FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Gardner-Davis - CKHS

n/a

Parent 1 - Kingston

Aaron Krueger - Peninsula

Adam Reiche - Gig Harbor

Albert Fryatt - Kentlake

n/a

Alec Dionne - Peninsula

Alex Ong - Federal Way

n/a

Alexandra Filutowski - Gig Harbor

Alexis Knopp - Emerald Ridge

n/a

Alisa Liu - Interlake

Amy Qin - Interlake

Amy McCormick - Tahoma High

Andrea Dunnavant - Lakes

n/a

Andrew Rose - Gig Harbor

Anisha Vora - Annie Wright

n/a

Anne Holmdahl - Eastlake HS

n/a

Bekii Malcolm - Emerald Ridge

n/a

Ben Yan - Newport

n/a

Ben Aguilar - Gig Harbor

Brea Schultz - Puyallup

Brian Coyle - Kingston

C.J. Queirolo - VHS

n/a

Callan Foster - VHS

n/a

Carl Coken - Eastlake HS

Caroline Wright - Puyallup

Carrie Walker - Kamiak

n/a

Cesar Bernal - NKHS

n/a

Chalen Kelly - CKHS

n/a

Chris Kassler - CKHS

n/a

Claire Ahl - Kingston

Colleen Malcolm - Emerald Ridge

n/a

Connor Mildenberger - Puyallup

Corey McCool - Annie Wright

n/a

Cori Young - Bridge

Dana Batali - Bridge

Darby Lowney - NKHS

n/a

David Moore - Kentlake

n/a

Don Davis - Newport

n/a

Don Garnand - Kamiak

n/a

Dylan Jensen - Peninsula

Dylan Lasher - Kentlake

n/a

Dylan Mccarthy - Gig Harbor

Eileen Sheats - Federal Way

n/a

Elton Peace - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

Fiona Cleary - Tahoma High

Frazier Williams - Annie Wright

n/a

Gabriella Bulman - Lakes

n/a

Glenda Braun - Trojans

n/a

Guy Bashkansky - Newport

n/a

Hannah Lee - BC ACADEMY

Heather Selby - Gig Harbor

Jabari Barton - Tahoma High

Hallo, I did LD for the last 4 years so I am capable of understanding progressive arguments. What I really want you to do is to explain things very, very well to me because even if you completely win the argument and I don't understand it, then I can't evaluate it. So that burden is on you. My face often tells you what I think about the argument (nodding, smiling, quesetioning look etc.) so it is beneficial to look at me every now and again. If you win the framework (especially the standard) then you have a significantly higher chance of winning the round. Make clear extensions and please for the love of god impact back to whatever standard we are looking to in the round. As for speed, I can handle fairly fast speed but once it goes over the top then it will be significantly more difficult for me to get the arguments down. So it's probably beneficial for you to not go top speed in front of me. Lastly, have fun and stuff ^_^

Jack Mcgougan - VHS

n/a

Jacob Durrance - Puyallup

Jadon Frier - Peninsula

Jake Nelson - Gig Harbor

James Liu - Newport

n/a

James Wu - Newport

n/a

Janelle Williams - W.F. West

n/a

Jason Woehler - Federal Way

n/a

Jennifer Williams - Kamiak

n/a

Jessica Jiang - Interlake

Joah Jablon - Federal Way

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.

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.

Josh Plumridge - Holy Names

Topicality You can of course win a t arg without collapsing down to only t in the 2nr, but it would greatly help if you didn't go for four things in the last speech. I kind of love T when it's run with care, with love - when it's not just an excuse to spread the 2ac, when the standards/impacts debate is fleshed out, when it's made clear why the aff interpretation of the res sets a bad precedent for debate.  Kritiks  It seems the most common ks this year are critiques of colonialism/empire and ks whose intellectual roots are found in psychoanalysis or something a little more obscure. Please don't run the latter unless you know what you're talking about. It cheapens the activity and the subject matter.  Counter plans  I like them a lot. Especially clever PICs. I really hope the cp debate doesn't devolve into walls of blippy theory. I actually like theory a lot, but only if it's advanced coherently, rather than in some silly glib manner.  Stylistic notes I like speed as long as you're clear. Duh. Please don't be cocky or disrespectful to the other team. It has never helped someone win. You will probably not win on "a dropped arg is a true arg" unless you heavily impact that drop.  I'm not going to say I'm a policy maker or tabula rasa. Both are literally false for almost every judge on the circuit. The more you create your own voting hierarchy and offer compelling impact analysis, the less likely it is that I'll have to intervene. Finally, I obviously prefer offense versus defense, but I also believe in curtailing the hegemony of risk analysis in debate. Sometimes the 2ac reads an impact takeout instead of a turn, and it's a 100% takeout.

Juan Xu - Eastlake HS

n/a

Julia Zaglin - VHS

n/a

Jyoti Bawa - Eastlake HS

Katharine Ross - Holy Names

Katie Haynes - Ike

n/a

Kenneth Bisbee - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

Kevin Zhu - Interlake

Kimberly Hartman - Mt Si

Kirill Volkov - Jefferson

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.

Liam Donnelly - Puyallup

<a href="http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Liam+Donnelly">Liam Donnelly</a> This philosophy is organized in order of importance, and underlined like a card would be, where you probably only need to read the underlined sections unless you're oddly interested (exception: this sentence). 13-14 season: I am a first year college debater at the university of puget sound and debated 4 years in HS (ndca elims my senior year) overall: You can do whatever. I flow, and my flow matters a lot in my decision. I also hold your arguments to a particularly high threshold in terms of your explanations of their warrants and implications. I think that I am in the tech>truth camp, but not by much. You need to explain and implicate your arguments well for them to have any effect on my decision, and having those explanations and implications be well-grounded in your research materials is fairly important, especially in closer debates where my decision process usually involves reading evidence and comparing it to the way your arguments are explained. More important, though, is the chart of engagement that occurs in the debate (the flow)--as evaluating "engagement" is, in my opinion, the most objective way of evaluating debate. Put another way, tech frames the way i approach the "truth" of the debate (I think "truth" in this context is code for "credibility given the research and communicative clarity presented in the round"). I am unlikely to make a decision that is completely based in the evidence read in the round--the way you explain it is more important--but your evidence still makes a difference.  General leanings (basically just a longer explanation of the above paragraph): 1. Win an arg, any arg, and a reason it wins you the debate and you will win the debate. I don't understand judges that say that arguments shouldn't be allowed in debate, or that they have a higher threshold for certain arguments--if you can't explain why a bad argument is bad, then me doing that work for you corrupts the educational value of this activity. I love that this activity is set by the debaters, and not by a judge, and will abide by that in making a decision. I think that debate is characterized by competing principles of logic. That is, i think that the reasoning behind my decision should be based in "truth" given the micro logic as determined by the "tech" of the debate. 2. I will flow you and I will flow you well. This is not negotiable. I will use my flow to make the decision and evidence doesn't matter to much to me. Often ev questions are important, depending on what arg it is, but I always start by evaluating ways that the arguments were framed by the debaters, the warrants that were extended by debaters, and the comparisons that were made in the round. I will flow as much of the evidence as I can understand, too, which is a reason why sometimes going slow and being clear is important. 3. I have to understand something to vote on it. I have to understand why it is true, I have to understand why it means anything to me. The threshold of "understanding" is kind of arbitrary, but blippyness should be avoided. Essentially, you need to have a warrant for your argument, and I probably have a higher threshold for warrants than most judges do. 4. I think there can be zero risk, but usually only when an argument is dropped, not answered using a complete argument, or when an argument conceded elsewhere in the debate implicates it. I don't really utilize micro-logic in my decision making--as a matter of fact, I try to avoid using it--as debate is a communicative activity.  5. Before eval'ing the substance, I usually evaluate theoretical issues and framing issues. For the purposes of the decision, I think that these shape the way substance is decided. In a K debate, for example, the negative winning that methodology should be evaluated first means that i evaluate the offense connected to the method of the k alt v the offense off of the method connected to the affirmative, 1AC, etc. These are evaluated just as I evaluate substance--there are offensive and defensive reasons why a paradigm or practice is good or bad, and I weigh them.  6. I will only use evidence in my decision under two circumstances: (1) there is evidence comparison done by both teams on the same issue or (2) how an arg fits into the debate is not discussed, which means i need to find the truthful way that the argument fits into the debate (for example, if a solvency deficit to the aff is never impacted, i'll probably read through the 1AC to decide which advantages it takes out). I will likely call for ev in other instances, because I like to read, because I like to steal cites, because i often wonder things about arguments (especially inane ones).  Instead of talking about my leanings in debate, i think that it's more appropriate to talk about common ways I end up evaluating different debates that may differ from other judges: - CP theory debates: a lot of the time, I think theory debates are won by the impacts of different standards, and the team that is spending the most time impacting those standards will probably win the debate. It doesn't really matter, but i'm pretty aff-leaning on virtually every theoretical question. If your CP doesn't use the usfg, I don't think it's theoretically legitimate, and if it's not both textually and functionally competitive, i'm likely to think perm do the cp is legit. You still have to win it, though. Condo is probably bad if it's multiple worlds, and reject the argument not the team is really dumb against all theory. - CP's in general: not enough teams impact solvency arguments, on both sides. If your solvency deficit doesn't have an impact, i'm unlikely to vote on it. Hypothetical: 1nc reads the states CP. 2ac says states are too bureaucratic. 2nc extends CP, doesn't answer "states too bureaucratic." 1ar and 2ar extend that the states are too bureaucratic, but never explain why states being too bureaucratic inhibits the CP's ability to solve. In this scenario I wouldn't look to the solvency deficit at all because i'm unsure how it matters. To carry the hypothetical, if the 1ar and 2ar extend the argument and give a reason why states being too bureaucratic implicates the CP's solvency, the 2nr gets to answer that reason, but not the premise that states are too bureaucratic (see #8 above). - I'm a fine judge for K's on both sides, but specificity is a must (for both sides). Shenanigans will probably win a lot of neg rounds in front of me, so root cause, floating pik's, etc are all things you should answer. Framing the debate is a must. As a rhetoric major, I am a fan of rhetoric-based K's run well, and abhor bad explanations of why a word is problematic or why rhetoric matters, as well as bad explanations of butler, taboo args, offensive args on these K's, etc. - Framework debates usually have too much offense and not enough defense and comparisons of offense. If you want to win on framework, you should play some defense against the other team's claims, and do impact calc. I am pretty good for both sides of the framework debate, and judge the debate much like any other debate, as a comparison for reasons why a particular model of debate should be "chosen." Judge choice is really dumb, and I have yet to hear a real reason why it's a good model of debate. Oftentimes, substantive and theoretical answers to theory aren't given the interaction they need to have in the debate. - DA's: You need to explain the interactions between different argument, especially in DA/case debates. This is often true in the case of "da turns case" arguments, where it often goes unspoken as to how one "turns case" argument is offensive, whether UQ needs to be won to win it offensively, whether is can function as link D, what internal links it actually takes out, and whether you have to win the link to the DA for it to interact (or if you win that the status quo has X happening and X turns the case, that means that the status quo solves the aff). - I don't reject "not intrinsic" args on face like some judges do. It's probably true that DA's like politics and trade-off are not questions of whether or not the plan is good--ie not intrinsic to plan action. Not enough neg teams challenge the premise that a DA has to be intrinsic, though. If you win an impact and a link, i'll reject the DA. - Case debates: It's goes without saying, but they're good. In a lot of debates, the 2ac and 1ar often don't spend nearly enough time on each argument. A lot of the time that doesn't matter because not enough neg's catch this and go for case d, but in rounds where they do, I am usually better for them simply because it never seems like the aff fleshes out a lot of their aff. After listening to most 2ac's and 1ar's, i generally am left with the conception that at least one of the neg's arguments was poorly answered to the extent that, if the neg spends a little time explaining it, they will probably win it. tldr, don't do embedded clash on case if you can't do it right. - T: If you don't know what reasonability actually means, please don't go for it. I'm a fine judge for T debates, so long as your standards are impacted well and compared. - Not enough teams talk about what fiat means. Too many teams assert durable fiat as the being a good way to view the debate, when it's really not a very real world or literature-based argument. This doesn't mean i'm a "rollback" hack, but i don't think that asserting "durable fiat solves that" to answer a solvency deficit is a good place to be in front of me if the other team is giving theoretical reasons why durable fiat is a bad model of debate. Speaks: Speaker Points are determined by Explanation/Warrants, tech, strategy, and, above all, evidence that you've done work. (i.e. it has to be clear that you know your stuff if you want above average pts.)  3 things that warrant speaks less then a 26.0: a lack of clarity (usually if i can't flow half your speech you're getting a 25), cheating of any sort (clipping, falsifying, etc is a 0), rudeness and saying offensive stuff (being generally snobbish and rude will probably be a point off or so, saying offensive things or acting in a way that i feel would negatively affect your opponents debating gets you a 20) liampirate@gmail.com if you have questions. I like to write things about debate, talk about debate, etc, so feel free to hmu

Lili Stenn - VHS

n/a

Linda Youngchild - Peninsula

Linda Kraus - CKHS

n/a

Lisa Weber - Newport

Lois Gorne - Federal Way

n/a

Madeline Otto - Gig Harbor

Mady Lyon - Puyallup

Maiselle Kearney - VHS

n/a

Martha Tang - Newport

n/a

Marvin Tut - Kamiak

n/a

Matt Fitgerald - Kamiak

n/a

Matthew Witek - Rogers

n/a

Mia Gross - TBHS

n/a

Michelle Kang - Tahoma High

Mike Fitzgerald - GPS

n/a

Mr Kuang - Newport

n/a

Natasha Paranjaype - Gig Harbor

Nathan Lemanski - AMHS

Nick Crain - Puyallup

Parker Graham - Lakes

n/a

Peter Fowler - Kentlake

n/a

Piper Ragland - Kingston

Ray Lauer - Eastlake HS

Rolanda Fu - Interlake

Rylee Goodwin - Puyallup

Sadie Hoffman-Miller - Puyallup

Sara Hopkins - AMHS

Sarah Willson - Eastlake HS

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 - Puyallup

Shane Rodriguez - CKHS

n/a

Shannon Luckman - Puyallup

Sierra Stella - VHS

n/a

Stan Sidor - Jefferson

n/a

Stephanie Harris - Puyallup

Steve Rowe - Interlake

Steven Helman - Kamiak

n/a

Tiffany Wilhelm - Wolves

n/a

Tom Wiley - Kingston

I majored in philosophy & math in college. I have 5 years experience judging LD/PuFo & Congress. When it comes to a judging paradigm, I follow my heart.

2013 Gig Harbor Invitational