FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

AJ Harmond - Central Valley Hig

Adrick Moore - Lake City

n/a

Aidan Burgeson - CDA

n/a

Alek Balasz - Mead

Alex Hoffmann - Mt Spokane

n/a

Alexis Di Sanza - Central Valley Hig

Policy: I typically prefer policy-based arguments, and do not have as much experience with kritiks. However, if that’s what you run, I’ll listen. Just be aware that I do not know the literature as well and I have a slightly higher threshold for explanation. I default to an offense/defense paradigm unless you tell me otherwise.  CX is binding. Topicality: I tend to lean aff on topicality arguments. The best way to win T in front of me is to articulate external impacts. Specific impacts are superior to potential abuse, and comparison of standards is very important for both sides. T is not an RVI. Theory: I am more sympathetic to aff conditionality arguments than other judges when the negative reads multiple conditional counterplans, especially if any those counterplans have multiple conditional planks. However, the aff has to develop these conditionality arguments throughout the round, and have a counter interpretation. Blippy tags won’t cut it. Most other theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, not the team. CPs/DAs: The more specific, the better. I tend to believe that counterplans should be both textually and functionally competitive. Even though I evaluate a round based on offense/defense, I will assign zero risk of a disad if you are substantially winning a defensive argument. Kritiks: As I mentioned, I am not as familiar with this style, but I have both seen and run kritiks, and I can figure out what you’re saying and vote on it if you explain your link/impact/alternative clearly.  Please avoid buzzwords, as I don’t regularly read much literature that is often introduced in kritik debates. LD: Do what you do best, and I will follow. Non-traditional formats are fine. I evaluate LD debates in a very similar manner as I do policy, offense is important.  Value to value clash is very important but should not be separate from the rest of the debate. I really don’t think Topicality or theory are RVIs. I have an extremely high threshold for this argument. I have never voted on an RVI and going for one will result in low speaker points. That being said, I can tell the difference between good theory arguments and dumb ones. I flow the affirmative and negative on two separate sheets of paper. You will be expected to adjust your speeches and signpost accordingly.

Amber O'Doherty - Ferris

n/a

Anne Cvancara - Oaks Christian

n/a

Anya Gumke - Mt Spokane

n/a

April Buff - CDA

n/a

Arienne Baker - Lake City

n/a

Ashley Alexandrovich - CDA

n/a

Bill Bailey - NC HS

n/a

Blake Nelson - Mt Spokane

n/a

Bonnie Carson - Mead

Bree Ferris - Mt Spokane

n/a

Brian Higgins - Wenatchee

n/a

Cara Langsfeld - Mt Spokane

n/a

Charles Manchester - Mead

Chuck Hamaker-Teals - Southridge WA

I am the coach for Southridge High School in eastern Washington.  I competed in high school debate in the 90s.  I've been coaching for 18 years.  Each topic has lots of ground, find it and bring the arguments into the round.  Be polite and kind.  Rude debaters almost never win.  I can flow relatively quickly but will punish debaters’ speaks if they are unclear or unprepared.  I try to vote on the flow, although I don't like Topicality run without forethought.  I am not a fan of the kritik but I will vote for one.  I don't mind theory arguments, I just need to be clearly told how the impact relates to what is happening in the round.   I vote on issues where I can clearly see the impact in the round.  I like clear, fast, well organized debates with lots of good arguments and lots of impacts.  When I sit on out round panels, my decisions are very similar to those of current college debaters, not communication judges.   Arguments about sources are tiresome and I am more persuaded by rationale or meta-analysis.

Collin Mertens - Southridge WA

Dave Carlson - Wenatchee

n/a

Dave Collins - Mead

I'm Dave Collins. I'm one of the assistant coaches at Mead. I debated last year at Eastern Washington University, but I've debated for a couple of other schools as well. I would be happy to tell you about it after the round, if you want. But you don't care about where I have debated, you care about my judging philosophy. So here it is. I feel the most equatable way to determine who won is to based my decision off the flow. This is where I will default. If, however, you feel that I should be a stock issues judge, then persuade me to do so and I will vote on the stock issues. Likewise for discourse, or T, or whatever. Most of my background is in critical argumentation, but that doesn't mean I haven't also voted on T. I will vote on any argument that is impacted out. Speed is fine, but a lack of clarity is not. I will let you know verbally if you aren't being clear a few times, then I'll just stop flowing. Debate is a communication activity and if I can't understand what you are saying, then you are going to have a tough time getting my ballot. I feel similiar about tag team cross-ex. In addition to being a communication activity, debate is also a team activity, and if you don't let your partner answer cross ex questions than your speaker points will reflect that. But mostly, have fun! We are giving up our weekend to be here, so we should enjoy ourselves. I've been known to give slightly improved speaker points to teams that incorporate memes into their speeches.

David Sutman, Jr. - Gonzaga Prep

n/a

David Spivey - Mead

David Smith - U-High

n/a

Dennis Hanson - Central Valley Hig

Don Hendrixson - Ephrata

n/a

Donna Herold - Ferris

n/a

Ekta Saini - Ephrata

n/a

Elliny Hiebert - CDA

n/a

Elner Parkinson - NC HS

n/a

Emily Cooper - Ephrata

n/a

Erik Strandness - Oaks Christian

n/a

Heather Kelm - Ferris

n/a

Holly Kirkman - U-High

n/a

Holly Musgrave - U-High

n/a

Ingrid LaVoie - Oaks Christian

n/a

Jackson Eubanks - Lake City

n/a

Jacob Troxel - Central Valley Hig

James Heath - Gonzaga Prep

Jay Lake - Ferris

n/a

Jazlyn Jacobs - Ferris

n/a

JoAnn Flaherty - LC Tigers

n/a

Jonanthan Moore - LC Tigers

n/a

Jordan Welter - U-High

n/a

Jordon Newton - Saint George

n/a

Judy Ritz - NC HS

n/a

Justin Peterson - Lake City

n/a

Kaitlyn Cambensy - Mead

Karly Schmitt - Mt Spokane

n/a

Kate Laswell - Ferris

n/a

Kathy Helman - Ferris

n/a

Kiersten Black - Mead

Lani Ghirarduzzi - CDA

n/a

Laryssa Lynch - Mt Spokane

n/a

Liz Bremner - Republic

n/a

Lori Cossette - Gonzaga Prep

Matt Hall - Lake City

n/a

Matt Ralston - CDA

n/a

Max Brady-Hoover - U-High

n/a

Misty Stephens - Mt Spokane

n/a

Mitsu Gonsoules - Mead

Nichole Clegern - Central Valley Hig

Nick Corr - Ferris

n/a

Pat Simmons - Ephrata

n/a

Ping Ping Zhou - Ferris

n/a

Rhiannon Kubes - U-High

n/a

Rod Layton - Mt Spokane

n/a

Sam Normington - U-High

n/a

Sam Normington - Saint George

<h2> <span style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: en-us; mso-fareast-language: en-us; mso-bidi-language: ar-sa"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: en-us; mso-fareast-language: en-us; mso-bidi-language: ar-sa">I competed in policy debate in high school and have been coaching all forms of debate the past ten years.  I traditionally judge policy debate, so often find myself preferring its trappings. Speed, topicality, kritiks, are all fine by me, use them or don't, doesn't bother me.  I will do my best to evaluate the round using the framework the debaters put forth.  I like clash, and I like impact calculus.  </h2>

Sarah Pickering - Ferris

n/a

Shelley O'Rourke - Ferris

n/a

Stephanie Crumb - Lake City

n/a

Taylar McClure - Lake City

n/a

Taylor Anne Sims - Mead

Timoteo Harper - Gonzaga Prep

Vera Stickney - LC Tigers

n/a

Will Spilker - LC Tigers

n/a

Will Gumm - Mead

Zach Culpepper - Lake City

n/a

2012 Feline Frenzy