Judge Philosophies

Danielle Jackson - Mariner

<h1>How to debate in front of me:</h1> <p><br /> &nbsp;</p> <h2>Speed:</h2> <p>I am generally good with very little&nbsp;speed!&nbsp;That being said, I am&nbsp;put off by debaters sitting down and spreading into a&nbsp;screen. To me that isn&#39;t what a real round should be like.<br /> <br /> &nbsp;</p> <h2>Framework:</h2> <p>Slow down and explain the function of your arguments and the burdens set up by your framework. I would prefer more simple, intuitive frameworks with simple burdens and intelligent analysis than complex frameworks that seek to preclude your opponent on multiple levels.&nbsp;<br /> <br /> &nbsp;</p> <h2>Theory/Topicality:</h2> <p>PLEASE NO!&nbsp;If your opponent is really being abusive or is genuinely not topical, go ahead, run theory or topicality,&nbsp;and while I will try to evaluate these debates, you will run the risk of me not completely&nbsp;understanding your argument.<br /> <br /> &nbsp;</p> <h2>Policy Arguments (Plans, CPs, Disads):</h2> <p>Don&#39;t do it!<br /> &nbsp;</p> <h2>Misc. Off-case Positions:</h2> <p>Nope!<br /> <br /> &nbsp;</p> <h2>Tricks:</h2> <p>If this is how you plan on winning my ballot, you are badly mistaken.<br /> &nbsp;</p> <h2>Speaker Points:</h2> <p>I&nbsp;give between&nbsp;25&nbsp;and&nbsp;30.&nbsp;<br /> &nbsp;</p>


Abdul Memon - Interlake

n/a


Alex Nulman - Tahoma High

n/a


Alex Sapadin - Interlake


Amy McCormick - Tahoma High


Brenton Bennett - Ingraham


Brian Young - Tahoma High

n/a


Cheryl Mazurek - Snohomish

n/a


Daniela Hodeg - Kamiak

n/a


Doug Rushing - Snohomish

n/a


Elisabeth McKeen - Anacortes HS

n/a


Emma Williams - Kamiak

n/a


Erin Gibson - Anacortes HS

n/a


Helen Gold - EWHS

n/a


Hunter Gabel - Kamiak

n/a


Ian Lister - Orcas High Scho

n/a


Jack Tang - BHS

n/a


Jacob Zerby - Kamiak

n/a


Jane McCoy - ECHS


Jenny Hsu - Interlake


Jerry Song - BHS

n/a


Joan Pedrick - Orcas High Scho

n/a


John Julian - Bear Creek

n/a


John Mercer - Tahoma High


Jon Fedele - Kamiak

n/a


Joseph Hyink - PCCS

n/a


Karen Rossman - Redmond


Kathy Chace - SWHS

n/a


Katie Blaine - Orcas High Scho

n/a


Kaveh Dilmaghani - Tahoma High


Kaylee McElroy - Kamiak

n/a


Kelley Kirkpatrick - Mount Vernon

<p>I was formerly a policy debater... but now find myself mostly coaching Lincoln Douglas debate!&nbsp;&nbsp; I am open to any type of argument as long as it is clearly explained and well argued.&nbsp;&nbsp; Speed isn&#39;t normally an issue... and I do verballly let debaters know when I am finding them unclear.&nbsp;&nbsp;</p>


Kimberly Frost - EWHS

n/a


LAURA LIVINGSTON - BUDC

n/a


Lesly Lam - Redmond


Linda Zhang - BHS

n/a


Lisa Weber - Interlake


Mary Orlosky - Snohomish

n/a


Matt Fitgerald - Kamiak

n/a


Melissa McPhaden - Mount Vernon

n/a


Meredith Stephens - Snohomish

n/a


Mike Fitzgerald - Kamiak

n/a


Natalia Munoz - Kamiak

n/a


Natalie Young - Tahoma High

n/a


Paul Rossman - Redmond


Richard Sundance - Mount Vernon

n/a


Scott Mercer - Tahoma High


Sophie Len - Tahoma High

n/a


Stephen Thornsberry - Redmond

<p>The following is roughly taken from the NFL LD judging guidelines.</p> <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&nbsp;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&#39;t ignore ethos and will often vote for the debater who expresses better&nbsp;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 &quot;self&quot; and &quot;other&quot; will need to be defined if they are used in a manner that is not part of common usage.</li> </ol>


Steve McCartt - SWHS

n/a


Steve Rowe - Interlake


Sunny Lee - Kamiak

n/a


Susan Truong - Redmond


Terry Jess - BHS

n/a


Thai-Hang Nguyen - Mariner

<h1>How to debate in front of me:</h1> <p><br /> &nbsp;</p> <h2>Speed:</h2> <p>I am generally good with very little&nbsp;speed!&nbsp;That being said, I am&nbsp;put off by debaters sitting down and spreading into a&nbsp;screen. To me that isn&#39;t what a real round should be like.<br /> <br /> &nbsp;</p> <h2>Framework:</h2> <p>Slow down and explain the function of your arguments and the burdens set up by your framework. I would prefer more simple, intuitive frameworks with simple burdens and intelligent analysis than complex frameworks that seek to preclude your opponent on multiple levels.&nbsp;<br /> <br /> &nbsp;</p> <h2>Theory/Topicality:</h2> <p>PLEASE NO!&nbsp;If your opponent is really being abusive or is genuinely not topical, go ahead, run theory or topicality,&nbsp;and while I will try to evaluate these debates, you will run the risk of me not completely&nbsp;understanding your argument.<br /> <br /> &nbsp;</p> <h2>Policy Arguments (Plans, CPs, Disads):</h2> <p>Don&#39;t do it!<br /> &nbsp;</p> <h2>Misc. Off-case Positions:</h2> <p>Nope!<br /> <br /> &nbsp;</p> <h2>Tricks:</h2> <p>If this is how you plan on winning my ballot, you are badly mistaken.<br /> &nbsp;</p> <h2>Speaker Points:</h2> <p>I&nbsp;give between&nbsp;25&nbsp;and&nbsp;30.&nbsp;</p>