FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Carver - AVI

n/a

Ai Jung Zhang - Newport

n/a

Alicia Jekel - PCCS

n/a

Aly Horry - Bellingham

Tab judge for open policy debate, stock issues for novice policy debate.

Aly Horry - Sehome

n/a

Amber Andrews - Snohomish

n/a

Amber Strehle - Snohomish

n/a

Angie Beck - Eastside Catholic

Audry Scallon - Newport

n/a

Beta Kato - Newport

n/a

Bev Kazmi - Snohomish

n/a

Bolong Cao - Newport

n/a

Brent DeCracker - Cedar Park

n/a

Brian Coyle - Kingston

Cale Coryell - Snohomish

n/a

Carrie Walker - Kamiak

n/a

Chase Keffler - GPS

n/a

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.

Colin Cole - Snohomish

n/a

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.

Dawn Shaikh - Newport

n/a

Deana Seamann - Snohomish

n/a

Diana Stalter - Seattle Academy

n/a

Diana Young-Blanchard - Mt Si

Don Davis - Newport

n/a

Dong Hui-Chen - Newport

n/a

Dylan Thomas - Ingraham B

n/a

Erin Vaniski - SWHS

n/a

Faye Wu - Newport

Glenda Braun - Trojans

n/a

Greg Gillard - Mt Si

Gwen McCartt - SWHS

n/a

Harneet Grewal - Kamiak

n/a

Heather Helman - GPS

n/a

Ian Griswold - Seattle Academy

n/a

Jacob Ball - Kamiak

n/a

Jane McCoy - Eastside Catholic

Please don't shake my hand because it is flu season. I do not like a lot of speed. I like a good criterion and value clash between the two sides. I like real world examples. I will vote on clear voters emphasized especially in the last two speeches.

Janelle Williams - W.F. West

n/a

Jeff Williams - Kamiak

n/a

Jeffrey Richards - Eastside Catholic

Number of years judging  <ul> <li>High School: 10</li> <li>College: 7</li> </ul> Qualifications  <ul> <li>Author, Debating By Doing (National Textbook Company, 1995)</li> <li>Author, Moving From Policy to Value Debate: A CEDA Handbook (National Textbook Co., 1992)</li> <li>Author, Why So, Negative?, article on Negative strategy in policy debate, The Rostrum, February 2009</li> <li>Author, The Line Between Policy and Value Debate: Notes from the National Circuit, The Rostrum, April 2009</li> <li>Assistant Debate Coach, Sammamish High School, Bellevue, WA (current)</li> <li>CEDA Debater, Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID (1986 - 1990)</li> <li>NFL Policy Debater, Dimond High School, Anchorage, AK (1984 - 1986)</li> </ul> Background: I was a policy debater for Dimond High School in Anchorage, AK; in college, I debated in CEDA 4 years for Northwest Nazarene University in Nampa, ID. I have coached policy, LD, and I.E.'s at Meridian High School in Boise, ID and currently at Eastside Catholic School in Sammamish, WA. I have had two textbooks on competitive debate published by National Textbook Company (now McGraw-Hill): Moving from Policy to Value Debate and Debating by Doing. I have coached LD competitors at the NFL Nationals tournament and my students placed 2nd and 3rd at the Washington State Debate championships in 2012. I have judged many policy and LD high school debate rounds locally in WA and at national circuit tournaments. Approach: I see competitive debate as a strategic activity where both sides attempt to exclude the other’s arguments and keep them from functioning. As such, I expect both debaters to argue the evaluative frameworks that apply in this particular round and how they function with regard to the positions that have been advanced.  My Ballot: The better you access my ballot, the more you keep me from intervening. You access my ballot best when you clearly and simply tell me (1) what argument you won, (2) why you won it, and (3) why that means you win the round. Don’t under-estimate the importance of #3: It would be a mistake to assume that all arguments are voters and that winning the argument means you win the round. You need to clearly provide the comparative analysis by which arguments should be weighed or you risk the round by leaving that analysis in my hands. I will not look to evaluate every nuance of the line-by-line; it is your responsibility to tell me which arguments are most relevant and significant to the decision. Let’s use Reverse Voters as an example. Some judges disfavor these arguments, but in front of me, they are perfectly acceptable. However, the fact that you beat back a theory argument from your opponent does not, in and of itself, provide you access to an RVI. To win an RVI posted against a theory position generally requires that you demonstrate that your opponent ran the argument in bad faith (e.g., only as a time suck, without intent to go for the argument), and that the argument caused actual harm in the round. When it comes to potential abuse, I tend to agree with the Supreme Court's view in FCC v. Pacifica: "Invalidating any rule on the basis of its hypothetical application to situations not before the Court is 'strong medicine' to be applied 'sparingly and only as a last resort.'" You certainly can argue for a different evaluative framework for the RVI, but you cannot assume that I already have one. Think, before you start your rebuttal(s). Ask yourself, what do I have to win in order to win the round? Whatever the answer to that question is, that is where you start and end your speech. Paradigm: The most important thing I can do in any debate round is to critique the arguments presented in the round. As such, I consider myself very liberal about what you do in a debate round, but conservative about how you do it. What that means for debaters is that you can run just about any argument you like, but you will need to be persuasive and thorough about how you do it. If you run theory, for example, you will need to understand the jurisdictional nature of theory arguments and either provide a compelling argument why the violation is so critical that dropping the debater is the only appropriate remedy or a convincing justification as to why theory should have a low threshold. I try very hard not to inject myself into the debate, and I do my best to allow the speakers to develop what they think are the important issues. Additional Items to Consider:   <ol> <li>Speed is fine, but don’t chop off the ends of your words, or I will have trouble understanding you. Rapid speech is no excuse for failing to enunciate and emphasize arguments you want to be sure I get on my flow.</li> <li>Argue competing paradigms. This is true in every form of debate. I am not married to any single framework, but too often, the underlying assumptions of how I need to view the round to give your arguments more impact than those of your opponent go unstated, much less debated. Tell me WHY your argument matters most. It’s okay to shift my paradigm to better access your impacts; just tell me why I should do so and how.</li> <li>Presumption is a framework issue but is given short shrift almost every time I hear it argued. My default position is to be skeptical of any proposition until there is good and sufficient reason to accept it. That means presumption generally lies against the resolution until the affirmative presents a prima facie case to accept it. If you want to shift presumption so that it lies in a different position (with the prevailing attitude, in favor of fundamental human rights, etc.), then be sure to justify the shift in mindset and clearly explain whether that means we err on the side of the resolution being true or false.</li> </ol>

Jeffrey Wang - Newport

n/a

Jennifer Widrig-Hodges - Trojans

n/a

Jennifer Williams - Kamiak

n/a

Jessica Negara - IHS

n/a

Joel Underwood - Seattle Academy

n/a

John Doty - AVI

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.

Jordan Callero - Newport

n/a

Joseph Hyink - PCCS

n/a

Kelsie Watkins - Snohomish

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.

Kim Christiansen - Eastside Catholic

Kimberly Hartman - Mt Si

Kristin Moomaw - Bear Creek

n/a

Lasica Crane - Kingston

I am the head coach at Kingston High School and have been involved with the program since 2007. In judging LD: I hate speed when it affects your ability to speak clearly. I want to hear what you are claiming and I like to be able to understand and assess what your arguments are. I love philosophy so I don't mind hearing interesting philosophical arguments. I don't hate theory, although I would rather hear you discuss the actual resolution unless there is a compelling reason to run a theory shell. I'm pretty flexible really. Speed is my main annoyance. I like some clash. I pay attention to how you speak. Avoid using filler words.

Laura Livingston - Bellingham

Laura Livingston - Squalicum

n/a

Lily Stephens - Snohomish

n/a

Lisa Chapman - Seattle Academy

n/a

Lisa Weber - Newport

Malia Johnson - Bear Creek

n/a

Marcia Domingo - Bear Creek

Marvin Tut - Kamiak

n/a

Mary Orlosky - Cedar Park

n/a

Maya Darrow - Ingraham B

n/a

Megan Vujica - GPS

n/a

Mike Fitzgerald - Kamiak

n/a

Moin Shaikh - Newport

n/a

Moyra Aziz - IHS

n/a

Neil Kazmi - Snohomish

n/a

Olimpia Diaz - AVI

n/a

Paige Carruth - Bear Creek

n/a

Pam Snook - Snohomish

n/a

Peter Lukevich - Bishop Blanchet

n/a

Piper Ragland - Kingston

Rebecca Andrews - Snohomish

n/a

Rebecca Shephard - Snohomish

n/a

Rebecca Medrano - Newport

n/a

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>

2013 Snohomish Panthers Invitational