Judge Philosophies
Aaron Floyd - Gig Harbor
n/a
Al Sanders - TAFA
n/a
Amanda Kopchynski - TAFA
n/a
Amy McCormick - Tahoma High
Andrew Chadwell - Gig Harbor
Andrew Buchan - Jefferson
n/a
Andy Stuckey - TAFA
n/a
Andy Sharp - Gig Harbor B
n/a
Bill Hollands - Hazen
n/a
Brad Benfield - Capital HS
n/a
Carmen Gale - Kingston
Cesar Bernal - NKHS
n/a
Cheri Page - NKHS
n/a
Chris Coovert - Gig Harbor
<p>Chris Coovert,<br /> Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA<br /> Coached LD: 17 years<br /> Coached CX: 12 years<br /> Competed in LD: 4 years<br /> Competed in NPDA: 2 years<br /> <br /> <br /> <strong>LD Paradigm</strong>: I have been competing in, judging and coaching Lincoln Douglas debate for over twenty years. I have seen a lot of changes, some good, some not so good. This is what you should know<a href="http://wiki.cgm.ucdavis.edu/groups/mah01/wiki/5dbc6/All_about_lego.html">.</a><br /> <br /> I will evaluate the round based on the framework provided by the debaters. The affirmative needs to establish a framework (usually a value and criterion) and then show why based on the framework, the resolution is true. The negative should either show why the resolution is not true under that framework or provide a competing framework which negates. My stock paradigm is what most people now call truth testing: the aff's burden is to prove the resolution true and the negatives is to prove it false. I will default to this absent another framework being established in the round. If both debaters agree that I should evaluate as a policymaker, I am able to do that and will. If you both put me in some other mode, that is reasonable as well. If there is an argument, however, between truth testing and another way of looking at the round the higher burden of proof will be on the debater attempting the shift away from truth testing.<br /> <br /> As far as specific arguments go.<br /> <br /> 1. I find topicality arguments generally do not apply in Lincoln Douglas debate. If the affirmative is not dealing with the resolution, then they are not meeting their burden to prove the resolution true. This is the issue, not artificial education or abuse standards. I have voted on T in the past, but I think there are more logical ways to approach these arguments.<br /> 2. I find the vast majority of theory arguments to be very poorly run bastardizations of policy theory that do not really apply to LD.<br /> 3. I have a strong, strong, bias against debaters using theory shells as their main offensive weapon in rounds when the other debater is running stock, predictable cases. I am open to theory arguments against abusive positions, but I want you to debate the resolution, not how we should debate.<br /> 4. You need to keep site of the big picture. Impact individual arguments back to framework.<br /> <br /> Finally, I am a flow judge. I will vote on the arguments. That said, I prefer to see debaters keep speeds reasonable, especially in the constructives. You don’t have to be conversational, but I want to be able to make out individual words and get what you are saying. It is especially important to slow down a little bit when reading lists of framework or theory arguments that are not followed by cards. I will tell you if you are unclear.<br /> <br /> <strong>CX Paradigm</strong><br /> I have not judged very much CX lately, but I still do coach it and judge it occasionally. I used to consider myself a policy maker, but I am probably open enough to critical arguments that this is not completely accurate anymore. At the same time, I am not Tab. I don't think any judge truly is. I do enter the room with some knowledge of the world and I have a bias toward arguments that are true and backed by logic.<br /> <br /> In general:<br /> 1. I will evaluate the round by comparing impacts unless you convince me to do otherwise.<br /> 2. I am very open to K's that provide real alternatives and but much less likely to vote on a K that provides no real alt.<br /> 3. If you make post-modern K arguments at mock speed and don't explain them to me, do not expect me to do the work for you.<br /> 4. I tend to vote on abuse stories on T more than competing interpretations.<br /> 5. I really hate theory debates. Please try to avoid them unless the other team leaves you no choice.<br /> 6. The way to win my ballot is to employ a logical, coherent strategy and provide solid comparison of your position to your opponents.<br /> <br /> I am able to flow fairly quickly, but I don't judge enough to keep up with the fastest teams. If I tell you to be clear or slow down please listen.</p>
Dylan Lasher - Kentlake
n/a
Isaiah Parker - Jefferson
n/a
Jabari Barton - Tahoma High
<p>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 (<em>especially </em>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 ^_^</p>
Jaime Holguin - Gig Harbor
<p>Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000183 EndHTML:0000005304 StartFragment:0000002721 EndFragment:0000005268 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/coov/Downloads/Jaime%20judge%20paradigm.doc</p> <p>Two years of high school policy debate, will be my fourth year of judging.</p> <p>Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and Analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.</p> <p> </p> <p>Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does need to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round.</p> <p> </p> <p>Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me the judge to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW.</p> <p> </p> <p>Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don't just tell me to reject the 1AC and that it somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get strong analysis of the warranted evidence of the neg to vote for a reject alt.</p> <p> </p> <p>Counterplan: If you show how the CP is a better policy than the Aff, I will vote for it.</p> <p> </p> <p>Theory: No matter what the theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the argument not the team.</p> <p> </p> <p>For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don't make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before the round.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Jennifer Griffith - Gig Harbor
n/a
Jim Scott - Capital HS
n/a
Jim Scott - Capital HS - 2
n/a
John Doty - AVI
n/a
John Chadwell - Gig Harbor B
n/a
John Mercer - Tahoma High
Jon Guttormsen - Curtis
n/a
Justin Dubinsky - AVI
n/a
Justin Choi - Federal Way
n/a
Kim Leach - TAFA
n/a
Kyla Barnes - NKHS
n/a
Lauren Hillard - Gig Harbor
Lois Gorne - Federal Way
n/a
Mark Smith - Hazen
n/a
Mark Davis - ARHS
n/a
Mary-Kaye Soderlind - Jefferson
n/a
Michael Scuderi - TJ B
n/a
Mrs. Bannon - NKHS
n/a
Mrs. Schauer - NKHS
n/a
Nic Ragland - Kingston
Nicole Gray - Spanaway Lake
n/a
Nikol Aquino - AVI
n/a
Paul Sealey - Federal Way
n/a
Sarah Rissberger - Capital HS - 2
n/a
Sarah Sherry - Puyallup
<p>Coach since 1996 - started team at Clover Park High School (3 years) (Coach at Puyallup High School since 2000)<br /> Competed in high school and college - Policy, LD, Interp<br /> Charter Board member of The Women's Debate Institute<br /> <br /> General - (scale of 1-10) 1=low, 10 high<br /> Speed - 7ish - 8 if it's really clear<br /> Topicality - 3 - I have little regard for T, if you are going for it, it better be your only card on the table and the violation should be crystal clear.<br /> Kritical Arguments - depends - I'm very interested in language kritiques (hmmm . . . that may be a bit of a double turn on myself), but generally speaking I have little tolerance for po-mo philosophy - I think the vast majority of these authors are read by debaters only in the context of debate, without knowledge or consideration for their overall work. This makes for lopsided and, frankly, ridiculous debates with debaters arguing so far outside of the rational context as to make it clear as mud and a laughable interpretation of the original work. It's not that I am a super expert in philosophy, but rather a lit teacher and feel like there's something that goes against my teaching practice to buy into a shallow or faulty interpretation (all of those dreary hours of teacher torture working on close reading practices - sigh). Outside of that, I'm interested on a 7ish level.<br /> Framework - 9 - I'm all in favor of depth v. breadth and to evaluate the framework of a round or the arguments, I believe, can create a really interesting level of comparison.<br /> Theory - 8ish. While I'm generally fascinated, I can, very quickly be frustrated. I frequently feel that theory arguments are just "words on the page to debaters" - something that was bought on-line, a coach created for you, or one of the top teams at your school put together at camp. It quickly falls into the same category as po-mo K's for me.<br /> <br /> Just a me thing - not sure what else to label this, but I think that I should mention this. I struggle a lot with the multiple world's advocacy. I think that the negative team has the obligation to put together a cohesive strategy. I've had this explained to me, multiple times, it's not that I don't get it - I just disagree with it. So, if at some point this becomes part of your advocacy, know that you have a little extra work to do with me. It's easiest for my teams to explain my general philosophy, by simply saying that I am a teacher and I am involved with this activity bc of its educational value, not simply as a game. So go ahead and lump perf con in with the whole multiple worlds advocacy<br /> <br /> Ok, so my general paradigm is 1.) play nice. I hate when: debater are rude to their own partner, me, the other team. Yes, it is a competition - but there's nothing less compelling than someone whose bravado has pushed passed their ability (or pushed over their partner). Swagger is one thing, obnoxiousness is another. Be aware of your language (sexist, racist, or homophobic language will not be tolerated). 2.) Debate is a flexible game; the rules are ever changing. The way that I debated is dramatically different then the way that is debated today, versus the way that people will debate 20 years from now. I believe this requires me to be flexible in my paradigm/philosophy. However, I, also, believe that it is your game. I hate it when teams tell me over and over again what they believe that they are winning, but without any reference to their opponent’s positions or analysis as to why. Debate is more of a Venn diagram in my mind, than a "T-chart".<br /> <br /> I don't actually believe that anyone is "tabula rasa". I believe that when a judge says that, they are indicating that they will try to listen to any argument and judge it solely on the merits of the round. However, I believe that we all come to rounds with pre-conceived notions in our heads - thus we are never "tabula rasa". I will try my best to be a blank slate, but I believe that the above philosophy should shed light on my pre-conceived notions. It is your job as debaters, and not mine, to weigh out the round and leave me with a comparison and a framework for evaluation.</p>
Scott Mercer - Tahoma High
Scott Snively - Kingston
Sherrie Minnick - Jefferson
n/a
Stephanie Harris - Puyallup
Tiffany Wilhelm - Wolves
n/a
Tom Wiley - Kingston
<p>I majored in philosophy & math in college. I have 5 years experience judging LD/PuFo & Congress. When it comes to a judging paradigm, I follow my heart.</p>