FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Alejandro Silva - Chiawana

n/a

Alex Emmerson - Ike

n/a

Amanda Ramirez - Chiawana

n/a

Amy McLoughlin - Southridge WA

Andrew Weis - Chiawana

n/a

Anna Amoureux - Chiawana

n/a

Annie Capestany - Walla Walla

I am an assistant coach and this is my 5th year judging. I don't like theory, speed or jargon. But I do like logic and reasonable arguments. Remember, it is your job to persuade me. If you go so fast that I can't understand your arguments, you lose. (I will put down my pen and cross my arms if you go too fast. You should slow down if you want to win.) Please roadmap and follow the flow.  I won't start the timer until after your roadmap (if any). You can use your own timers too. I give hand signals. I don't disclose.

Becky Goodell - Ike

n/a

Brandon Charbonnel - Ike

n/a

Brian Higgins - Wenatchee

n/a

Bruce Goodell - Ike

n/a

Calvin Go - PHS

Carol McGraw - Chiawana

n/a

Cathy Courtright - MLHS

n/a

Charles Murphy - Ike

n/a

Chuck Hamaker-Teals - Southridge WA

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.

Courtney Ralstin - Ephrata

n/a

Darby Swanson - PHS

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."

Don Hendrixson - Ephrata

n/a

Drew Flesher - Southridge WA

Emily Goodell - Ike

n/a

Evan Newell - Davis

n/a

Geoff White - PHS

Spread in front of me. Read theory in front of me. Read T in front of me. Read K in front of me. Read all of these off of a computer if you want. If there are any qualifications that come with these statements you can read them below. This top bit is just to let you know that I'm pretty happy to hear progressive args in a district where most judges aren't. Experience: Four messy years of debate at Pasco High during which I never really committed to a single format. Most of my experience was in LD so that's kind of how my paradigm is written. There are certain things you just can't do in PF. You know what they are. Just don't do them.  Spread in front of me: I'll yell clear twice before I'll give up and just stop trying to get you to either slow down or speak more clearly. I'll still attempt to flow you, but don't expect perfection if I can't understand you. When I debated Colton Smith didn't spread me out so you can use that as a benchmark. I don't debate any more so I can't flow as fast as I used to, although I don't know of any debaters in district that I've ever had a problem understanding in round. Read theory in front of me: There are two kinds of conflict: destructive and productive. Productive conflict is meant to have value. Destructive conflict is meant to have a winner and a loser. Interscholastic debate is meant to be a productive conflict. Theory args are ones which prevent debate from becoming a destructive conflict. Use them like this and you will be rewarded. Use them just to win and I will see you creating a destructive conflict and that will be reflected on the ballot.  Read T and K in front of me: Signpost it really, really well and be very, very clear. RUN THEM AT YOUR OWN RISK. I'm not super familiar with these args, but if you want to run them in front of me it's worth a shot.  Timing: I'd like you to cross time if you can. It's easier for me and better for you with regards to getting a fair ballot since it allows me to flow rather than time and flow. I'll give time signals if you need me to, but it's easier if I don't have to.  "Do you like more theoretical/philosophical args or concrete impacts better?": I'll vote for either one. I tended to run less nuanced, more "HOLY CRAP LOOK AT ALL OF THE BODIES" args when I debated, so they tend to resonate with me a little more, but not so much that you should try to adapt too much to fit that preference. Just keep in mind that I'm going to default to "death is bad." You don't have to do a bunch to prove that to me. If you try to tell me otherwise, I might believe you if you're really convincing. I don't think that V/VC has to clash. If your V/VC also does their V/VC then you don't need to artificially create conflict where there is none. Those of you who have ever hit me might know what I'm talking about here. Others of you, sorry. It's probably not super clear what I mean by all of this.  Have fun. I like clever args. My favorite thing I ever did in debate was turn an entire PF case with three cards when I was debating with Michael. I like that kind of crap. Don't expect it to win the round for you necessarily, but know that I find it entertaining. I'm sure there are things I'm missing so ask me about them in round. You'll probably ask me anyway since there are so few judges in the district who use this tool and as such nobody reads paradigms online.

Jean Clare - EHS

n/a

Jean Tobin - Walla Walla

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. I'm comfortable with speed. I will say "speed" if you are speaking too fast for me to flow or understand. 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. 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.  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.  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. 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.  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. 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.

Jennifer Noyd - Wenatchee

n/a

Jessica Rinker - Davis

n/a

Karen Weis - Chiawana

n/a

Katie Haynes - Ike

n/a

Khlaire Minear - Ike

n/a

Laura Cooper - OHS

n/a

Laurel White - EHS

n/a

Lil' Parks - PHS

n/a

Liliy Botello - Ike

n/a

Lori Black - Ike

n/a

Melissa Strobridge - PHS

n/a

Michael Harrington - Delta

n/a

Michael Cooper - OHS

n/a

Michael Elizondo - PHS

n/a

Ms. Wilcox - PHS

n/a

Nathan Medeiros - Wenatchee

n/a

Nick Higgins - Chiawana

n/a

Robert Dresdow - PHS

Rosa Tobin - Walla Walla

Sara Hyde - Chiawana

n/a

Steve Wallenfelds - Southridge WA

Stuart McCurdy - Ike

n/a

Susie Chavez - Ike

n/a

Taylor Deardorf - Southridge WA

I debated for Southridge High School but most of my judging criteria come from my experience come form my colegiate Mock Trial competitions.  I am a college student at the University of Washington. Because of this experience in the trial court, PF teams would be more successful laying out cogent arguments in real world situations. Debaters, especially for Public Forum, should focus on clarity and well-warranted, logical arguments. That being said, debaters should feel free to use any really creative impacts or arguments as they like, as long as they can back it up and is somewhat believable. Real wolrd impacts play a huge role for me when I vote. Furthermore, disrespectful, overly-aggressive, and/or dishonest debaters will also be deducted significant speaker points. I expect a good clear framework or I will simply default to my personal preference for a framework. In the end, I will vote for the team who persuades me in believing that their side will create a better world or the least-worse world (so impacts are important for me). If the aff fails to provide any reason for change, and I feel the status quo is the most reasonable, then I will default to con because it is the aff’s job to create change and withhold the entirety of the resolution. I do not like to disclose unless the tournament requires to, but I am willing to give constructive feedback.

Thomas Lackie - OHS

n/a

Troy Farley - Chiawana

n/a

Vicky Hyde - Chiawana

n/a

Warren Clare - EHS

n/a

Yvonne Byers - Wapato

n/a

Zack Tubic - PHS

n/a

jon landefeld - Southridge WA

I am a first year parent judge with experience in PF and LD.  My main judging preferences are for clear polite debates.  I value debaters who respond to eachother's arguments, clearly set up voter issues and stick to topically relevant issues.

2014 Pasco 12/2014