FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Worrell - OHHS

n/a

Adante Henderson - Tahoma High

Alan Middleton - Annie Wright

n/a

Alex Ong - Federal Way

n/a

Aly Hoover - Sehome

n/a

Amy McCormick - Tahoma High

Anna Pisac - Snohomish

n/a

Ashley Meissner - Bear Creek

Bev Kazmi - Snohomish

n/a

Bill Nicolay - Snohomish

n/a

Bob Gomulkiewiz - Bear Creek

Brad Thew - Central Valley Hig

I’ve coached LD for about eight years, most significantly at Central Valley High School in Washington, and I coached the 2010 Washington State 4A LD champ. Although I don’t like the implications that often come with the phrase “traditional judge,” that is probably the best way to describe myself judging. I try to check my opinions at the door and keep it tab. However, I only understand what I’m capable of understanding, and I’m not always up to date on the most recent trends in LD. I rely on my flow, and if it isn’t on there, it isn’t evaluated. Make clear extensions as a result. I really like real world debates with logical argumentation. Framework- I work best in rounds that operate with a traditional framework. Generally this means a V/VC, but I can deal with an advantage/standard as long as you link into it. I don’t think that plans are necessary, and I don’t know that I like them because honestly I don’t hear them often enough in an LD context to really have an opinion yet. Honestly, I have reservations about plans because I think the structure of an LD resolution does not necessitate a plan, but I believe that they have the potential to operate effectively. At the point an affirmative has ran a plan, it is acceptable for the NC to present a CP. Presentation/Speaker Points- I can handle moderate speed. I will say slow/clear if necessary. I’m not used to people particularly caring about the speaker points I award, but I generally stay in the range of 27. I like hearing what a card says, and I don’t like having to card call after a round. Be explicit in your signposting. Tags need to be super clear. Don’t be rude or deceptive. Try to be helpful and cordial in round. Humor is a plus, as rounds can get stale as tournaments drag on, but don’t take it too far. If/when I disclose, don’t bicker with me. Doing these things equals good speaker points, and I’ll try to compare you to what I’ve seen recently. Theory- I’m not the biggest fan of theory debate, but I understand the growing necessity of it. Do not run theory just because you feel like it, do it because there is a genuine need to correct a wrong. You need to be super clear in the structure of the argument, and it needs to be shelled properly. I need to know what sort of violation has occurred, and I need to understand its implication. Don’t use it as a time suck. Philosophically, I’m ok with RVI’s. I default to drop the argument, not the debater, and I default to reasonability over competing interps. I don’t want theory to be a strategy to win. Kritiks- I’m not a fan of critical positions. I know a bit about philosophy, but not everything. You don’t know me though, and you don’t know how much I know, and I can’t guarantee that you can tell me everything I need to know about Derrida or Foucault in 6-7 minutes in order to evaluate an argument properly. I feel that the greatest flaw of the k is that it requires so much preexisting knowledge on the part of me the judge, your competition, and yourself to be of any substantive value in the round. Most debaters really aren’t up to the task, and even if they are, the time constraints inherent in an LD round make it tough to evaluate properly. I like the idea of a k, but in reality, it just doesn’t work. Miscellaneous- 1- Flex: You need to use CX for questions. Do what you want with your prep. Don’t abuse flex. This will effect speaks. 2- I don’t care if you sit or stand. You’ll speak better if you stand though. 3- If you are paperless, I will time flashing. I don’t want to wait around forever. 4- You should be pre-flowed before the round. 5- Don’t be smug. 6- I constantly flow. I generally flow by hand. If I stop flowing, it means I’m lost and trying to figure out where you are, or that you’re going too fast, or that you’re just rehashing old material. In any case, it’s probably not a good thing. 7- If I didn’t mention a type of argument, I probably have no idea what it means. Don’t run it. Or ask me first. I’m not stupid, I promise. I just coach in a place where I don’t have to think very hard.

Brent DeCracker - Cedar Park

n/a

Carl Chevara - GPS

n/a

Carole Hennessey - Trojans

n/a

Carrie Mandt - Emerald Ridge

n/a

Carrie Walker - Kamiak

n/a

Chris Kautsky - THS

Cole Probus - Bear Creek

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.

Dana Wiebe - Kamiak

n/a

Dawna Lewis - Edmonds Heights

n/a

Deanna Carveth - Snohomish

n/a

Dino Rossi - Eastside Catholic

Donna Boudreau - Central Valley Hig

Donna Shively - Bear Creek

n/a

Dyann Seidl - Trojans

n/a

Eli Mallon - Annie Wright

n/a

Emily Berreth - Kamiak

n/a

Eric Hare - Snohomish

n/a

Garrett Shiroma - AVI

n/a

Glenda Braun - Trojans

n/a

Greg Peszek - Sammamish

Assistant Coach at Sammamish High School, Bellevue, WA Number of Years Judging: 7 I have judged debate for years and competed in varsity policy debate in high school. Speed is not an issue but that is not an excuse to be incoherent. Debate is theater, I expect speakers to act accordingly. I believe debate is first and foremost an educational experience (even moreso at the high school level) and we are all here to learn. Secondly debate is a competition like any other: those who subvert the system or cheat aren't looked at kindly in any other competitive activity and they should be treated the same here. Policy (short version): I am a tabula rasa judge in spirit: if it is well reasoned, well presented and well-argued I will vote for it. My standards for “well reasoned”, “well presented” and “well-argued” are immensely high and even higher for atypical, squirrely or hypercritical arguments. I like to minimize my involvement in the round and let the flows speak for themselves. In the absence of strong voters my fallback paradigm is stock issues with a policy emphasis: I vote reasonability on T over competing interps (threshold is abuse), allow multiple Neg advocacies and require Aff to provide a true prima facie case. LD (short version): I am a tabula rasa judge in spirit: if it is well reasoned, well presented and well-argued I will vote for it. My standards for “well reasoned”, “well presented” and “well-argued” are immensely high and even higher for atypical, squirrely or hypercritical arguments. I like to minimize my involvement in the round and let the flows speak for themselves. In the absence of strong voters my fallback paradigm is value/value criteria: I will apply the best upheld value in the round as a lens in which to vote on case. In the absence of strong value clash I’ve been known to hypotest multiple value worlds and weigh accordingly.  Policy (long, ranting version):  Traditionally I've kept with a “stock issues with a policy emphasis” as my standard paradigm but as the years go on I find myself trending to a more tabula rasa style. This transition is under extreme protest from myself as I’ve found myself questioning if policy debate has lost its way after witnessing round after round of what could only be described as mindless critical dribble, extreme missteps by Negatives in the rebuttals and affirmative case after affirmative case that lack prima facie burdens. That said I am not opposed to critical arguments, be it critical affirmatives or Ks, though I find it extremely difficult to get over my preconceived (and empirically proven) notion that debaters running critical arguments are running them on the flimsy belief that their own extremely limited knowledge is only large by comparison to their opponents zero knowledge of the subject. Sadly, more often than not they are correct which makes for a painful, uneducational round. With that in consideration one could assume that a very well understood, presented and reasoned critical argument would run directly opposed to my disposition and thereby increase its in-round persuasion. I am subconsciously much more persuaded by extremely well organized and presented arguments, especially those that are unique, off the cuff or genuinely interesting. I nearly exclusively resort to reasonability for everything, regardless of what they are. T is a powerful argument for Neg and I’ll vote Neg on it alone if reasonability is proven. Unreasonable arguments are boring: global nuclear war is boring, world peace is boring. Give me realistic, practical advantages or realistic practical DA and I will vote twice as hard as if another “the world will end with the Aff plan” DA was run. Tag teaming speeches is completely out. I am OK with prompting (non-speaking partner saying “make sure to bring up voters on T”, for example) but this year has been incredibly frustrating with one team member “parroting” their non-speaking partner. Consider too that if you are at the point where you need to be prompted you are no longer delivering a 30 or 29.5 speech. I am more lenient with tagging in cross but cross is free prep time for the next speaker and I expect the time to be used wisely. Running out of prep time because you were too busy wasting cross time before your speech does not sit kindly with me.

Griffin Bell - Tahoma High

Hanna Ermie - Mount Vernon

Hannah Ermi - Bellingham

Hannah Ermi - Squalicum

Heather Helman - Kamiak

n/a

Irene Goldbeck - Bear Creek

Jacob Landsberg - Kamiak

n/a

James Ganas - Mercer Island

Jane Reardon - Newport

Janice Jackson-Haley - Nathan Hale

n/a

Jason Woehler - Federal Way

n/a

Jeff Cavanaugh - Bear Creek

Jenna Metcalf - Snohomish

n/a

Jennifer Widrig-Hodges - Trojans

n/a

Jim Melton - Nathan Hale

n/a

Joe Mecham - Kamiak

n/a

Joel Underwood - Seattle Academy

n/a

John Julian Sr - Newport

Overall - The team who makes my job easiest, the side who walks me through their logic and makes complete, warranted, and comprehensible arguments is the team most likely to win my ballot.  The harder I have to work to fill in details on your behalf, the less likely it is that you will win. a priori ->  DECORUM is the supreme a priori voter.  Treat one another as colleagues.  Respect is your code word.  Rudeness is not equal with aggression - you can be the latter without being the former.  Being a jerk does not show strength... it shows you're a jerk. Event Specific: CX - I am a stock issues judge.  I will accept Kritiks as long as Aff Case properly bites it and the logic is solidly established.  I enjoy a good Counterplan.  Speed at your own risk... clarity is preferred.  If I'm not writing, you're going too fast. LD - I am an old school values debate judge.  I expect a proper framework (Value is the ideal your case upholds, Criterion is the weighing mechanism for the round).  If you choose to take a non-traditional V/C or framework option, explain it to me well enough that I can actually do something with it.  Speed is a very bad idea in LD - Consider me a Comm judge with a flow pad.  Jargon doesn't impress me in LD.  Logic, rhetoric, deep philosophy, and passion do. PF - Public Forum is intended to appeal to a wide audience.  It is patterned after a TV show.  I don't flow when I watch TV... don't expect a rigorous flow in PF from me.  Convince me of your overall point of view is valid.  Do so by making logical, well constructed arguments.  You can leverage common knowledge if it is truly common.  Pathos > logos in this event. Underview - Decorum, then logic, then rhetoric, then appeal to my preferences.  Do this, and you're golden.  Both sides doing this is Nirvana.  I haven't been in a state of Nirvana in 15 years.  Make the effort anyway.

Jon Guttormsen - AHS

n/a

Jordan Hudgens - Bridge

tl;dr: Make extensions when appropriate, clearly weigh arguments (direct comparisons and take-outs are lovely), and illustrate how you win the standard debate and what that means for your arguments. The 1AC and 1NC are certainly crucial, but they are (in my mind) stepping stones to the more nuanced and particular aspects of the debate. It all comes down to the 1AR/1NR/2AR, explication of warrants/impacts, link analysis, etc. Very basically I want to see how you're winning the debate, why that's true (warrant), and what that means for the round/value debate (impact). I'm a very flow oriented judge, and I flow on my computer. As such, it is difficult to lose me on the flow...with some exceptions. The best debaters know how to help the judge navigate the flow, and understand that proper labeling and communicating with the judge are essential towards that end. Crystallization helps, but you shouldn't resort to rehashing your argument at the end of a speech simply to fill up time. The state of value debate in Lincoln-Douglas is, in a word, defunct. 90% of the values at present are morality (or a permutation, such as moral permissibility), and the debates are taking place largely about what type of morality we're using and the advantages/disadvantages of each. You are certainly welcome to use another value; however, if you are going to offer justice, orsocial welfare, or something of that nature, it should be clearly demarcated from morality (uniquely good or valuable). Arguments for why 'your value should be preferred' should be considerably more substantial than, say, 'life is a prerequisite for morality!' if you wish them to be taken seriously in the round. Link into your standard, or give me clear weighing and re-emphasis of your standard in your final speech! You don't need to constantly reference it, but it should be brought up at some point. Theory and weird args are fine; in fact, I enjoy interesting philosophical viewpoints a great deal, provided they are warranted and clearly argued. I think that processual debates can be very intriguing, and consider theory to be either a check on abuse or kritik of the current debate round (perhaps the other person being deliberately obfuscating, etc). I consider RVIs a de-facto option for the affirmative, though the negative can certainly present arguments for why the affirmative doesn't get an RVI. The threshold for winning an RVI, though, is extremely high. I'm not certain that going all-in on an RVI in front of me is an effective strategy, and I find that debaters are better served by utilizing imeets or counter interps to handle theory. I've found that a lot of the theory debates can become very unclear for a judge to evaluate on solely, so if you don't think you can convincingly win on theory, I recommend not trying for the (2AR) RVI. Getting a 30: speak clearly (not necessarily slowly, but I expect above-average intelligibility), don't make drops (or be incredibly efficient with cross applications), use all your speech time, and, most crucially, THOROUGHLY DOMINATE YOUR OPPONENT.I don't care that much about your body language (eye contact, inflection, etc. are good to have but I'm not going to punish you beyond speaker points on what may be simply bad habits), but I do care that you speak intelligibly, whether it's ludicrously fast or unbelievably slow. Being courteous is very important.

Josue Anderson - BC ACADEMY

Experience I’m somewhat new to the Public Forum style (3 years now) however I’ve done my best to appreciate the nuances of the style compared to other styles practiced in Canada that I am more familiar with. I have 5 years of university-level British Parliamentary (worlds style) debate and while that does influence my preferences for persuasion in speaking and intellectualism of arguments, I strongly appreciate PF’s use of frameworks and impact-calculations. Decisions I do my best to allow the debaters to construct the rationalities for my decisions within the debate, persuasive frameworks that last the debate will influence my decisions although I focus most on whatever the debaters themselves choose to debate about, which areas had the most clash. I find a debate with a shortage of clash from both sides frustrating, while I would tend to reward the team with the most genuine attempts at engagement. I do my best to act as an ‘average person’ when deciding which team has holistically worked harder to be most persuasive. My experience as a coach expresses itself in how I evaluate the ‘effort’ of  events that occur within the debate.  Rounds of debate should be complex and involve various factors, likewise, I try to be as open minded as possible with elements developed within the actual debate. Unless the round was particularly bad and simplistic, it’s unlikely that a round will ‘boil down to one thing’ though it’s likely that varous elements will interconnect and become linked to specific ideas fought for in the debate. Style and speaker points I evaluate style holistically and do not consider it a separate element of a debate. The weight of the content is intrinsically valued by me based on the mannor that it is presented. Speaking styles only matter if they affect my ability to percieve content and I do not consider it outside of that realm when evaluating individual speakers.  A speaker who uses fancy words and neat hand gestures won’t earn bonus points but it’s likely that I may find their contributions/matter more persuasive, likewise, I won’t punish a debate with crass or unpolished speaking styes (or ESL) but it’s possible that it debilitates my ability to conceptualize the matter presented.  As a result of this perception of style, I do not ever give low point wins since I find them paradoxical. Debaters who are more persuasive get higher speaks, debaters who are more persuasive should likewise win the debate since they are more persuasive debaters and the activity should prioritize the rewarding of that holistic trait. Feedback I prefer giving oral feedback and I’m very happy to give as much of it as debaters want. I strongly encourage debaters to ask me whatever questions they’d like after a round, as I’m less inclined to give lengthy written feedback. My penmanship is laughably unreadable and I try to make up for it by giving dedicated comments. I like to contextualize my comments as much as possible with the actual debate that occurred, so I enjoy disclosing if the tournament allows for it, since it better allows debaters to appreciate the weight of the various items within feedback.

Joyce Chambers - Snohomish

n/a

Julia Seidman - Mercer Island

Kallie Ferguson - Edmonds Heights

n/a

Katie Green - Snohomish

n/a

Kaveh Dilmaghani - Tahoma High

Ken Carpenter - Bellingham

Ken Carpenter - Squalicum

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.

Kevin Kindelberger - OHHS

n/a

Kevin Mandt - Emerald Ridge

n/a

Kim Bozeman - Bishop Blanchet

n/a

Lainie Tomlin - Sammamish

Laura Lackey - GPS

n/a

Lizzie Tao - Ballard

Lois Gorne - Federal Way

n/a

Lori Harris - Bear Creek

Lorraine Hirakawa - Emerald Ridge

n/a

Marcia Domingo - Bear Creek

Marlene Anderson - Ballard

Maryna Welker - GPS

n/a

Matt Wang - Mercer Island

Megan Vujica - GPS

n/a

Megan Vujica - Snohomish

n/a

Mike Fitzgerald - Snohomish

n/a

Morgan Munn - BC ACADEMY

Experience: I’ve been judging and coaching public forum for about 2.5 years now, but I come from a Canadian high school and university British Parliamentary debate background, and from that background I’ve come to value analysis and engagement alongside the more public forum-specific aspects of impact and frameworks. (Frameworks are helpful to making many rounds more focused but don’t have a debate about the framework please.) Decisions: In my decision, I appreciate when the debaters have done most of the decision-making for me within the round. This includes making clear, well-analysed and well-impacted arguments and thoroughly engaging (clashing) with each other’s content – use what each other have said to convince me who won. This means thoroughly explaining your arguments and counterarguments, telling me why they are important/significant, and responding to what your opponents have said, respectively. Note that good engagement tends to not be line-for-line refutation and line-for-line reconstruction but rather considering how the different ideas within the round interact with each other. I find rounds that lack engagement to be super frustrating because I don’t want to do the engagement myself by weighing arguments that have never or scarcely interacted against each other. A further note on analysis – I find it disappointing when debaters simply read off pieces of evidence and consider that to be the body of an argument in and of itself. Evidence should be incorporated into your logical explanation of the analysis and it is often useful to explain why that evidence enhances your argument. Style and speaker points: I tend not to evaluate style as separate from the content of the debate because I find that style fits into a more holistic evaluation of the round. Generally, being a clear speaker is the best bet; however that being said, a particularly persuasive speaker is likely to have a style that enhances their content while a speaker that is unclear will reduce the persuasion of their content if its not understandable. For example, I’ll never take off speaker points for having an accent, but if you talk too quickly, too quietly, or too mumbly, for example, then it is likely to reduce your ability to show off your brilliant content and this would therefore reduce your overall persuasiveness and performance. Debaters should try to develop a style that best allows their speaking ability and content to be complimentary. Also – please don’t ‘spread’ or talk really fast unless you are absolutely certain you can be understood by everyone. I’m of the belief that you don’t need to rush in order to win a debate and you should manage your time to talk about the most important stuff in the round. If you talk too fast I probably won’t catch most of what you say and that’s bad. Feedback: I don’t mind giving oral feedback and I will give as much feedback as the debaters ask for as long as there is enough time to do so; I’m also happy to disclose if the tournament allows it and the teams ask.

Neil Kittridge - Eastside Catholic

Patrick Kelly - AVI

n/a

Peter Lukevich - Bishop Blanchet

n/a

Rainie Nelson - Snohomish

n/a

Rebar Niemi - Bridge

Rob Taylor-Manning - St. Joes

n/a

Roberta Rice - Central Valley Hig

Robin Furlan - GPS

n/a

Sam Short - Kamiak

n/a

Sara Haugland - BC ACADEMY

Scott Hess - THS

I expect students to have a well-documented case.  Tell me your sources.  I want strong authority, recent data, and compelling reasoning.  Presenting your own case, however, is only part of the game.  Rebuttal of your opponents' case should show strong preparation and arguments supported by equally strong evidence.  Finally, good arguments don't occur without clear speaking skills.  All speeches must be understandable, flowable, and articulate with good road mapping and impacts.

2011 SNOHOMISH PANTHERS INVITATIONAL