FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam Bi - Interlake

n/a

Aidan Patrick - Seattle Academy

n/a

Alex Sapadin - Interlake

Amy Nichols - Interlake

n/a

Andrea Lairson - Bear Creek

Andrew Shin - Kamiak

n/a

Angie Wang - Kamiak

n/a

BARB GARDENER - BUDC

n/a

Bob Gomulkiewiz - Bear Creek

Brent DeCracker - Cedar Park

n/a

Carrie Walker - Kamiak

n/a

Dawna Levang - Kamiak

n/a

Derek Hanson - GPS

I competed in Policy from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and am now coaching at Glacier Peak High School. I consider myself to be a Stock Issues judge, and when Stock Issues are fulfilled, I default to Policymaker. I tend to have a low tolerance for frivolous Topicality arguments, but am more than willing to consider most based on the quality of the link and argumentation presented. Be reasonable with what you're running and I'll be happy to accommodate it I have very low tolerance for Kritiks. Many of the K's I've seen have been strange collections of pseudo-intellectual crap that tend to have very little grounding in real-world argumentation, and are designed to confuse and exclude debaters rather than promote education and productive competition. If a K is run, there needs to be a compelling reason within the round, and it needs to be demonstrated and explained in order for me to value it. Policy debate should be about policy. I'm able to understand speed, but greatly prefer clear articulation and efficient use of arguments. I highly value a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. Tell me how what you're saying is important in plain English at some point.

Diana Chinea - Newport

n/a

Elisabeth McKeen - Anacortes HS

n/a

Erin Gibson - Anacortes HS

n/a

GARY STOYKA - BUDC

n/a

Gina Su - PCCS

n/a

Glenn Garnand - Kamiak

n/a

Harneet Grewal - Kamiak

n/a

Helen Boyer - Newport

I will judge according to WSFA and NSDA rules. I am looking for debaters to persuade me using good communication skills and authoritative evidence. Communicating effectively means confidently stating your case; speaking in comprehensible and well-formed sentences (no debate lingo); talking at a rate you choose so long as you make it understandable; making eye contact with me and, as appropriate, with your competitors; and showing a deep understanding of your position by being able to acknowledge its flaws and explain why they aren’t important in the framework you are urging me to adopt. I value compliance with the WSFA Rules of Evidence In Debate 4.1, 4.2 (first time a source or evidence is used, debater is to state qualifications of author (name, publication, date of publication, and pages)); see also NSDA High School Unified Manual, Evidence Rules (in all debate events, contestants are expected to deliver, at a minimum, primary author(s)’ last name and year of publication). Your job is to persuade me with a well-constructed argument, not to beat up your opponent. Presentation is important but I have given wins to lower-point speakers. Comport yourself honorably and courteously to everyone at all times. I am a speech and debate coach. My background includes 23 years of practicing law as a litigator; law school moot court semi-finalist; English teacher; and speech and writing tutor at secondary and university levels.

Ian Lister - Orcas High Scho

n/a

Ian Klimisch - Bear Creek

n/a

JULIE CARPENTER - BUDC

n/a

James Stevenson - Interlake

n/a

Jane McCoy - ECHS

Janice White - Bear Creek

n/a

Jenny Jung - BC ACADEMY

n/a

Jim Hansen - Interlake

n/a

Joel Underwood - Seattle Academy

n/a

Jon Fedele - Kamiak

n/a

Kai Daniels - Kamiak

n/a

Karen Rossman - Redmond

Kathy Chace - SWHS

n/a

Kaylee McElroy - Kamiak

n/a

Kelley Kirkpatrick - Mount Vernon

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.

Ken Boyer - Eastlake HS

n/a

Kristi Mauck - Eastlake HS

n/a

LAURA LIVINGSTON - BUDC

n/a

Le'Ana Freeman - Chiawana

n/a

Lesly Lam - Redmond

Lisa Weber - Interlake

Mackenzie Caputo - Seattle Academy

n/a

Mary Orlosky - Snohomish

n/a

Matthew Fitzgerald - Interlake

n/a

Melissa McPhaden - Mount Vernon

n/a

Mike Fitzgerald - Kamiak

n/a

Myca Craven - Cedar Park

n/a

Paul Rossman - Redmond

Pean Lim - Newport

n/a

Piyush Dogra - Interlake

n/a

RACHEL SMITH - BUDC

n/a

Richard Sundance - Mount Vernon

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>

Sara Hyde - Chiawana

n/a

Scott Peck - Newport

n/a

Shuping Guan - Newport

Parent judge

Simone Schwartz-Lombard - Interlake

n/a

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 McCartt - SWHS

n/a

Steve Rowe - Interlake

Susan Mohn - Interlake

Terry Jess - BHS

n/a

Tessie Lamourea - ECHS

n/a

Todd Bohannon - Eastlake HS

n/a

Vicky Hyde - Chiawana

n/a

Zoe Burstyn - Seattle Academy

n/a

2017 Kamiak Invitational