FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Erkelens - TBHS

n/a

Kwik - Newport

n/a

Adrian Cohan - Mount Vernon

Alan Pepper - MRLH

n/a

Aly Hoover - Bellingham

Aly Hoover - Squalicum

LD: Kritiks, CPs, etc are fine. Speed is fine as long as clear, has a purpose in the round, and opponent is not overwhelmed. I weigh the round through the value/criterion though I do think the debaters invent the rules for the round (aside from basic structure and NFL rules) Tab judge in policy debate. Speed is fine. Theory is fine.

Amarou Yoder - Lindbergh

n/a

Andrea Dunnavant - Lakes

n/a

Andrew Buchan - Jefferson

n/a

Anne Plummer - CKHSB

n/a

Annie Green - Annie Wright

n/a

Ashley Skinner - Tahoma High

n/a

Ben Hudgens - Bridge

Bill Nicolay - Snohomish

n/a

Brenda Ortega - SWHS

n/a

Brennan Bredl - ARHS

n/a

Brittany Esbenshade - Mount Vernon

n/a

Brooke Goodell - Puyallup

Carol Kayler - Tahoma High

Carrie Walker - Kamiak

n/a

Carrie Mandt - Emerald Ridge

n/a

Chalen Kelly - CKHS

n/a

Charlie Potter - Mount Vernon

n/a

Chris Burke - CKHS

n/a

Chris Jung - Eastside Catholic

Corey McCool - Annie Wright

n/a

Corey Rapoza - Puyallup

Cory Yamasaki - TJ B

n/a

Daniel Noyes - Evergreen

n/a

Danielle Wiegel - Eastside Catholic

n/a

Dash McIntyre - Sehome

n/a

Dave Carlson - Wenatchee

n/a

David Vandegrift - Snohomish

n/a

David Natseway - CKHS

n/a

David Moore - Kentlake

n/a

David Worthen - Gig Harbor

Dawna Lewis - Edmonds Heights

n/a

Deborah MackInnon - Kingston

Donald Donn - Lakes

n/a

Donna Bowler - AHSB

n/a

Dyann Seidl - AHSB

n/a

Elaine Hall - Newport

Eli Mallon - Annie Wright

n/a

Elinor Vandegrift - Snohomish

n/a

Emilie Reynolds - Puyallup

Emma Morris - Bellingham

Eric Cahoon - Tahoma High

n/a

Eric Hare - Snoho 2

n/a

Gabrielle Wright - Bonney Lake

n/a

Garrett Heilman - Eastside Catholic

I debated for Green Valley from 2002-2005. I graduated from the University of Puget Sound where I debated parliamentary debate from 2005-2009. I have coached at Eastside Catholic since 2010. Too often I am left at the end of the round without a clear mechanism for adjudicating the round. This means that you need to do more than simply extend your standard, or for that matter attack your opponent’s standard. The best way to win my ballot is to give me comparative reasons to prefer your standard, and then weigh and impact those arguments. Weighing requires specific rationales that compare arguments, do not say, “timeframe” and move on. Similarly, I prefer arguments with specific impact stories. Without a clear standard in the round I will be forced to evaluate the impacts of arguments myself. This generally means I will look for offensive arguments that require me to do the least amount of work. Framework: Explain to me why and how your framework is relevant to the round. Pre-standard arguments are fine, but make sure you provide a rationale for labeling something pre-standard, and explicitly tell me in your first speech what the implications are. Theory: I’m a fan of using any tools at your disposal, but don’t run theory for the sake of running theory. Use theory to respond to preferably demonstrable in round abuse. If you choose to run theory please use the template for theory arguments; it just makes it clearer for everyone. Theory arguments are not a priori voting issues unless you explain why. Arguments in response to theory are generally reasons to reject the argument, not to punish the debater. Speed: I generally don’t have problems with speed, but there are some who force me to go beyond my comfort level. If that happens, I’ll yell clearer and I expect you to be clearer. If you are going to read quickly I prefer you slow down for tag lines and authors, and work into maximum speed, don’t start there. Critical arguments: I will not vote against an argument based on my personal preferences so run what you want to. If you choose to run a critical argument make sure the framework, and the argument(s) is clear. There’s nothing I hate more than debaters who run critical arguments to obfuscate the meaning of their case, and then crystallize down to some inane argument in their last speech. If you have questions feel free to ask. <a href="http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Heilman%2C+Garrett">http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Heilman%2C+Garrett</a>

Garrick Graham - Federal Way

n/a

Glenda Braun - Trojans

n/a

Greg Peszek - Sammamish

Assistant Coach at Sammamish High School, Bellevue, WA Number of Years Judging: 7 I have judged debate for years and competed in varsity policy debate in high school. Speed is not an issue but that is not an excuse to be incoherent. Debate is theater, I expect speakers to act accordingly. I believe debate is first and foremost an educational experience (even moreso at the high school level) and we are all here to learn. Secondly debate is a competition like any other: those who subvert the system or cheat aren't looked at kindly in any other competitive activity and they should be treated the same here. Policy (short version): I am a tabula rasa judge in spirit: if it is well reasoned, well presented and well-argued I will vote for it. My standards for “well reasoned”, “well presented” and “well-argued” are immensely high and even higher for atypical, squirrely or hypercritical arguments. I like to minimize my involvement in the round and let the flows speak for themselves. In the absence of strong voters my fallback paradigm is stock issues with a policy emphasis: I vote reasonability on T over competing interps (threshold is abuse), allow multiple Neg advocacies and require Aff to provide a true prima facie case. LD (short version): I am a tabula rasa judge in spirit: if it is well reasoned, well presented and well-argued I will vote for it. My standards for “well reasoned”, “well presented” and “well-argued” are immensely high and even higher for atypical, squirrely or hypercritical arguments. I like to minimize my involvement in the round and let the flows speak for themselves. In the absence of strong voters my fallback paradigm is value/value criteria: I will apply the best upheld value in the round as a lens in which to vote on case. In the absence of strong value clash I’ve been known to hypotest multiple value worlds and weigh accordingly.  Policy (long, ranting version):  Traditionally I've kept with a “stock issues with a policy emphasis” as my standard paradigm but as the years go on I find myself trending to a more tabula rasa style. This transition is under extreme protest from myself as I’ve found myself questioning if policy debate has lost its way after witnessing round after round of what could only be described as mindless critical dribble, extreme missteps by Negatives in the rebuttals and affirmative case after affirmative case that lack prima facie burdens. That said I am not opposed to critical arguments, be it critical affirmatives or Ks, though I find it extremely difficult to get over my preconceived (and empirically proven) notion that debaters running critical arguments are running them on the flimsy belief that their own extremely limited knowledge is only large by comparison to their opponents zero knowledge of the subject. Sadly, more often than not they are correct which makes for a painful, uneducational round. With that in consideration one could assume that a very well understood, presented and reasoned critical argument would run directly opposed to my disposition and thereby increase its in-round persuasion. I am subconsciously much more persuaded by extremely well organized and presented arguments, especially those that are unique, off the cuff or genuinely interesting. I nearly exclusively resort to reasonability for everything, regardless of what they are. T is a powerful argument for Neg and I’ll vote Neg on it alone if reasonability is proven. Unreasonable arguments are boring: global nuclear war is boring, world peace is boring. Give me realistic, practical advantages or realistic practical DA and I will vote twice as hard as if another “the world will end with the Aff plan” DA was run. Tag teaming speeches is completely out. I am OK with prompting (non-speaking partner saying “make sure to bring up voters on T”, for example) but this year has been incredibly frustrating with one team member “parroting” their non-speaking partner. Consider too that if you are at the point where you need to be prompted you are no longer delivering a 30 or 29.5 speech. I am more lenient with tagging in cross but cross is free prep time for the next speaker and I expect the time to be used wisely. Running out of prep time because you were too busy wasting cross time before your speech does not sit kindly with me.

Griffin Bell - Tahoma High

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>

Ian Griswold - Seattle Academy

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.

James Wiegel - Eastside Catholic

n/a

Jan Munger - Evergreen

n/a

Jane Reardon - Newport

Jedd Bingham - Federal Way

n/a

Jeff Knutsen - Renton HS

n/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>

Jenn Black - Bonney Lake

n/a

Jessica Buchan - Renton HS

n/a

Jessica Hernandez - Puyallup

Joel Underwood - Seattle Academy

n/a

John Turner - Jefferson

n/a

John Dang - AVI

n/a

John Gao - AVI

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

Joleen Periera - CKHSB

n/a

Julia Seidman - Mercer Island

Julie Jones - Emerald Ridge

n/a

Justin Dubinsky - AVI

n/a

Justin Choi - Federal Way

n/a

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,

Karen Rossman - Eastside Catholic

n/a

Kate Alcock - CKHS

n/a

Katherine Robinson - GPS

n/a

Katherine Robinson - Snohomish

n/a

Kaveh Dilmaghani - Tahoma High

Kerry Bergus - Gig Harbor

Kevin Mandt - Emerald Ridge

n/a

Kim Bozeman - Bishop Blanchet

n/a

Kristyn Cook - ARHS

n/a

LUKE DOLGE - Lakes

n/a

Lance McGrath - TJ B

n/a

Lasica Crane - Kingston

I am the head coach at Kingston High School and have been involved with the program since 2007. In judging LD: I hate speed when it affects your ability to speak clearly. I want to hear what you are claiming and I like to be able to understand and assess what your arguments are. I love philosophy so I don't mind hearing interesting philosophical arguments. I don't hate theory, although I would rather hear you discuss the actual resolution unless there is a compelling reason to run a theory shell. I'm pretty flexible really. Speed is my main annoyance. I like some clash. I pay attention to how you speak. Avoid using filler words.

Laura Dennis - TJ B

n/a

Laurie Rice - Peninsula

Leslie Willette - Bishop Blanchet

n/a

Linda Youngchild - Peninsula

Lorraine Hirakawa - Emerald Ridge

n/a

Mark Davis - ARHS

n/a

Mary Kelly Gaebel - Trojans

n/a

Maryellen Maccio - Jefferson

n/a

Matt Becker - Gig Harbor

Matt Ockinga - Wenatchee

n/a

Matthew Witek - Rogers

n/a

Meg Billings - Annie Wright

n/a

Megan Vujica - GPS

n/a

Mia Gross - TBHS

n/a

Michelle Herman - Edmonds Heights

n/a

Mike Wright - Lindbergh

n/a

Parent One - Ballard

Paul Rossman - Eastside Catholic

n/a

Paul Xu - Newport

Quilina Dorsey - Jefferson

n/a

Rachel Warren - Seattle Academy

n/a

Rainie Nelson - Snohomish

n/a

Rebar Niemi - Bridge

Sara Batayola - TJ B

n/a

Sara Hopkins - AMHS

Sarah Pickard - Snohomish

n/a

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.

2011 Federal Way Invitational