Judge Philosophies
Alayna Becker - Ferris
n/a
Arienne Baker - U-High
n/a
Bill Wagstaff - Mead
Cara Heath - John R.
n/a
Danielle Troup - Ferris
n/a
David Smith - U-High
n/a
Gabrielle Zigarlick - Republic
n/a
Irene Beimers Kubes - U-High
n/a
Janine Koffel - Republic
n/a
Jeff Koffel - Republic
n/a
Jessica Mulhollund - U-High
n/a
Jim Heath - Mt Spokane
n/a
Johanna Bremner - Republic
n/a
Josh Zakar - Republic
n/a
Kara Walsh - Republic
n/a
Kaylee Pachernegg - Ferris
n/a
Madison Padilla - Republic
n/a
Mary Rourke - Republic
n/a
Mary Schrimshire - Ferris
n/a
Micah Sacks - Mead
n/a
Millayna Klingback - Mt Spokane
n/a
Nichole Clegern - Central Valley Hig
Paige Spraker - Mead
n/a
Peter Cossette - Gonzaga Prep
n/a
Phletha Wynn - U-High
n/a
Rhiannon Kubes - U-High
n/a
Ryan Hand - Mead
<p><strong>Experience:</strong><br /> <br /> 4 year policy debater at Centennial High School, Boise, ID<br /> 1 and 1/2 years of policy debate at Idaho State University<br /> Currently debate at Gonzaga University<br /> 2-week lab assistant for Lincoln Garrett and Judd Kimball at the GDI<br /> <br /> <strong>Cliff notes version:</strong><br /> </p> <ul> <li>I assisted a lab at the GDI this summer, I'm pretty comfortable with both the literature and arguments that exist on the topic. Last year I judged 75+ topics at tournaments from Whitman to the TOC, I judge a fair amount of debates and try to keep up with the new developments that are happening on the topic</li> <li>I like speed, people who are much, much smarter have told me that speed is not your WPM but your arguments communicated effectively. I flow on my computer and do my very best to get the tag and author of all of the cards you read, I also try to flow warrants of the cards--keep this in mind when extending evidence. I find it less compelling for you to say "extend the Brown 10 evidence" and more compelling when debaters explain the warrants of their evidence and then reference the author, that makes it easier for me to know what you're referring to if I didn't get the name</li> <li>Ideal 2NRs (assuming execution and quality of evidence): A topic critique, DA/CP, topicality, a DA and case, and lastly, a shitty uber-generic critique</li> <li>Affirmatives don't need a 'plan'. They do need an advocacy statement or an interpretation of what it means to "affirm" the resolution. I'm an optimistic person, and I think refusing affirmation is both unfair and does injustice to the potential of debate to create change.</li> <li>Flashing is prep, I time everything and your prep ends when the flash drive is ejected (use email chains when possible, they're faster)</li> <li>Be nice to each other please</li> <li>Framing and impact comparison is the most important aspect of debate, do them and be rewarded.</li> <li>Tech over truth. This may be a reflection of my frustration of what I think the speech doc has done to debate, but I think that being technical and organized is one of the most important skills that debate has to offer.</li> <li>Depth over breadth. I'm less interested in your ability to shallowly engage on a bunch of arguments, and more interested in you showing me that you have a thorough understanding of arguments that you are going for.</li> </ul> <p><br /> <br /> <strong>Aff:</strong></p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li>A few things I think:I do NOT think the aff MUST have a plan text, I think the aff SHOULD have an advocacy statement, although if an aff doesn't have a plan text or advocacy statement, I will be more easily persuaded by framework arguments from the negative team. The best affirmatives are at least germane to the topic, and are ready to defend their "link" to the topic.</li> <li>No one wants to hear you read your theory blocks at your highest speed</li> <li>I believe that the 2AR can go for impact turns to framework arguments, even in a world where the negative has kicked their framework argument; although this will be an uphill battle, I will vote on it.</li> <li>Politics Disad--I am a sucker for intrinsicness arguments here, and also will reward you if you know things and make arguments on the uniqueness and link level that don't necessarily need cards--i know what's going on in politics, and if you can give a warranted arguments about why what the negative is saying is untrue--I don't think you always need a card.</li> <li>Uniqueness does not control the direction of the link, this is a statement of fact, not opinion.</li> <li>I think that contradictory truth claims are bad, conditions and consult CPs are cheating, and you should go for those arguments when I'm in the back of the room.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <p><strong>Neg:</strong><br /> </p> <ul> <li> <ul> <li>A negative team that reads 7 off case positions will certainly get lower speaker points than one that reads 4 off case positions</li> <li>I love a good CP/case strategy, i think it rewards good research and strategy. There is a lack of understanding of counterplan theory in debate, and I think that if pressed, the negative ought to be ready to defend the theoretical basis for their counterplan existing in debate.</li> <li>Disads--yes, do them. I think you need to explain your internal link chain, you just do. Debate is an educational activity, and you reading your pre-written extensions of your disad does not show me that you have critically thought about the potential consequences of the aff.</li> <li>There is such thing as no risk of a link.</li> <li>Critiques---the more topic specific, the better. I don't like the generics as much, but I find arguments that fundamentally challenge the assumptions of the affirmative interesting. You need to explain and understand the link arguments, after all, what is your argument if the aff doesn't link? If you want to go for the critique in the 2NR, you need to do a few things--1) explain how the alternative either solves the aff or the impacts of the 1nc 2) Extend impacts, i know it seems obvious, but it's lacking and finally 3) do impact comparison--HINT: if you're not starting your 2NC/2NRs when going for the critique with these words, "the critique outweighs and turns the aff--then explain why" you're probably losing</li> <li>Topicality: I think this is the absolutely best place in debate for debaters to be technical and efficient. You should not group parts of the T debate, you should be highly technical. I default to competing interpretations on questions of framework and topicality, but I do not believe that unwarranted extensions of vague impact claims like "limits" and "education" are enough to get the job done. I've often thought that debates that I watch regarding topicality are often very good on the top level, that is comparing evidence and addressing things like how either team's interpretation impact the standards debate, but they are very bad on the question of the impacts of things like overlimiting and either side not having ground. I do not want to hear your buzzwords in the 2NR like "the aff underlimits, that makes it impossible to debate we win" I would much rather hear you talk about the counterinterpretation and a) what it would justify and why that would be uniquely bad for the negative and b) what the impact to that kind of interpretation of debate is. Put more succinctly, talk about the "terminal" impacts of T as you would a disad (stolen from Paige Spraker). I consistently give the highest speaker points to well executed 2NRs that are great on that question, and if you do that in front of me, you will be rewarded with my pleasure and high points.</li> <li>I call for cards and read them, this often is because both teams are insufficient at evidence comparison and just assert that their evidence is better without warrants or comparisons. If you make detailed evidence comparison in last rebuttals so I don't have to call for cards, I'll be a happy camper.</li> <li>Presumption arguments are tight.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> <p><br /> I'm good with speed, but watch my face. I will tell you to slow down or clear if I can't flow. Tag team is fine, but don't dominate your partners CX. Inflection and speaking style-you NEED to say "next" or "and" between cards, my flows go to hell if people don't do that. I love debaters that are funny. I have started to try to be more expressive when i'm watching debates, because i think that there is a real problem with people not looking at their judge in debate and burying their face on the computer and speech doc. If you do this, I will roll my eyes and sigh until you know what you're doing.<br /> <br /> Have fun! you can email me if my post-round doesn't compute. <a href="mailto:ryan.hand11@gmail.com" target="_blank">ryan.hand11@gmail.com</a></p>
Sam Normington - U-High
n/a