FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Andrew Chadwell - Gig Harbor

Andysheh Mohajeri - Eastlake HS

n/a

Brent Heslop - EWHS

n/a

Cameron Root - Interlake

Chalen Kelly - CKHS

Most notes here are for my preferences in relation to LD: As a coach and teacher I believe that debate is an educational activity that supports citizenship in a participatory democracy. As such, debate ought to prioritize communication in an accessible format for all involved. Because the forensics community ought to strive to broaden our reach and bridge the gap between academic focus and the needs of the broader community, we need to maintain events that are accessible to all kinds of people. That said, I will judge competitors both on their ability to critically analyze their topics and on their ability to communicate their analysis to their audience. I love philosophy and I see LD as one of the few activities that prizes and articulates the value of philosophy in relation to politics, it is depressing to watch the LD world shrink as it moves further from accessibility to new students and to the larger community. As a judge, I value accessibility of the event to a wide audience as a means to maintain the vitality of the activity. Thus, when I ask you to avoid spreading, it isn't because I can't keep up, it is because I want the debate to be presented in a way that will make new students and families want to support the event. In the current CX style, I see the LD world fading. Please don't contribute to that pattern. I am a former LD debater, and I enjoy philosophy, so if you are cabable of running a strong resolutional analysis using philosophical underpinnings, I'll probably enjoy the round. I don't mind the use of Kritics (in fact I really like them when they are done well), but I'm not a fan of theory focused on burdens and abuse issues like RVI's. Please don't spend your precious time arguing the finer points of burden while neglecting the more significant aspects of clash in your rounds. I also find topicality arguments generally tiresome as they tend to be too focused on technicalities and less focused on the central clash. I already dealt with spread/speed by telling you that I value communication, but in case you missed it, here it is again. Don't try to spread your arguments if you are sacrificing your ability to communicate clearly with your audience. There are not many students that can both communicate clearly and spread, so you are running a risk if you spread in rounds with me as the judge. I can keep up, but often don't see the benefit of doing so... I wrote a longer philosphy on the Wiki page for judges. Feel free to ask me about your arguments at tournaments, I'll be happy to discuss the round and current resolutions if I have time. All of the information noted above is aimed toward my role as an LD judge. I am likely to be judging Public Forum or Congress due to the competitor list for our team. In Public Forum, I generally try to keep a clean slate. Look fors: good analysis, strong evidence, cost/benefit analysis, generally well formatted presentation, clear signposting, strong voters, crystalization and impacts at the end of the speech. An especially strong team will provide regional analysis and impacts for their issues that explain international connections when appropriate. I don't mind some bleed from other forms of debate as long as it isn't overly fast or jargon-filled. If you use a lot of acronyms, be careful to explain them. I change the kinds of debate I judge on a regular basis, so I'm not always as familiar with the current resolutional lingo as you are. Blipping a turn this or drop that without explaining why is generally a bad idea, so remember to explain why you think I should turn an argument, cross apply or drop it. Thanks.

Colton Smith - ECHS

I graduated in 2013 after debating for Wenatchee High School in WA. I primarily debated on the national circuit and qualified to the TOC my junior and senior year. Novice, JV, and Traditional/Local Varsity Paradigm: Do whatever you're best at or want to do and enjoy them novice times. Varsity Paradigm: I default to competing interps. Fairness is a voter, education may or may not be. Things I will not vote for under any circumstance: •Skepticism (Using skepticism to justify a framework is fine) •Framework triggers •A prioris or NIBs that are unrelated to the standard •Permissibility •Unwarranted arguments Things I enjoy: •Arguments •Util •Plans, CPs, and DAs •Perms •Impact turns •Impact defense (I believe in terminal defense and give more strength to defense than most judges) •Weighing (Debaters do not do enough of this but it will take you a long way in front of me) •Extinction first arguments •Textual advocacies •Theoretical reasons to prefer util •CX checks I base speaks purely off technical proficiency. If you are aff, make your 1AR good and you will get good speaks. If an argument is conceded you do not need to extend the warrant, just the claim. Feel free to ask me questions before the round!

Dan Miller - Interlake

Elizabeth Young - Garfield

Ian Lister - Orcas High Scho

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.

Jason Young - Garfield

Experience/Background: I debated policy for 4 years in high school (Centerville High School, OH), I did not debate in college. I started a policy team at Garfield High School, WA in 2014, and have been coaching them since then. As a debater I pursued a mix of policy and critical arguments, so I'm familiar and comfortable with a wide range of arguments. I am currently in a PhD program that is very much oriented toward critical theory, so my knowledge base for kritiks is reasonably extensive. I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual male that was educated and socialized within a Western context, which has likely produced certain subtle biases in terms of my epistemological view of the world. Judging Framework: I believe that a debate should be about the debaters, not about me. I will therefore do my best to decide the round based on arguments made by the debaters, rather than based on my own beliefs. Be clear about how you think I should be judging, and there shouldn't be any big surprises. Biases: Unless I am convinced to do something different, I will generally do/believe the following: -I will flow the round, and will give weight to arguments that are not answered by the opposing team. -I will protect the negative team from new arguments in the 2AR. This means that if I cannot connect an argument in the 2AR back to the 1AR, then I will likely give that argument less, or no, weight. -In general, I do not believe that completely new arguments should be made in the rebuttals. I also think that it is difficult for the negative to introduce completely new off-case positions in the 2NC and then develop them completely. This isn't to say that the 2NC shouldn't be allowed to introduce new off-case positions... I just think that the negative has to do a lot of work to convincingly develop such arguments to the point where I will vote for them. -I will vote for one team or the other. -I am pretty skeptical of the open source movement that seems to have devoured the activity. While I see some benefits to open source wikis, etc., I am not certain that coaches and competitors have fully considered some of the ways in which open knowledge supports certain facets of neoliberal logic, and ultimately widens inequalities (despite rhetoric to the contrary). As the coach of a new team, I find it ironic that I most often and most loudly hear open source ethics being pushed by individuals from large, well-established, and well-resourced teams. While I suppose it is nice for our team to know what arguments other teams are running, we literally do not have the research power to prep for them or the network to get necessary evidence from others... particularly when compared with the large schools. All of this is to say that I don't find 'non-disclosure' or 'you should lose because you don't participate in the wiki' theory arguments to be particularly persuasive. Speaking: Be clear! One pet peeve, especially at local tournaments in Washington: I really dislike it when debaters are only clear on tags. I'm listening to all of your evidence, not just the tag... so make sure I can hear everything! If I can't hear the evidence, then your tag was just an analytical assertion. Finally, please feel free to ask me questions before the round! I'm happy to answer specific questions about my paradigm.

Jessica Sharp - Gig Harbor

n/a

John Doty - AVI

n/a

Joshua Wiley - MRLH

n/a

Karen Rossman - Redmond

Katie Cimino - OHS

n/a

Laura Heslop - EWHS

n/a

Lily Kelly - Ingraham

n/a

Lisa Weber - Interlake

Mark Rahill - EWHS

n/a

Max Mihalic - Interlake

Natasha Paranjaype - Gig Harbor

Nicolas Wong - Eastlake HS

n/a

Nicole Gray - Spanaway Lake

n/a

Paul Rossman - Redmond

Rebeka Khajehpour - Interlake

Rhonda Nelson - CKHS

Richard Lund - Redmond

Rick Oslin - EWHS

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.

Stephanie Harris - Puyallup

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>

Steve Rowe - Interlake

Susan Mohn - Interlake

Tim Ahern - OHS

n/a

2015 Becky Galentine Memorial Tournament