2016 Kamiak Invitational
Kamiak High School - Jan 29-30 | Status: Completed
Judge Philosophies
Danielle Jackson - Mariner
<h1>How to debate in front of me:</h1> <p><br /> </p> <h2>Speed:</h2> <p>I am generally good with very little speed! That being said, I am put off by debaters sitting down and spreading into a screen. To me that isn't what a real round should be like.<br /> <br /> </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. <br /> <br /> </p> <h2>Theory/Topicality:</h2> <p>PLEASE NO! If your opponent is really being abusive or is genuinely not topical, go ahead, run theory or topicality, and while I will try to evaluate these debates, you will run the risk of me not completely understanding your argument.<br /> <br /> </p> <h2>Policy Arguments (Plans, CPs, Disads):</h2> <p>Don't do it!<br /> </p> <h2>Misc. Off-case Positions:</h2> <p>Nope!<br /> <br /> </p> <h2>Tricks:</h2> <p>If this is how you plan on winning my ballot, you are badly mistaken.<br /> </p> <h2>Speaker Points:</h2> <p>I give between 25 and 30. <br /> </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! I am open to any type of argument as long as it is clearly explained and well argued. Speed isn't normally an issue... and I do verballly let debaters know when I am finding them unclear. </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 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 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 /> </p> <h2>Speed:</h2> <p>I am generally good with very little speed! That being said, I am put off by debaters sitting down and spreading into a screen. To me that isn't what a real round should be like.<br /> <br /> </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. <br /> <br /> </p> <h2>Theory/Topicality:</h2> <p>PLEASE NO! If your opponent is really being abusive or is genuinely not topical, go ahead, run theory or topicality, and while I will try to evaluate these debates, you will run the risk of me not completely understanding your argument.<br /> <br /> </p> <h2>Policy Arguments (Plans, CPs, Disads):</h2> <p>Don't do it!<br /> </p> <h2>Misc. Off-case Positions:</h2> <p>Nope!<br /> <br /> </p> <h2>Tricks:</h2> <p>If this is how you plan on winning my ballot, you are badly mistaken.<br /> </p> <h2>Speaker Points:</h2> <p>I give between 25 and 30. </p>