2014 Gig Harbor Speechfest 2014
Gig Harbor HS - Dec 18 | Status: Completed
Judge Philosophies
Alex Ahl - Kingston
n/a
Alice Lundt - Tahoma High
Amy McCormick - Tahoma High
Andrew Piacetelli - Gig Harbor
n/a
Andy Sharp - Gig Harbor
April Emerson - Wolves
n/a
Bill Nicolay - Snohomish
n/a
Brent DeCracker - Cedar Park
n/a
Brian Coyle - Kingston
Cameron McMillan - Peninsula
Carmen Gale - Kingston
Cesar Bernal - NKHS
n/a
Chalen Kelly - CKHS
<p>Most notes here are for my preferences in relation to LD:</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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...</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>In<strong> Public Forum</strong>, I generally try to keep a clean slate. <strong>Look fors: </strong>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.</p> <p> </p>
David Moore - Kentlake
n/a
Donna Squires - Gig Harbor
Dylan Lasher - Kentlake
n/a
Elizabeth Gordon - SAMI
n/a
Emily Sawan - Gig Harbor
n/a
Haley Calderon - CKHS
Jeanne Blair - Wolves
n/a
Jennifer Griffith - Gig Harbor
n/a
Jordan Hudgens - Bridge
<p><em>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.</em><br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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 <em>justice</em>, or<em>social welfare</em>, 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, '<em>life is a prerequisite for morality!'</em> 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.<br /> <br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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.</p>
Katharine Ross - Holy Names
Katie Bergus - Gig Harbor
<p> </p> <p><strong>Years Coaching LD:</strong> 4 years WNDI lab leader</p> <p><strong>Years Competing in LD:</strong> 3</p> <p><strong>Coach or Compete in LD in the Northwest?</strong> Yes</p> <p><strong>Coach or Compete on the LD National Circuit?</strong> Yes</p> <p><strong>Involved in Other Events?</strong> CEDA policy - 3 years, NPDA parli - 4 years</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>How I decide LD Debates:</strong> I look to the framework established for the debate and weigh impacts through the winning framework. If you want to debate the value and criterion, do it and make sure that you explain how your offense filters through this structure. If you want to read a plan or if you want to read a CP and some disads, do it and make sure you have tangible impacts in a net benefits framework. If you want to have a procedural debate, do it but don't think that you reading a theory argument means that you automatically win the debate--you still have to win your arg. </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Unique Views on LD Arguments:</strong> Although I find the switch to more include more policy-style args in LD to be educational, due to the nature of LD resolutions, I think that adopting policy args isn't always incredibly intuitive. For you, this means that I will be incrementally more susceptible to arguments like "the 1ac doesn't pass a plan, so we don't cause the change that would be necessary to trigger the link the disad," etc. Rest assured: I'll still vote for you if you win your argument.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Presentational Preferences?</strong> Speed is not a problem for me. </p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Other Info:</strong> I think that you should debate the args that you are most comfortable with. I prefer progressive debate but I do not think that you should sacrifice your strengths to appeal to my interests. Feel free to ask specific questions before the debate.</p>
Kristen East - Gig Harbor
Kyle Kendall - Peninsula
n/a
Lasica Crane - Kingston
<p>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. <br /> </p>
Lois Gorne - Federal Way
n/a
Madeline Otto - Gig Harbor
Mrs. Bannon - NKHS
n/a
Natasha Dietzler - Gig Harbor
n/a
Nicole Gray - Spanaway Lake
n/a
Papa Cam - NKHS
n/a
Patty Fliege - Kingston
n/a
Paul Sealey - Federal Way
n/a
Rhonda Nelson - CKHS
Rick Coovert - Gig Harbor
Scott Mercer - Tahoma High
Sheri Ahlheim - Peninsula
Susan Ray - NKHS
n/a
Suzanne Hermanson - Kingston
n/a
Turi Abbott - Gig Harbor
n/a