had two textbooks on competitive debate published by National Textbook Company (now McGraw-Hill): Moving from Policy to Value Debate and Debating by Doing. I have coached LD competitors at the NFL Nationals tournament and my students placed 2nd and 3rd at the Washington State Debate championships in 2012. I have judged many policy and LD high school debate rounds locally in WA and at national circuit tournaments.   Approach: I see competitive debate as a strategic activity where both sides attempt to exclude the other’s arguments and keep them from functioning. As such, I expect both debaters to argue the evaluative frameworks that apply in this particular round and how they function with regard to the positions that have been advanced.   My Ballot: The better you access my ballot, the more you keep me from intervening. You access my ballot best when you clearly and simply tell me (1) what argument you won, (2) why you won it, and (3) why that means you win the round. Don’t under-estimate the importance of #3: It would be a mistake to assume that all arguments are voters and that winning the argument means you win the round. You need to clearly provide the comparative analysis by which arguments should be weighed or you risk the round by leaving that analysis in my hands. I will not look to evaluate every nuance of the line-by-line; it is your responsibility to tell me which arguments are most relevant and significant to the decision.   Let’s use Reverse Voters as an example. Some judges disfavor these arguments, but in front of me, they are perfectly acceptable. However, the fact that you beat back a theory argument from your opponent does not, in and of itself, provide you access to an RVI. To win an RVI posted against a theory position generally requires that you demonstrate that your opponent ran the argument in bad faith (e.g., only as a time suck, without intent to go for the argument), and that the argument caused actual harm in the round. When it comes to potential abuse, I tend to agree with the Supreme Court's view in FCC v. Pacifica: "Invalidating any rule on the basis of its hypothetical application to situations not before the Court is 'strong medicine' to be applied 'sparingly and only as a last resort.'" You certainly can argue for a different evaluative framework for the RVI, but you cannot assume that I already have one.   Think, before you start your rebuttal(s). Ask yourself, what do I have to win in order to win the round? Whatever the answer to that question is, that is where you start and end your speech.   Paradigm: The most important thing I can do in any debate round is to critique the arguments presented in the round. As such, I consider myself very liberal about what you do in a debate round, but conservative about how you do it. What that means for debaters is that you can run just about any argument you like, but you will need to be persuasive and thorough about how you do it. If you run theory, for example, you will need to understand the jurisdictional nature of theory arguments and either provide a compelling argument why the violation is so critical that dropping the debater is the only appropriate remedy or a convincing justification as to why theory should have a low threshold. I try very hard not to inject myself into the debate, and I do my best to allow the speakers to develop what they think are the important issues.   Additional Items to Consider: 1.Speed is fine, but don’t chop off the ends of your words, or I will have trouble understanding you. Rapid speech is no excuse for failing to enunciate and emphasize arguments you want to be sure I get on my flow. <o:p></o:p>   2.Argue competing paradigms. This is true in every form of debate. I am not married to any single framework, but too often, the underlying assumptions of how I need to view the round to give your arguments more impact than those of your opponent go unstated, much less debated. Tell me WHY your argument matters most. It’s okay to shift my paradigm to better access your impacts; just tell me why I should do so and how. <o:p></o:p>   3.Presumption is a framework issue but is given short shrift almost every time I hear it argued. My default position is to be skeptical of any proposition until there is good and sufficient reason to accept it. That means presumption generally lies against the resolution until the affirmative presents a prima facie case to accept it. If you want to shift presumption so that it lies in a different position (with the prevailing attitude, in favor of fundamental human rights, etc.), then be sure to justify the shift in mindset and clearly explain whether that means we err on the side of the resolution being true or false.<o:p></o:p>

Jennifer Widrig-Hodges - Trojans

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.

John Mercer - Tahoma High

Jordan Hudgens - Bridge

tl;dr: Make extensions when appropriate, clearly weigh arguments (direct comparisons and take-outs are lovely), and illustrate how you win the standard debate and what that means for your arguments. The 1AC and 1NC are certainly crucial, but they are (in my mind) stepping stones to the more nuanced and particular aspects of the debate. It all comes down to the 1AR/1NR/2AR, explication of warrants/impacts, link analysis, etc. Very basically I want to see how you're winning the debate, why that's true (warrant), and what that means for the round/value debate (impact). I'm a very flow oriented judge, and I flow on my computer. As such, it is difficult to lose me on the flow...with some exceptions. The best debaters know how to help the judge navigate the flow, and understand that proper labeling and communicating with the judge are essential towards that end. Crystallization helps, but you shouldn't resort to rehashing your argument at the end of a speech simply to fill up time. The state of value debate in Lincoln-Douglas is, in a word, defunct. 90% of the values at present are morality (or a permutation, such as moral permissibility), and the debates are taking place largely about what type of morality we're using and the advantages/disadvantages of each. You are certainly welcome to use another value; however, if you are going to offer justice, orsocial welfare, or something of that nature, it should be clearly demarcated from morality (uniquely good or valuable). Arguments for why 'your value should be preferred' should be considerably more substantial than, say, 'life is a prerequisite for morality!' if you wish them to be taken seriously in the round. Link into your standard, or give me clear weighing and re-emphasis of your standard in your final speech! You don't need to constantly reference it, but it should be brought up at some point. Theory and weird args are fine; in fact, I enjoy interesting philosophical viewpoints a great deal, provided they are warranted and clearly argued. I think that processual debates can be very intriguing, and consider theory to be either a check on abuse or kritik of the current debate round (perhaps the other person being deliberately obfuscating, etc). I consider RVIs a de-facto option for the affirmative, though the negative can certainly present arguments for why the affirmative doesn't get an RVI. The threshold for winning an RVI, though, is extremely high. I'm not certain that going all-in on an RVI in front of me is an effective strategy, and I find that debaters are better served by utilizing imeets or counter interps to handle theory. I've found that a lot of the theory debates can become very unclear for a judge to evaluate on solely, so if you don't think you can convincingly win on theory, I recommend not trying for the (2AR) RVI. Getting a 30: speak clearly (not necessarily slowly, but I expect above-average intelligibility), don't make drops (or be incredibly efficient with cross applications), use all your speech time, and, most crucially, THOROUGHLY DOMINATE YOUR OPPONENT.I don't care that much about your body language (eye contact, inflection, etc. are good to have but I'm not going to punish you beyond speaker points on what may be simply bad habits), but I do care that you speak intelligibly, whether it's ludicrously fast or unbelievably slow. Being courteous is very important.

Josh Petersen - Tahoma High

Kaelyn East - Gig Harbor

My name is Kaelyn and I did LD for 3 years in high school and have been judging and coaching for past 5 years.    I will look at the round based first by the framework (value and criterion) that is set by the affirmative. The affirmative should be using this value and criterion as a way to prove that the resolution is true and support this with evidence. The negative must then either provide a counter framework to prove why the resolution is not true, or prove why the resolution is not true under the affirmative's framework. If the affirmative cannot prove the resolution to be true or the negative provides more persuasive evidence against the resolution then I will negate. I am open to other ways to weigh the round if both debaters agree on this during the round.   Other aspects to keep in mind:   I am basically going to be deciding who wins the round by looking at the key framework in the round (whichever is established as the most supported framework in the round) and looking at my flow to see which side has the most arguments on the flow that support that framework.    I am in general looking to see the big picture at the end of the debate, I do not want to decide the round based on details of definitions or small semantics. I prefer have bigger impacts linked back to the framework.  Delivery: I am fine with speed but like tags and important information to be read slower. I will say clear if I can't understand the speed.  I do have a basic understanding of some policy arguments like topicality, theory, DAs, Ks. However, I do not find it to be the most persuasive way to win a round. I generally find most such arguments to be distracting from the focus and not well supported. They are not the most persuasive way to win a round in my opinion, but I will look at them if they are clearly explained and well supported.  Overall, I am looking for clarity,

Ken Nichols - Interlake

Kevin Davison - Bear Creek

For Lincoln Douglas I'm a traditional LD judge: I vote off the Value and Value Criterion primarily, moving to contention level arguments supported by reasoning and evidence.  I am not tabla rasa, so RA's will have to pass a reasonable amount of scrutiny, but can be won off of if deemed reasonable.  Keep out of definitional debates.  I don't like spreading, and will vote against it in favor of a well reasoned argument as listed above.  If both competitors spread, I will default to the weighing mechanism listed above For Public Forum I feel it should go without saying that Public Forum should have no paradigms.  But in case that is not sufficient, I vote off a simple cost-benefit analysis, with neither side gaining presumption.  I look primarily to the contentions between well warranted and articulating a reasonable position.  I favor a warranted argument over a non-warranted argument.  I will accept review of evidence, visuals, etc.  Debaters may try to provide an alternative weighing mechanism, but it must set a reasonable standard.  Please keep it to the spirit of the type of debate.

Kimberly Hartman - Mt Si

Leslie Van Baak - Bear Creek

Linan Tong - Interlake

Lisa Weber - Newport

Lisa Leibfried - Eastside Catholic

I am an assistant coach at Eastside Catholic (Sammamish, WA). I competed in LD for Sammamish High School (Bellevue, WA) 2010-2012 mostly on the WA circuit, and a couple national circuit tournaments. My Ballot/Paradigm - Please explain to me what you are winning, why, and why it means you should win the round. All arguments will be evaluated through whichever framework is winning at the end of the round. It’s your job to do weighing, layering and explaining of impacts to me under the framework(s) and give a very clear impact calculus. There are no particular arguments I do not like to hear. I will never vote for a side with a thesis argument I don’t understand so feel free to use stories and analogies to help me understand.  Speed/Clarity - Start slowly and build up speed so my ears can adjust. Slow down on tags and cards. Put space between a tag and a card. If you are too fast I will stop flowing. Please enunciate. Please signpost. Clarity must never be sacrificed for speed. Extensions – Every single extension must have a clear warrant and impact! Theory - This should only be used if there is extreme abuse. I’m not super well-versed in theory, so it might be in your best interest to avoid it. I would rather see substantive debates. If you are going to run theory, please don’t do it at lightening speed. Cross-ex – I listen to cross like any other speech. Being intentionally unclear or rude during cross-ex will lower your speaks. Critical arguments - This area is not my forte, meaning you will have to be extra clear and explain exactly how the argument functions in the round and what I should do with it. Speaks - I look for things like clarity, persuasion, and composure. Speaks will go down for: being offensive/disrespectful/rude, being a jerk in cross-ex, and ignoring me after I call out “clear” twice.  If there is anything you want more detail on or isn’t covered here, please ask me before round. Have fun J <a href="http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Leibfried%2C+Lisa">http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Leibfried%2C+Lisa</a>

Margeaux Lippman Hoskins - Ingraham

Don't ask me what my "paradigm" is - few things annoy me more than that question. It makes it seem like what the judge *wants* is somehow more important than what the debaters should get out of the round. That's not how I roll. Make your arguments, give them warrants, explain them well.  If you have specific questions, I'll be more than happy to answer. Two caveats: 1) Racist, homophobic, sexist language (and their ilk) = automatic 20 on your speaks. 2) Don't be a jerk.

Mary Orlosky - Cedar Park

n/a

Mary Orlosky - Cedar Park 2

n/a

Max Brady-Hoover - U-High

n/a

Mr Wang - Newport

n/a

Mrs Chao - Newport

n/a

Nicki Klimisch - Bear Creek

n/a

Peter Chen - Interlake

Peter Lukevich - Bishop Blanchet

n/a

Rashmi Dave - Interlake

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>

Sam Normington - U-High

n/a

Sarajane Powell - Tahoma High

Scott Farrell - Cedar Park 2

n/a

Scott Mercer - Tahoma High

Selina Vergel - Cedar Park

n/a

Shelly Casale - Bear Creek

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>

Tim Pollard - Gig Harbor

Hi. I’m Tim Pollard. I debated two years of LD at Gig Harbor to moderate success. This is my third season coaching the Gig LD Squad. You may or may not want me to judge you. Here’s why: I think debate is a game where your goal is to get me to write your name in the space on the ballot that says “The better debating was done by ______”.  I will vote on any argument that contains a reason why that argument means you win. Arguments have a claim, a warrant, and a link to the ballot (impact).  This is interpreted by my understanding of your explanation of the argument. If I don’t understand the argument/how it functions, I won’t vote on it. If you have specific questions about your style/argument/anything else, please feel free to ask the round, or just come find me at the tournament. I’d love to talk to you. That’s the short version.  More information that you may or may not care about follows. I’m fine with speed and will say clear as many times as necessary.  Two things of note:  First, if I say “clear”, that means I am unable to flow you.  You might want to back up a few seconds to make sure I get all your stuff.  Second, I’m not the best flower in the world.  PLEASE enunciate author names, standard/advocacy/interp texts and short analytical arguments.  In a similar vein, I flow on a laptop, so I would appreciate if you paused slightly when switching between sheets of paper. I don’t think my ideas about how debate should work should affect your performance in the round.  The round is yours to dictate.  I’ll do whatever you want to evaluate it.  The caveat is that you have to be specific on what that is. This means you should be VERY CAREFUL when saying things like “this argument is excluded because truth testing” or “Use competing interpretations to evaluate the theory debate.” If you don’t explain what you mean by your term, I will be forced to use my understanding of what it means.  THIS WILL POSSIBLY MAKE YOU VERY SAD.  There is a good chance that my views on styles of arguments and what they imply are very different from what you think is obvious.  If your strategy relies on a specific instance of what “competing interpretations”/”perm”/ect implies, that claim should most definitely be in your speech. In contrast to actually deciding who wins/loses, I use speaker points as a subjective evaluation of your debating.  Did I enjoy judging you?  Do I want to see your style/strategic decisions/wonderful hair again?  If so, you’ll get good speaks.  I probably give more 30s than most judges, but also give an unusually high number of 24s.  I’m going to try to keep track of speaks more carefully this year, and will attempt to average 27.5-28.  Since this is all very vague, here’s some tips: How do I get a 30? Do something I haven’t seen before. Be clever. Be polite. Completely wreck in CX. Plz note that aggressive/intimidating != winning Make me laugh. Take risky decisions. Defend bizarre interps. Heavy Framework analysis. Collapse effectively.  OVERVIEWS.  COMPARITIVE WEIGHING. PLEASE>>> Run a confusing/dense position and politely explain it concisely and helpfully in CX. What hurts my speaks? Horribly misunderstand your opponent’s position. Being a dick. Poor organization. Claiming implications of arguments of their label, instead of their function.

2013 Eastside Catholic Invitational