FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam O'keefe - Charter

n/a

Adrick Moore - Lake City

n/a

Aidan Burgeson - CDA

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 Strehle - Snohomish

n/a

Ann Nesbitt - TEC

n/a

Anne Cvancara - Oaks Christian

n/a

Annie Beck - Walla Walla

Anya Gumke - Mt Spokane

n/a

Arienne Baker - Lake City

n/a

Ashley Alexandrovich - CDA

n/a

Bev Kazmi - Snohomish

n/a

Bill Nicolay - Snohomish

n/a

Bill Bailey - NC HS

n/a

Bonnie Carson - Mead

Brad Thew - Central Valley Hig

I’ve coached LD for about eight years, most significantly at Central Valley High School in Washington, and I coached the 2010 Washington State 4A LD champ. Although I don’t like the implications that often come with the phrase “traditional judge,” that is probably the best way to describe myself judging. I try to check my opinions at the door and keep it tab. However, I only understand what I’m capable of understanding, and I’m not always up to date on the most recent trends in LD. I rely on my flow, and if it isn’t on there, it isn’t evaluated. Make clear extensions as a result. I really like real world debates with logical argumentation. Framework- I work best in rounds that operate with a traditional framework. Generally this means a V/VC, but I can deal with an advantage/standard as long as you link into it. I don’t think that plans are necessary, and I don’t know that I like them because honestly I don’t hear them often enough in an LD context to really have an opinion yet. Honestly, I have reservations about plans because I think the structure of an LD resolution does not necessitate a plan, but I believe that they have the potential to operate effectively. At the point an affirmative has ran a plan, it is acceptable for the NC to present a CP. Presentation/Speaker Points- I can handle moderate speed. I will say slow/clear if necessary. I’m not used to people particularly caring about the speaker points I award, but I generally stay in the range of 27. I like hearing what a card says, and I don’t like having to card call after a round. Be explicit in your signposting. Tags need to be super clear. Don’t be rude or deceptive. Try to be helpful and cordial in round. Humor is a plus, as rounds can get stale as tournaments drag on, but don’t take it too far. If/when I disclose, don’t bicker with me. Doing these things equals good speaker points, and I’ll try to compare you to what I’ve seen recently. Theory- I’m not the biggest fan of theory debate, but I understand the growing necessity of it. Do not run theory just because you feel like it, do it because there is a genuine need to correct a wrong. You need to be super clear in the structure of the argument, and it needs to be shelled properly. I need to know what sort of violation has occurred, and I need to understand its implication. Don’t use it as a time suck. Philosophically, I’m ok with RVI’s. I default to drop the argument, not the debater, and I default to reasonability over competing interps. I don’t want theory to be a strategy to win. Kritiks- I’m not a fan of critical positions. I know a bit about philosophy, but not everything. You don’t know me though, and you don’t know how much I know, and I can’t guarantee that you can tell me everything I need to know about Derrida or Foucault in 6-7 minutes in order to evaluate an argument properly. I feel that the greatest flaw of the k is that it requires so much preexisting knowledge on the part of me the judge, your competition, and yourself to be of any substantive value in the round. Most debaters really aren’t up to the task, and even if they are, the time constraints inherent in an LD round make it tough to evaluate properly. I like the idea of a k, but in reality, it just doesn’t work. Miscellaneous- 1- Flex: You need to use CX for questions. Do what you want with your prep. Don’t abuse flex. This will effect speaks. 2- I don’t care if you sit or stand. You’ll speak better if you stand though. 3- If you are paperless, I will time flashing. I don’t want to wait around forever. 4- You should be pre-flowed before the round. 5- Don’t be smug. 6- I constantly flow. I generally flow by hand. If I stop flowing, it means I’m lost and trying to figure out where you are, or that you’re going too fast, or that you’re just rehashing old material. In any case, it’s probably not a good thing. 7- If I didn’t mention a type of argument, I probably have no idea what it means. Don’t run it. Or ask me first. I’m not stupid, I promise. I just coach in a place where I don’t have to think very hard.

Bret Bloodgood - Charter

n/a

Bri Anne Miller - CDA

n/a

Brian Higgins - Wenatchee

n/a

Caleb Drechsel - Charter

n/a

Caleb Palmquist - U-High

n/a

Cara Langsfeld - Mt Spokane

n/a

Charles Ratliff - Charter

n/a

Chentel Adams - NC HS

n/a

Chris Regan - CDA

n/a

Christian Cosma - Walla Walla

Christina Beckwith - Republic

n/a

Constance Glencoe - Ephrata

n/a

Corrine Schmidt - Ferris

n/a

Darby Swanson - PHS

When I judge a debate I am looking for well constructed and supported cases.  I also want to see clash that is logical and directed toward the specific issues that are being debated rather than a generic argument that students use on a regular basis regardless of what their opponents have brought to the table, a sort of "one argument fits all brief."

Dave Carlson - Wenatchee

n/a

Denis Hanson - Central Valley Hig

Derek Slaughter - NC HS

n/a

Don Hendrixson - Ephrata

n/a

Doug Stephens - TEC

n/a

Drew Hillman - Ike

n/a

Elliny Hiebert - CDA

n/a

Gabrielle Zigarlick - Republic

n/a

Garrett Lawson - TEC

n/a

George Burgess - Walla Walla

Gina Peterson - Oaks Christian

n/a

Gordy Reynaud - liberty Bell

n/a

Grace Otto - Ike

n/a

Holly Musgrave - U-High

n/a

Ingrid LaVoie - Oaks Christian

n/a

Jackson Eubanks - Lake City

n/a

James Heath - Gonzaga Prep

Jayden Requena - Lake City

n/a

Jazlyn Jacobs - Ferris

n/a

Jean Tobin - Walla Walla

This is my 7th year coaching LD debate. I am familiar with the topics when I judge but not always prepared for unusual arguments, so be sure to clearly explain link/impacts if the argument is outside the norm. I'm comfortable with speed. I will say "speed" if you are speaking too fast for me to flow or understand. I am relatively new to theory arguments, so you should probably slow down on them and make sure they are not too blippy. I'm like logic and consider debate to be a game so theory (especially T) is interesting to me but I don’t like to punish people for their arguments. I prefer it if theory impacts make sense and are logical in the round - such as drop the argument, as opposed to drop the debater. However, that is only my default position. If you argue drop the debater well in the round, I will vote on it. I don't like sexist or racist arguments and I won't vote for them if they are obviously offensive, even if they are dropped.  I try not to make arguments for debaters. Your arguments should be well supported and explained. It is your job to explain the argument in a way that is straight forward and clear. In particular, I do not like extremely odd value/criteria debates where the evidence seems designed to confuse, not explain. And if you are not able to clearly explain your value/criteria/k in c-x, I will not vote for it. I value debaters understanding each other's arguments and responding to them effectively - I see a lot of discussion about disclosure as it applies to evidence but not much about honest disclosure in c-x.  I do convey my opinion on arguments through facial expressions - so if I think you are spending too much time on an argument I will show that visually and if I like an argument I will show that visually. I will vote on value and criteria arguments, but I love case arguments that have clear impacts that relate back to value and criteria. I like impacts to be identified and weighed in final arguments. I'm much more a policy judge than a traditional LD judge.  I do view debate as a game, I'm open to most arguments, I think debate is fluid and debaters are allowed to define and create the game as they go so long as their support for doing so is strong and valid. However, I don't like rudeness. Overwhelmingly for me that is defined as a debater responding to another debater (or more rarely, me) in a condescending manner. But rudeness only affects your speaker points. I like clear, consice, fast, organized debating. I think I generally give higher speaker points (I feel bad when I go below a 27 and will usually give a 30 at least once a tournament). I don't need tons of persuasion vocally - it isn't a performance, but I love and reward clear, intellectual persuasion with high speaker points.

Jeanette O'Keefe - liberty Bell

n/a

Jeni Leidenfrost - Moscow HIgh

n/a

Jenni Kevis - Snohomish

n/a

Jennifer Zbyszewski - liberty Bell

n/a

Jessica Pederson - OHS

n/a

Jodi Fitzgerald - Wenatchee

n/a

Joe Engel - Gonzaga Prep

n/a

Jon Bagby - TEC

n/a

Jon Furbee - Charter

n/a

Jonanthan Moore - LC Tigers

n/a

Jordan Welter - U-High

n/a

Josh Hitchens - NC HS

n/a

Judy Ritz - NC HS

n/a

Julie Trail - Moscow HIgh

n/a

Justin Peterson - Lake City

n/a

Justine Bunch - CDA

n/a

Katie Haynes - Ike

n/a

Kenn Nesbitt - TEC

n/a

Kenneth Bisbee - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

Kevin Zollman - Charter

n/a

Kris Morehouse - LC Tigers

n/a

Kristi Baker - PHS

Lane Winsor - PHS

Lani Ghirarduzzi - CDA

n/a

Laryssa Lynch - Mt Spokane

n/a

Lindsay Oden - Lake City

n/a

Liz Bremner - Republic

n/a

Lori Cossette - Gonzaga Prep

Maegan James - Rogers

n/a

Maiya Jeffers - U-High

n/a

Margot Cioccio - TEC

n/a

Mark Wenzel - liberty Bell

n/a

Mark Stenzel - Mt Spokane

n/a

Martin Trail - Moscow HIgh

n/a

Matthew Glencoe - Ephrata

n/a

Max Brady-Hoover - U-High

n/a

Megan Cox - Lake City

n/a

Megan Vujica - GPS

n/a

Michael Hightower - Moscow HIgh

n/a

Michael Cruz - Snohomish

n/a

Michael Cooper - OHS

n/a

Mike Stovern - Mead

I will follow my flow fairly closely, and I consider drops concessions, but please don't tell me that what your opponent dropped is a voter. Instead, tell me about the impact of that concession. Primarily, I will make my decisions based upon the quality of your voting issues when they are filtered through your value/criterion. Please give me voters that show impact and demonstrate an effective use of how your criterion upholds your value. Show me what the world is like under the side of the resolution that you are defending. I am willing to vote on anything as long as you can support it, or your opponent doesn’t discredit it.   Your criterion should serve as a weighing mechanism and a means to uphold your value. All contentions should uphold your value unless you have a contention with the purpose of showing how the opposing side is immoral/impossible. Rebuttals should have no new evidence.   Remember to roadmap and signpost. Feel free to speak quickly, but slow down on tag lines and be clear. Be polite; you are attacking a position not a person.

Mike Page - TEC

n/a

Mike Fitzgerald - Kamiak

n/a

Millayna Klingback - Mt Spokane

n/a

Mr Sherwood - Central Valley Hig

Mrs Sherwood - Central Valley Hig

Mrs. Jentges - Gonzaga Prep

n/a

Mrs. Labay - Gonzaga Prep

n/a

Mrs. Schriver - Gonzaga Prep

n/a

Neil Kazmi - Snohomish

n/a

Nichole Clegern - Central Valley Hig

Nick Corr - Ferris

n/a

Olivia Burkett - Charter

n/a

Pam Elliott - Snohomish

n/a

Pat Simmons - Ephrata

n/a

Phil Koestner - Chiawana

n/a

Phletha Wynn - CDA

n/a

Rachel Rice - CDA

n/a

Ramona Mitchell - Chiawana

n/a

Rhiannon Kubes - U-High

n/a

Richard Calcavecchia - Chiawana

n/a

Rob Peterson - Oaks Christian

n/a

Ronique Padda - Lake City

n/a

Roxanne Burkett - Charter

n/a

Rylee Beasley - CDA

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>

Sara Major - Oaks Christian

n/a

Scott Odell - Charter

n/a

Scott Kazmi - Snohomish

n/a

Scott Menzer - CDA

n/a

Stephanie Haug - Mead

Steven Helman - Kamiak

n/a

Stravo Lukos - TEC

n/a

Stuart McCurdy - Ike

n/a

Suzanne Harris - Charter

n/a

Tammi Rosenthal - CDA

n/a

Taylar McClure - Lake City

n/a

Taylor Connelly - GPS

n/a

Taylor Stewart - CDA

n/a

Thela McCurdy - Ike

n/a

Theresa Brownfield - Ike

n/a

Torr Bonney - Charter

n/a

Tyler Kuisti - Lake City

n/a

Tyler Gestrin - CDA

n/a

Vanessa Prull - Walla Walla

Zach Culpepper - Lake City

n/a

2013 Thomas S. Foley Forensics Tournament