2016 Kamiak Novice Tournament
Kamiak High School - Oct 15 | Status: Completed
Judge Philosophies
Abheek Chakrabarti - Kamiak
n/a
Andrew Kim - Kamiak
n/a
Angie Wang - Kamiak
n/a
Austin Szoke - Kamiak
n/a
Avindea Hansen - Mount Vernon
n/a
Brent DeCracker - Cedar Park
n/a
Brooke Burdick - GPS
n/a
Chris Poe - Kamiak
n/a
Daniela Hodeg - 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.
Eileen Burdick - GPS
n/a
Elizabeth Young - Garfield
Emily Berreth - GPS
n/a
Emma Williams - Kamiak
n/a
Erik Uri - GPS
n/a
Grayson Parker - Mount Vernon
n/a
Ines Sohn - Kamiak
n/a
Iris Zhou - Ingraham
n/a
Isaac Schuman - Ingraham
n/a
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.</br></br> 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.</br></br> Biases: Unless I am convinced to do something different, I will generally do/believe the following:</br></br> -I will flow the round, and will give weight to arguments that are not answered by the opposing team.</br> -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.</br> -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.</br> -I will vote for one team or the other.</br> -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.</br></br> 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.</br></br> Finally, please feel free to ask me questions before the round! I'm happy to answer specific questions about my paradigm.
Jason Miller - Kamiak
n/a
Jeff Giorgi - GPS
n/a
Jiamae Wang - Kamiak
n/a
Kai Daniels - Kamiak
n/a
Kathy Chace - SWHS
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>
Melissa McPhaden - Mount Vernon
n/a
Natalia Munoz - Kamiak
n/a
Pedro Santos - Kamiak
n/a
Robert Bergin - Bishop Blanchet
n/a
Sarah Forrester - Kamiak
n/a
Steve McCartt - SWHS
n/a
Zach Maghirang - Ingraham
n/a