FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Abby Hunt - Holy Names

Adam Reiche - Gig Harbor

Adante Henderson - Tahoma High

Addison Klinke - Eastside Catholic

Alberta Antoine - CKHS

n/a

Alden Wyma - CKHS

n/a

Alden Vanderspek - Mercer Island

Amy McCormick - Tahoma High

n/a

Austin Vaarvik - Gig Harbor

Ben Stemer - VHS

n/a

Benton Coblentz - AVI

n/a

Blaise Suhr - Mercer Island

Brian Coyle - Kingston

Bruce Noyer - CKHS

n/a

Carl Coken - Eastlake HS

Carrie Grief - Annie Wright

n/a

Catherine Stackhouse - VHS

n/a

Chalen Kelly - CKHS

n/a

Chris Kassler - CKHS

n/a

Chris Kautsky - THS

Connor Magee - Gig Harbor

Constance Glencoe - Ephrata

n/a

Corey McCool - Annie Wright

n/a

Dan Teimouri - Newport

Tabula Rosa, will judge on most any issue so long as it is presented fairly and persuasivley. Come from an LD background, but comfortable with speed and policy arguments. Prefer that debaters empahsize the standard/framework debate.

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

Dave Herzog - W.F. West

n/a

David Dingler - Eastside Catholic

David Harris - THS

David Owens - TBHS

n/a

David Maravilla - Puyallup

David Hancock - Puyallup

Don Hendrixson - Ephrata

n/a

Donna Bowler - ARHS

n/a

Dylan Mccarthy - Gig Harbor

Emilie Reynolds - Puyallup

Faye Wu - Newport

Hanna Diriye - AVI

n/a

Hayk Saakian - AVI

n/a

Howard Stenn - VHS

Jacob Reiter - Bridge

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.

Jamie Chevalier - VHS

n/a

Janelle Williams - W.F. West

n/a

Jason Woehler - Federal Way

n/a

Jennifer Widrig-Hodges - Trojans

n/a

Jenny Hsu - Interlake

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 Maltman - Bridge

John Doty - AVI

n/a

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.

Julia Zaglin - VHS

n/a

Julia Seidman - Mercer Island

Jyoti Bawa - Eastlake HS

Kathy Raymond - Kingston

Katie McConville - AVI

n/a

Kelli Helzerman - Mt Si

Kelly Magee - Gig Harbor

Kimberly Hartman - Mt Si

Kristen East - Gig Harbor

Lance McMillan - Peninsula

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.

Libanos Redda - AVI

n/a

Lillian Stenn - VHS

n/a

Linda Youngchild - Peninsula

Lisa Weber - Newport

Lois Gorne - Federal Way

n/a

Luke Dolge - HP

n/a

Maddy Haldeman - Eastside Catholic

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.

Mark Davis - ARHS

n/a

Martha Daman - Eastlake HS

Speak clearly with good diction.  Do not speed or I won't catch all of the arguments you make, making it difficult to be able to side with your team.  Be respectful to opponents and always check to make sure everyone is ready before starting.

Matthew Glencoe - Ephrata

n/a

Maxwell Merchant - VHS

I view myself as a tab's judge in so far as I expect the debaters to frame the debate for me.  In other words tell me where to vote and why to vote there.  I do not come into the round with a belief in stock issues; if you are going to run an issue as a stock issue, I expect excellent framework to back up this assumption.  In judging a round, I prefer that both teams run framework arguments to help frame the debate:  a lack of framework leaves the round open to judge bias and intervention.  Kritiks, kritikal affs, and theory are all fine and encouraged.  I will never vote you down based on the type of argument you are running as long as it is run well.  Speaker points are awarded based on clarity, but more importantly on who provides the best in-round analysis.

Maya Darrow - Ingraham

Meagan Lande - Kentlake

n/a

Mia Gross - TBHS

n/a

Michael Abraham - Eastside Catholic

Mrs Sie - Newport

Nalani Saito - Eastside Catholic

Nickolena Milne-Cooper - Gig Harbor

Noah Adam - Tahoma High

Olivia Davis - Annie Wright

n/a

Phillip Dunn - VHS

n/a

Piper Ragland - Kingston

Ray Lauer - Eastlake HS

Robby White - Holy Names

Royce Le - AVI

n/a

Sarah Lim - Interlake

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.

Sarajane Powell - Tahoma High

Scott Hess - THS

I expect students to have a well-documented case.  Tell me your sources.  I want strong authority, recent data, and compelling reasoning.  Presenting your own case, however, is only part of the game.  Rebuttal of your opponents' case should show strong preparation and arguments supported by equally strong evidence.  Finally, good arguments don't occur without clear speaking skills.  All speeches must be understandable, flowable, and articulate with good road mapping and impacts.

Scott Mercer - Tahoma High

Sheri Ahlheim - Peninsula

Shreya Tewari - Eastside Catholic

Stephen Floyd - VHS

Steven Denlinger - VHS

As an LD Judge, I bring the following expectations to the round: 1. Speed:  Since this is only my second year of judging, speed is still a challenge for me. Slow down on the Tags.  You can read the evidence as fast as you wish, but make sure you slow down and number your Tags/Contentions if you wish me to flow. I will never complain that you are going too slowly. :-) 2. Signposting:  This is important. Make sure you signpost clearly so that I can clearly follow your argument. 3. Links:  The link between each Contention and its Value needs to be crystal clear. 4. Topicality and Theory:  Don’t use either as a time suck.  You need to show me the abuse clearly. 5. Kritiks:  I am still uncomfortable with Kritiks. If you decide to run one, make sure that it has a clear structure.  In addition, in your crystalization, you need to show explicit links either to the opponent's advocacy or the resolution.  Don’t run a Kritik if it is just as confusing to you as it is to me. 6. Extensions:  Don’t just extend the tag and date.  You need to also explain why that card is important, and what it does in the round. 7. Crystalization:  This is the crucial part of the round.  You should be able to distill the entire debate into simple, clear voters. Write the ballot for me. 8. Tab:  I am as TAB as possible, but it is easier for me to see your argument if it is set within a classic LD argument with a V/VC structure.  I am a human being, so I am not completely objective, but I try to be.  You should know, however, that your Speaker Points will suffer if you run a morally repugnant argument during the round.  If your opponent points this out, it will become a voter.   9. Final Note:  Politeness and sportsmanship will always win you speaker points.  This is an educational event and an intellectual sport, and I want to enjoy judging your round.

Susan Lofland - VHS

Susan Mohn - Interlake

Taylor Selby - Puyallup

Taylor Reynolds - Puyallup

Theresa Turner - Kentlake

n/a

Tim Lamb - Tahoma High

Trevor Luthy - Puyallup

Trish Dolge - HP

n/a

Tyler Jensen - Gig Harbor

Vann Berryman - Gig Harbor

Wendie Yeung - Eastlake HS

Wendy You - Interlake

Yotam Bentov - Mercer Island

Zach Maghirang - Puyallup

Background: In the process of helping revive the University of Washington Policy Debate program 3 years debating policy at Puyallup High School 4th in the Washington State tournament two years in a row, along with breaking at the Whitman tournament all three years Overview: I’ll default to policy-making if no framework is presented, but with that being said, I’ve run my fair-share of performance AFFs and the K so I’m prepared to listen to anything. You could say I’m tabula-rasa, but of course everyone has certain ideas about thing. Realize that no matter what position you decide to run, I want it to be clearly developed and in-depth, not just buzzwords and blippy cards. Do what you do best! Things to know: - I can flow your speed as long as you’re clear and I appreciate if you’re organized. - I’ve only judged one tournament on the topic so far, so don’t expect me to know your AFF that’s about some contrived acronym like SGURY. Make reference to what you mean at least once, so I know what you’re talking about. - My facial expressions are usually a good clue to see if I understand what you’re saying. - Tag team is cool just don’t overwhelm the person who’s supposed to be cross-exing - Prep stops when you take the USB drive out of the computer. Let me know if you are having issues. - I enjoy short, concise overviews before your speech. - Most cases I reject the arg, not the team, unless there is a VERY compelling reason. - Be nice. I like nice people. Specific Positions: AFF: - If performance, explain why you’re performance is important and how it relates (or why it doesn’t) to the topic. - Use your evidence from the 1AC, it’s there for a reason. - 2AR should tell me where I should vote and why, and then go on to explain further why they win and respond to the NEG's arguments. NEG: - Very similar to the AFF - 2NR should tell me where I should vote and why, and then go on to explain further why they win - I enjoy impact analysis. - Narrow yourselves down to a few positions by the end of the debate, don’t spread yourselves thin and go for too many positions in the end. - Condo’s cool within reason. 5 CPs, and 3 Ks is probably abusive.   Topicality: - Fun fact: I was awarded “Topicality Whiz” at the Whitman Debate camp. - THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I WILL AUTOMATICALLY VOTE ON T, if fact, I probably have a pretty high standard here. - Explain why your standards are better than theirs and how they improve debate. AFF, respond in the same way. - Make sure you explain why I am voting for fairness and the real-world impact it brings, not just “T is a voter for Education and Fairness” - I can be convinced to look at T from both competing interpretations and reasonability, though I’ll probably default to reasonability if there’s no argument for competing interps. DAs: - Impact comparison - Links are necessary - Yeah, they’re cool. CPs: - Explain the Net Benefit! - I’d prefer it if discussions of textual vs. functional competition weren’t brought up - However, theory against Consult, Process, and Conditions CPs is very welcome Kritiks: - Clearly explain all parts of your K, but especially explain how the K links to the AFF, and how your alt solves. - Don’t group perms, each should be answered specifically. Watch out for the “Perm: do the plan then the alt in all other instances.” - I like overviews explaining the K, but more than 1-3 minutes and it’s getting excessive. All in all, I’ll evaluate the round to the best of my ability! I know that I can be a bit unclear or confusing, so if you have any paradigm questions, or questions about my decision, please ask before and/or after round. You’re welcome to email me at Zmaghirang52@gmail.com as well!

zoe pollard - Gig Harbor

Hi there, I'm Zoee Pollard and I debated for Gig Harbor for 3 years. I enjoy framework heavy debate but will vote on any argument as long as it is warranted and  clearly explained and extended. Voters are always a good idea. Creativity is a nice breath of fresh air from your boring standard stock cases.  You're the debater, as long as you are speaking intelligibly, there shouldn’t be a problem with what you run. I'm a bit rusty on speed so please try to be clear and try to stay under 300.  Specific arguments: Please run things that you understand and can make others understand. If you can, be funny but please don't be rude. If you're crazy unclear I will stop flowing. And that's what I got.

2012 Gig Harbor Invitational