FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

ALAN GARDENER - BUDC

n/a

Alex Levasseur - Bear Creek

n/a

Alisa Liu - Interlake

Amy McCormick - Tahoma High

Amy Qin - Interlake

Andrea Lairson - Bear Creek

Andrew Setzer - Cedar Park

n/a

Angela Thompson - Mt Si

n/a

Angela Lee - Newport

n/a

BARB GARDENER - BUDC

n/a

Bennet Yen - Bear Creek

n/a

Bharat Juneja - Newport

n/a

Bob Gomulkiewiz - Bear Creek

Brent DeCracker - Cedar Park

n/a

Brian Young - Tahoma High

n/a

Cayla Lee - Interlake

Charles Landau - Bear Creek

n/a

Chuck Hamaker-Teals - Southridge WA

I am the coach for Southridge High School in eastern Washington.  I competed in high school debate in the 90s.  I've been coaching for 18 years.  Each topic has lots of ground, find it and bring the arguments into the round.  Be polite and kind.  Rude debaters almost never win.  I can flow relatively quickly but will punish debaters’ speaks if they are unclear or unprepared.  I try to vote on the flow, although I don't like Topicality run without forethought.  I am not a fan of the kritik but I will vote for one.  I don't mind theory arguments, I just need to be clearly told how the impact relates to what is happening in the round.   I vote on issues where I can clearly see the impact in the round.  I like clear, fast, well organized debates with lots of good arguments and lots of impacts.  When I sit on out round panels, my decisions are very similar to those of current college debaters, not communication judges.   Arguments about sources are tiresome and I am more persuaded by rationale or meta-analysis.

Conner Rice - Seattle Academy

n/a

Cynthia Tran - AVI

n/a

Daniel Koo - Bole Academy

n/a

David Jung - BC ACADEMY

n/a

David Hostetter - Bear Creek

n/a

Derek Hanson - Kamiak

n/a

Diane Vasquez - Eastlake HS

n/a

Eleanor Mitchell - Bear Creek

n/a

Elizabeth Young - Garfield

Ellen Schoonover - Newport

n/a

Emma Williams - Kamiak

n/a

Eric Sanderson - Seattle Academy

n/a

Erik Uri - Kamiak

n/a

Faris Gulamali - Interlake

Hanan Diriye - AVI

n/a

Harneet Grewal - Kamiak

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 ^_^

James Wireman - Snohomish

n/a

Jane McCoy - ECHS

Jasmine Sun - Interlake

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.

Jennifer Noyd - Wenatchee

n/a

Jennifer Williams - Kamiak

n/a

Jenny Jung - Bole Academy

n/a

Jenny Hsu - Interlake

Jessica Jiang - Interlake

Joel Underwood - Seattle Academy

n/a

John Mercer - Tahoma High

Joseph Hyink - PCCS

n/a

KEVIN RENZ - BUDC

n/a

Kamen Penev - Eastlake HS

n/a

Karen Rossman - Redmond

Kelsey Chen - Interlake

Kimberly Frost - EWHS

n/a

Kristi Mauck - Eastlake HS

n/a

LAURA LIVINGSTON - BUDC

n/a

Laura Landau - Bear Creek

n/a

Madelyn Haldeman - ECHS

n/a

Mary Orlosky - Snohomish

n/a

Mike Finkle - Seattle Academy

n/a

Natalia Munoz - Kamiak

n/a

Natalie Young - Tahoma High

n/a

Neal Nuckolls - Seattle Academy

n/a

Neeru Madan - Newport

n/a

Nick Van Baak - Bear Creek

n/a

Olimpia Diaz - AVI

n/a

Paul Rossman - Redmond

Regina King - THS

Richard Frost - EWHS

n/a

Rob Sorensen - Bear Creek

I’m a traditional judge – I consider the value/criteria debate to be most important.  Your contentions should flow naturally from your VC and should be clearly and intentionally related. I’m quite skeptical of theory and kritiks, so if you want to run these, you will need also to argue convincingly as to why I should vote on these sorts of things.  I expect debaters to actually engage the resolution, rather than trying to redefine or avoid the commonsense intention of the resolution.  Don’t try to spread.  I value clarity, fluency, and eloquence and have limited tolerance for speed.  I will not vote for a debater whose case I cannot easily follow and flow.<o:p></o:p>

Robin Gage - Seattle Academy

n/a

Rupinder Jindal - Newport

n/a

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.

Sibyl Frankenburg - Seattle Academy

n/a

Stephanie You - Interlake

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

Steven Helman - Kamiak

n/a

Tanya Spoelstra - Bear Creek

n/a

Taylor Deardorf - Southridge WA

I debated for Southridge High School but most of my judging criteria come from my experience come form my colegiate Mock Trial competitions.  I am a college student at the University of Washington. Because of this experience in the trial court, PF teams would be more successful laying out cogent arguments in real world situations. Debaters, especially for Public Forum, should focus on clarity and well-warranted, logical arguments. That being said, debaters should feel free to use any really creative impacts or arguments as they like, as long as they can back it up and is somewhat believable. Real wolrd impacts play a huge role for me when I vote. Furthermore, disrespectful, overly-aggressive, and/or dishonest debaters will also be deducted significant speaker points. I expect a good clear framework or I will simply default to my personal preference for a framework. In the end, I will vote for the team who persuades me in believing that their side will create a better world or the least-worse world (so impacts are important for me). If the aff fails to provide any reason for change, and I feel the status quo is the most reasonable, then I will default to con because it is the aff’s job to create change and withhold the entirety of the resolution. I do not like to disclose unless the tournament requires to, but I am willing to give constructive feedback.

2015 4th Annual Grizzlies Forensics Invitational