FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alicia Jekel - PCCS

n/a

Amy McCormick - Tahoma High

Andrew Chadwell - Gig Harbor

Bekii Malcolm - Emerald Ridge

n/a

Bill Messing - Bridge

Blythe Simmons - AVI

n/a

Brandon Renstrom - Cedar Park

n/a

Brent DeCracker - Cedar Park

n/a

C. Steve Rowe - Interlake

Carly Woo - Holy Names

n/a

Christina Glass - Bear Creek

n/a

Christopher McCool - Mercer Island

Policy Paradigm: I evaluate a round based on who wins the framework debate in round. If neither team agrees on a framework I should evaluate, then there should be a debate about whose framework is better and why. Absent this debate I default to an offense defense paradigm. From there, in-round issues (discourse, cheating gripes, etc), gateway issues, then substance. That is, of course, unless there is a debate about the order of in which I should evaluate in the round. I am predisposed towards an Aff side bias but have been voting Neg the majority of rounds over the past 2 years. This has more to do with kids running bad camp affs and not putting in the required work. It's actually been about 2 years since I've seen a non-camp cut aff. I am not predisposed against any particular type of argument, inherency, disads, k's, etc.  I prefer specific links or at least a good story about how your particular disad/kritik/theory argument links to the affirmative. Of course, that doesn't mean I'll not look at a complete set of generics. I just think that you make it a bit more of an uphill battle for yourself if you do. I also love solid case debate. I think it's a lost art.  I hate sloppy and blippy theory throw-downs and get particularly annoyed by theory debates that are never actually contextualized to the round. If this happens I'm not likely to vote for your Condo Bad block, even if you win it. Theory debates don't exist in a vacuum away from the rest of the debate. This is another way to lose speaker points with me. I'd say I'm a 7 of 10 on speed, these days. Open CX is fine. "Extinction" is not a tagline, nor is it an argument. I will likely not like your Aff or Disad if your tags are one line. I flow cards but it is not my job to decipher your argument, warrants and analysis and I won't do it. "Extinction" and then "extend the extinction impact" get zero weight with me. Do not be a jerk in round. I won't drop you for it but I will tank your speaks, which in WA, means not breaking 95% of the time on speaker points.  I like strategy and tactics to be employed throughout the debate more than just standing up and throwing a bunch of arguments out there. This entails how you work together as a team, how your arguments work together, time allocation, prep time allocation, etc. This means I like K's that have some subtlety and finesse and good PIC/disad/solvency debates most.   LD Paradigm: See policy paradigm. Most LDers haven't reduced themselves to some of the things I dislike about policy debate, yet, but I've seen it creeping in a bit (like bad tag lines in plan based LD rounds). If you are borrowing policy theory for your round, you better know what you're talking about because it'll probably annoy me.   Absent a plan/policy based LD round, I look at the Aff/Neg flows in an offense/defense paradigm.

Colleen Malcolm - Emerald Ridge

n/a

David Cline - Redmond

Dawn Omdal - Bear Creek

n/a

Dawn Shaikh - Newport

n/a

Dean Haynes - AVI

n/a

Don Davis - Newport

n/a

Dong Hui-Chen - Newport

n/a

Dylan Thomas - Ingraham

Faye Wu - Newport

Gary Peterson - Interlake

Irina Menn - Interlake

Jackson Fischer - Mercer Island

Jason Woehler - Federal Way

n/a

Jay Howard - VHS

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 Doty - AVI

n/a

John Mercer - Tahoma High

Jordan Callero - Newport

n/a

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.

Joseph Hyink - PCCS

n/a

Josh Plumridge - Holy Names

Topicality You can of course win a t arg without collapsing down to only t in the 2nr, but it would greatly help if you didn't go for four things in the last speech. I kind of love T when it's run with care, with love - when it's not just an excuse to spread the 2ac, when the standards/impacts debate is fleshed out, when it's made clear why the aff interpretation of the res sets a bad precedent for debate.  Kritiks  It seems the most common ks this year are critiques of colonialism/empire and ks whose intellectual roots are found in psychoanalysis or something a little more obscure. Please don't run the latter unless you know what you're talking about. It cheapens the activity and the subject matter.  Counter plans  I like them a lot. Especially clever PICs. I really hope the cp debate doesn't devolve into walls of blippy theory. I actually like theory a lot, but only if it's advanced coherently, rather than in some silly glib manner.  Stylistic notes I like speed as long as you're clear. Duh. Please don't be cocky or disrespectful to the other team. It has never helped someone win. You will probably not win on "a dropped arg is a true arg" unless you heavily impact that drop.  I'm not going to say I'm a policy maker or tabula rasa. Both are literally false for almost every judge on the circuit. The more you create your own voting hierarchy and offer compelling impact analysis, the less likely it is that I'll have to intervene. Finally, I obviously prefer offense versus defense, but I also believe in curtailing the hegemony of risk analysis in debate. Sometimes the 2ac reads an impact takeout instead of a turn, and it's a 100% takeout.

Jyoti Bawa - Eastlake HS

Kami Smith - Eastlake HS

n/a

Katharine Ross - Holy Names

Katie Piper - Sammamish

n/a

Kaveh Dilmaghani - Tahoma High

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.

Kiana Mohajeri - Eastlake HS

n/a

Kimberly Hartman - Mt Si

Leanne Draayer - Bear Creek

n/a

Lesley Van Baak - Bear Creek

n/a

Lisa Weber - Newport

Lois Gorne - Federal Way

n/a

Marcia Domingo - Bear Creek

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.

Matt Fitzgerald - Bear Creek

n/a

Nancy Lundberg - Eastlake HS

n/a

Olimpia Diaz - AVI

n/a

Paige Carruth - Bear Creek

n/a

Peter Lukevich - Bishop Blanchet

n/a

Peter Conrick - Redmond

Ray Lauer - Eastlake HS

Richard Lund - Redmond

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>

Sarajane Powell - Tahoma High

Scott Mercer - Tahoma High

Siri Bliesner - Redmond

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>

Steven Rowe - Mercer Island

n/a

Susan McBride - Bear Creek

n/a

Theresa Van Hollebeke - Bishop Blanchet

n/a

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.

Vicki Orrico - Newport

Will Peterson - AVI

n/a

2014 Eastside Catholic Invitational