Judge Philosophies
Alejandro Silva - Chiawana
n/a
Andrew Haynes - Ike
n/a
Andrew (A.J.) Blumel - Walla Walla
Ann McCreary - liberty Bell
n/a
Annie Beck - Walla Walla
Brian Higgins - Wenatchee
n/a
Carolyn Minear - Ike
n/a
Chris Hogness - liberty Bell
n/a
Christian Cosma - Walla Walla
Chuck Hamaker-Teals - Southridge WA
<p>I am the coach for Southridge High School in eastern Washington. I competed in high school debate in the 90s. I've been coaching for 18 years. Each topic has lots of ground, find it and bring the arguments into the round. Be polite and kind. Rude debaters almost never win. I can flow relatively quickly but will punish debaters’ speaks if they are unclear or unprepared. I try to vote on the flow, although I don't like Topicality run without forethought. I am not a fan of the kritik but I will vote for one. I don't mind theory arguments, I just need to be clearly told how the impact relates to what is happening in the round. I vote on issues where I can clearly see the impact in the round. I like clear, fast, well organized debates with lots of good arguments and lots of impacts. When I sit on out round panels, my decisions are very similar to those of current college debaters, not communication judges. Arguments about sources are tiresome and I am more persuaded by rationale or meta-analysis. </p>
Collin Mertens - Southridge WA
Danielle West - Cascade
n/a
Darby Swanson - PHS
<p>When I judge a debate I am looking for well constructed and supported cases. I also want to see clash that is logical and directed toward the specific issues that are being debated rather than a generic argument that students use on a regular basis regardless of what their opponents have brought to the table, a sort of "one argument fits all brief."</p>
Dave Carlson - Wenatchee
n/a
David Smith - U-High
n/a
Don Hendrixson - Ephrata
n/a
Drew Hillman - Ike
n/a
Emily Cooper - Ephrata
n/a
George Burgess - Walla Walla
Greg Porter - OHS
n/a
Holly Musgrave - U-High
n/a
Jean Tobin - Walla Walla
<p>This is my 7th year coaching LD debate. I am familiar with the topics when I judge but not always prepared for unusual arguments, so be sure to clearly explain link/impacts if the argument is outside the norm.<br /> <br /> I'm comfortable with speed. I will say "speed" if you are speaking too fast for me to flow or understand.<br /> <br /> I am relatively new to theory arguments, so you should probably slow down on them and make sure they are not too blippy. I'm like logic and consider debate to be a game so theory (especially T) is interesting to me but I don’t like to punish people for their arguments. I prefer it if theory impacts make sense and are logical in the round - such as drop the argument, as opposed to drop the debater. However, that is only my default position. If you argue drop the debater well in the round, I will vote on it.<br /> <br /> I don't like sexist or racist arguments and I won't vote for them if they are obviously offensive, even if they are dropped. <br /> <br /> I try not to make arguments for debaters. Your arguments should be well supported and explained. It is your job to explain the argument in a way that is straight forward and clear. In particular, I do not like extremely odd value/criteria debates where the evidence seems designed to confuse, not explain. And if you are not able to clearly explain your value/criteria/k in c-x, I will not vote for it. I value debaters understanding each other's arguments and responding to them effectively - I see a lot of discussion about disclosure as it applies to evidence but not much about honest disclosure in c-x. <br /> <br /> I do convey my opinion on arguments through facial expressions - so if I think you are spending too much time on an argument I will show that visually and if I like an argument I will show that visually.<br /> <br /> I will vote on value and criteria arguments, but I love case arguments that have clear impacts that relate back to value and criteria. I like impacts to be identified and weighed in final arguments. I'm much more a policy judge than a traditional LD judge. <br /> <br /> I do view debate as a game, I'm open to most arguments, I think debate is fluid and debaters are allowed to define and create the game as they go so long as their support for doing so is strong and valid. However, I don't like rudeness. Overwhelmingly for me that is defined as a debater responding to another debater (or more rarely, me) in a condescending manner. But rudeness only affects your speaker points.<br /> <br /> I like clear, consice, fast, organized debating. I think I generally give higher speaker points (I feel bad when I go below a 27 and will usually give a 30 at least once a tournament). I don't need tons of persuasion vocally - it isn't a performance, but I love and reward clear, intellectual persuasion with high speaker points.</p>
Jessica Pederson - OHS
n/a
Joseph Gray - Ike
n/a
Julia Cervantes - EHS
n/a
Kirsten Anderson - EHS
n/a
Laura Cooper - OHS
n/a
Laurel Flarity-White - Wenatchee
n/a
Laurel White - EHS
n/a
Lisa Stroming - Wenatchee
n/a
Mark Wenzel - liberty Bell
n/a
Mark Sample - Ike
n/a
Max Brady-Hoover - U-High
n/a
Michael Cooper - OHS
n/a
Mr. White - Wenatchee
n/a
Pat Simmons - Ephrata
n/a
Paul Apostolidis - Walla Walla
Rachel Williams - PHS
Ramona Mitchell - Chiawana
n/a
Randy Kalambach - liberty Bell
n/a
Rhiannon Kubes - U-High
n/a
Richard Calcavecchia - Chiawana
n/a
Seth Townsend - Ephrata
n/a
Stuart McCurdy - Ike
n/a
Theresa Brownfield - Ike
n/a
Thomas Lackie - OHS
n/a
Vicky Hyde - Chiawana
n/a
Warren Clare - EHS
n/a