FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Mr Ni - Newport

n/a

Abbie Holmberg - Trojans

n/a

Abigail Bucklin - ERHS

n/a

Adam Reiche - Gig Harbor

Alden Sawicky - Gig Harbor

n/a

Alec Bellis - Gig Harbor

n/a

Alice Lundt - Tahoma High

Alyssa Hall - Puyallup

n/a

Amy McCormick - Tahoma High

Andre Cossette - Gonzaga Prep

I've been judging Policy, LD, and now Public Forum for 30 years or more.  I hate Kritiks that are used just to win rounds, unless they're Kritiks criticizing the state of debate these days.  They have to be read slowly for me to understand them, though: philosophy read at 400 words per minute just goes over my head (I have enough trouble understanding philosophy read at 100 words per minute).  As I advance in age, my ability to process information at a rapid rate diminishes, so if you can boil the round down to a few simple principles, then I become a thinking judge instead of a judge who merely connects points on the flow.  I like to hear evidence being read, so sometimes I'll slow down debaters when they read their cards so I can understand the warrants and not just mindlessly write down the taglines.  I have a decent knowledge of theory because debate theory rarely changes over the years (sometimes the names of the arguments change but the logic stays the same), so if you use words like "conditionality" and "permutation" and "reciprocity", I'd know what you were talking about.  And, I usually don't disclose (except for Novices who might benefit from some education), and I don't like shaking hands with the debaters after the round.

Andrew Buchan - Jefferson

n/a

Andrew McGlone - ECHS

I debated four years in high school and four years in college (2 years CEDA, 2 years NDT). I consider debate a game and judge accordingly. I’m comfortable with theory or procedural discussions. K is fine. As with anything in debate, like life I err on the side of 'reasonability' as a standard for anything if not provided a practical alternative. No issues with speed. MOST IMPORTANTLY – if you’re rude to your opponent in any fashion during the debate you WILL lose my ballot. Debate should be fun and you should demonstrate respect for your oponent. That outweighs any framework you've labored to assemble.

Andy Stuckey - TAFA

n/a

Anne NI - Newport

n/a

Annie Fitzsimmons - Curtis

n/a

April Emerson - Wolves

n/a

Austin Vaarvik - Gig Harbor

Ben Cushman - Capital HS

n/a

Bill Hollands - Hazen

n/a

Blythe Simmons - AVI

n/a

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.

Brandon Marleau - Mt Si

n/a

Brian Coyle - Kingston

Bruce Arbtin - Newport

n/a

Cameron Allen - Gig Harbor

n/a

Carly Woo - Holy Names

n/a

Carolyn Schafer - Central Valley Hig

Carrie Shaw - Hazen

n/a

Cesar Bernal - NKHS

n/a

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.

Chelsea King - Mt Si

n/a

Cheri Page - NKHS

n/a

Chris Kassler - CKHS

Chris Kautsky - THS

Colin Sackett - Ingraham

n/a

Conner Sabin - Central Valley Hig

Cori Young - Bridge

Danielle Ahl - Kingston

n/a

Dante Miguel - Kingston

I am a former debater and current student of philosophy, political science & economics. LD: Don't speed. Be courteous. Your arguments win the round, not you, and it seems that "I win because Hobbs..." is a far too personal statement. I am not here to bask in your glory. Use the same idea, just feel free to rephrase. "Hobbsian logic trumps 1 AFF because..." is a much better phrasing. However, whatever case you are running should be your own; I consider it plagiarism to share entire cases. I don't care who wrote it first, if I hear a regurgitation speech in finals, you're going last in round. You might score points on CX, but I won't count any of your case. Use real definitions, not made up ones-and hold on to them as your foundation. I'm familiar with most philosophical concepts, so you don't have to stick with only utility. In fact I'd prefer if you don't. Multi strategies utility only goes so far between aff and neg. But if you run Kantian ethics or others, I expect more to prove you know it, make it clear, and be careful of the caveats. Running alternative philosophy is about relevant moral debate, not confusing the other person. If they can prove that you didn't make it clear, you will have to clarify before winning any points. Clarity, clarity, clarity....if you can say "let me be clear" in a mock Obama tone and a straight face, you've won.   Congress: Parliamentary procedures are big...if you don't know them I suggest you brush up because you'll be losing points. I can't keep myself impartial if you aren't going to be taking that seriously. Small/infrequent mistakes are tolerable, but many are not. Call for full cycles of debate (1 aff and 1 neg is a cycle) before entertaining or making motions to table, vote, etc. Keep courteous. Use facts and science to prove your point. Don't reiterate the same thing someone else has said....again. Every person after the first is losing points at an exponentially increasing level every time they say the same thing. If you want to "mention" it to make a point that hasn't been made, that's different from making a 5 minute speech from <s>hell</s> "the underworld" that I have to listen to again. Again, if you didn't read the LD part, sharing the same speeches as other people at your school is a bad idea and you will all get marked last in round. You'll be ranked behind people not making a speech. Not being able to pronounce a word and squinting at it as you sound it out is indicative of not having written something. But if someone who is not prepared needs a speech, a "nudge" in the right direction is acceptable if you aren't speaking on the same topic. Chambers are long, humor is good.   PuFo: If I have to judge PuFo, you're all winners in my book. IE's: Be respectful and have fun with it :)

David Moore - Kentlake

n/a

Debbie Schley - Peninsula

n/a

Dennis Mitchell - Central Valley Hig

Donna Squires - Gig Harbor

Dylan Lasher - Kentlake

n/a

Haley Smith - Puyallup

n/a

Hannah Peterson - Peninsula

n/a

JD Young - Capital HS

n/a

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 ^_^

Jacob Magee - Gig Harbor

n/a

Jacob Durrance - Puyallup

Jake Nelson - Gig Harbor

James Cleary - Trojans

n/a

Jane McCoy - ECHS

Janina Freerks - ERHS

n/a

Jeanne Blair - Wolves

n/a

Jennifer Jones - Jefferson

n/a

Jim Anderson - Capital HS

n/a

Jim Dorsey - Vashon

n/a

Joe Engel - Gonzaga Prep

n/a

Joeseph Meehan - ECHS

John Clare - Central Valley Hig

John Doty - AVI

n/a

John Mercer - Tahoma High

Jon Guttormsen - Curtis

n/a

Jonah Kolar - Ingraham

n/a

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.

Joseph Hyink - PCCS

n/a

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.

Josh Carlisle - Puyallup

n/a

Justin Choi - Federal Way

n/a

Karina Whitmarsh - Peninsula

n/a

Katherine Everett - Vashon

n/a

Kaveh Dilmaghani - Tahoma High

Kayla Neal - Kentlake

n/a

Kevin Pusich - Mt Si

n/a

Kimberly Hartman - Mt Si

Kramer Hudgens - Bridge

<blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>I prefer to work off the flow, in a substantive way. I don't think mass argumentation that is quickly and poorly developed holds as much weight as focused argumentation. Focus the round for me and then tell me why specific issues are important not just that you are winning more issues. I'm fine with speed and theoretical argumentation, although I feel that theory requires more backing and a clear presentation of violation before it is valid. Clarity is key</blockquote>

Kyla Barnes - NKHS

n/a

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.

Liam Donnelly - Central Valley Hig

Lily Kelly - Ingraham

n/a

Lois Gorne - Federal Way

n/a

Madison Ruppel - Jefferson

n/a

Mariah Squires - Gig Harbor

n/a

Mariah Collier - Gig Harbor

n/a

Mary-Kaye Soderlind - Jefferson

n/a

Matthew Witek - Rogers

n/a

Matthew Rice - Capital HS

n/a

Max Stephens - Gig Harbor

n/a

Melissa Morrison - Peninsula

n/a

Michael McCormick - Capital HS

n/a

Moin Shaikh - Newport

n/a

Nick Samuelson - Puyallup

n/a

Nicole hagestad - Federal Way

n/a

Nikol Aquino - AVI

n/a

Olimpia Diaz - AVI

n/a

Paul Sealey - Federal Way

n/a

Pavielle Dawson - FPHS

n/a

Piper Ragland - Kingston

Rebecca Arnold - Peninsula

n/a

Renee Smith - Peninsula

n/a

Ryan Hartman - Mt Si

n/a

Sam Normington - Central Valley Hig

Sam Cushing - Vashon

n/a

Sara Hopkins - Mt Si

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.

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.

Sheri Ahlheim - Peninsula

Sil Hamilton - Newport

n/a

Soo Beom Kim - Puyallup

n/a

Susan Zong - AVI

n/a

Suzanne Hall - THS

I expect cases to be presented with thoughtful, thorough and critical use of evidence to support each contention. I hope for keen responses to the opposing side with clear collaboration and team support during cross fire sessions. Overall, I expect competitors to remember that this is a speaking event; strong oratorical skills, including pacing, volume, emphasis and phrasing impact my evaluation of their efforts.

Tevas Lacey-Wood - Mt Si

n/a

Thomas Bacon - Puyallup

n/a

Tiffany Wilhelm - Wolves

n/a

Timm Dowling - Gig Harbor

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.

Tyler Lincoln - Tahoma High

Yuyun Arbtin - Newport

n/a

Zach Witherspoon - Vashon

n/a

Zach Binnig - Gig Harbor

n/a

2014 Gig Harbor Invitational