FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alicia Jekel - PCCS

n/a

Ally Jung - BC ACADEMY

Anatoly Menn - Interlake

Andrew Chadwell - Gig Harbor

Andrew Cronenberger - U-High

n/a

Annamarie Kirkpatrick - U-High

n/a

Beta Kato - Newport

n/a

Bill Nicolay - Snohomish

n/a

Brent DeCracker - Cedar Park

n/a

C. Steve Rowe - Interlake

Carl Coken - Eastlake HS

Christopher McCool - Mercer Island

Policy Paradigm: I evaluate a round based on who wins the framework debate in round. If neither team agrees on a framework I should evaluate, then there should be a debate about whose framework is better and why. Absent this debate I default to an offense defense paradigm. From there, in-round issues (discourse, cheating gripes, etc), gateway issues, then substance. That is, of course, unless there is a debate about the order of in which I should evaluate in the round. I am predisposed towards an Aff side bias but have been voting Neg the majority of rounds over the past 2 years. This has more to do with kids running bad camp affs and not putting in the required work. It's actually been about 2 years since I've seen a non-camp cut aff. I am not predisposed against any particular type of argument, inherency, disads, k's, etc.  I prefer specific links or at least a good story about how your particular disad/kritik/theory argument links to the affirmative. Of course, that doesn't mean I'll not look at a complete set of generics. I just think that you make it a bit more of an uphill battle for yourself if you do. I also love solid case debate. I think it's a lost art.  I hate sloppy and blippy theory throw-downs and get particularly annoyed by theory debates that are never actually contextualized to the round. If this happens I'm not likely to vote for your Condo Bad block, even if you win it. Theory debates don't exist in a vacuum away from the rest of the debate. This is another way to lose speaker points with me. I'd say I'm a 7 of 10 on speed, these days. Open CX is fine. "Extinction" is not a tagline, nor is it an argument. I will likely not like your Aff or Disad if your tags are one line. I flow cards but it is not my job to decipher your argument, warrants and analysis and I won't do it. "Extinction" and then "extend the extinction impact" get zero weight with me. Do not be a jerk in round. I won't drop you for it but I will tank your speaks, which in WA, means not breaking 95% of the time on speaker points.  I like strategy and tactics to be employed throughout the debate more than just standing up and throwing a bunch of arguments out there. This entails how you work together as a team, how your arguments work together, time allocation, prep time allocation, etc. This means I like K's that have some subtlety and finesse and good PIC/disad/solvency debates most.   LD Paradigm: See policy paradigm. Most LDers haven't reduced themselves to some of the things I dislike about policy debate, yet, but I've seen it creeping in a bit (like bad tag lines in plan based LD rounds). If you are borrowing policy theory for your round, you better know what you're talking about because it'll probably annoy me.   Absent a plan/policy based LD round, I look at the Aff/Neg flows in an offense/defense paradigm.

Dan Teimouri - Newport

Tabula Rosa, will judge on most any issue so long as it is presented fairly and persuasivley. Come from an LD background, but comfortable with speed and policy arguments. Prefer that debaters empahsize the standard/framework debate.

David Smith - U-High

n/a

Don Davis - Newport

n/a

Gary Peterson - Interlake

Glenda Braun - Trojans

n/a

Jenny Hsu - Interlake

Jordan Callero - Newport

n/a

Joseph Hyink - PCCS

n/a

Jyoti Bawa - Eastlake HS

Karl Schulz - Eastlake HS

n/a

Kevin Davison - Bear Creek

For Lincoln Douglas I'm a traditional LD judge: I vote off the Value and Value Criterion primarily, moving to contention level arguments supported by reasoning and evidence.  I am not tabla rasa, so RA's will have to pass a reasonable amount of scrutiny, but can be won off of if deemed reasonable.  Keep out of definitional debates.  I don't like spreading, and will vote against it in favor of a well reasoned argument as listed above.  If both competitors spread, I will default to the weighing mechanism listed above For Public Forum I feel it should go without saying that Public Forum should have no paradigms.  But in case that is not sufficient, I vote off a simple cost-benefit analysis, with neither side gaining presumption.  I look primarily to the contentions between well warranted and articulating a reasonable position.  I favor a warranted argument over a non-warranted argument.  I will accept review of evidence, visuals, etc.  Debaters may try to provide an alternative weighing mechanism, but it must set a reasonable standard.  Please keep it to the spirit of the type of debate.

Laban Lin - BC ACADEMY

Framework: I'll accept any fair framework, but the debate must be confined to said framework. If the negative does not reject the framework and offer a more suitable alternative, but argues outside of that framework, I will reject those arguments. Clash: This is particularly important to me. If you drop the opposing analysis instead of responding to it by the end of the round, I will assume you have conceded that point and its implications. Burdens: Although Pro always has the burden of showing me why I should support a policy, Con will not win by any significant margin if their entire case only refutes the Pro's arguments. For Con to score well, they need to show me why a policy is harmful, not why it isn't necessarily a great idea. Arguments: As a BP debater, I am comfortable with extension-style arguments. Feel free to present atypical arguments, but of course, doing so for the sake of it will not win you any points. Present the best arguments you have, and I will take it in stride.

Lisa Weber - Newport

Margaret Oytan - Interlake

Mary Orlosky - Cedar Park

n/a

RT Bensen - U-High

n/a

Ray Lauer - Eastlake HS

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>

Robert Sheardown - BC ACADEMY

Framework: The framework should come from a reasonable interpretation of the resolution. Any squirrelling by either side will be heavily penalised. Any rejection of the original framework by the negative side should be based on a significant issue with the original framework as opposed to a personal preference. Arguments outside the framework will be disregarded. Clash: A lack of rebuttal or other form of explicit address directed toward the opposing team’s arguments is a serious issue – it implies concession to the opposing team’s points. Rebuttal should be well-reasoned rather than simply vague dismissals of opposing arguments. Burdens: Whilst the affirmative side obviously must prove why the resolution provides an improvement on the status quo, the negative side will not automatically win simply by refuting improvements presented by the affirmative side. The negative side must prove that the resolution presents a more harmful world than the status quo. Arguments: A diversity of arguments is important as it shows that the resolution’s benefits or harms are far-reaching and significant. Additionally, arguments should address all or most actors involved in the resolution as this shows a better understanding of the consequences of the resolution.

Shelly Casale - Cedar Park

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>

Susan Mohn - Interlake

Tiffany Wilhelm - Wolves

n/a

2014 Newport WKI 2014