FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Mr Ni - Newport

n/a

Alex Boettcher - Bear Creek

n/a

Alex Levasseur - Bear Creek

n/a

Alicia Jekel - PCCS

n/a

Amy Qin - Interlake

Amy McCormick - Kamiak

n/a

Andrea Hamblin - Sehome

n/a

Andrea Lairson - Bear Creek

Ben Yan - Newport

n/a

Bev Kazmi - Snohomish

n/a

Bill Nicolay - Snohomish

n/a

Bob Gomulkiewiz - Bear Creek

Brian Huynh - AVI

n/a

Brian Shaw - AVI

n/a

Bruce Arbtin - Newport

n/a

Cheryl Mazurek - Snohomish

n/a

Christina Glass - Bear Creek

n/a

Corey McCartney - Woodinville

n/a

Daniela Hodeg - Kamiak

n/a

David Jung - BC ACADEMY

n/a

Dawn Shaikh - Newport

n/a

Dennis Miller - Woodinville

n/a

Dylan Smith - AVI

n/a

Eleanor Mitchell - Bear Creek

n/a

Elisabeth McKeen - Anacortes HS

n/a

Emma McIntyre Roth - Anacortes HS

n/a

Erik Uri - Kamiak

n/a

Erin Gibson - Anacortes HS

n/a

Erin Vaniski - SWHS

n/a

Gina Su - PCCS

n/a

Heon Lee - BC ACADEMY

n/a

Ian Lister - Orcas High Scho

n/a

Jackie Reilly - BHS

n/a

Jane McCoy - ECHS

Janelle Williams - Chehalis

n/a

Jeffrey Richards - ECHS

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, Sammamish High School in Seattle, WA, and currently with Eastside Catholic High 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, Semifinalist, and Quarterfinalist at the Washington State Debate championships in 2012, 2013, and 2014. 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: 1. 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. 2. 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. 3. 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.

Jennifer Williams - Kamiak

n/a

John Doty - AVI

n/a

John Julian - Bear Creek

n/a

Joseph Hyink - PCCS

n/a

Karen Rossman - Redmond

Katie Blaine - Orcas High Scho

n/a

Kelley Kirkpatrick - Mount Vernon

I was formerly a policy debater... but now find myself mostly coaching Lincoln Douglas debate!   I am open to any type of argument as long as it is clearly explained and well argued.   Speed isn't normally an issue... and I do verballly let debaters know when I am finding them unclear.

Laura Livingston - Bellingham

Li Zhang - Bear Creek

n/a

Lily Kelley - Mount Vernon

Lily Stephens - Snohomish

n/a

Lisa Weber - Newport

Mandy Chin - PCCS

n/a

Mike Reilly - BHS

n/a

Mike Fitzgerald - Kamiak

n/a

Mr(s). Humphries - Bear Creek

n/a

Natalia Munoz - Kamiak

n/a

Neil Kazmi - Snohomish

n/a

Nelson Bonner - PCCS

n/a

Nicki Klimisch - Bear Creek

n/a

Paul Rossman - Redmond

Pete Ferreira - Redmond

Peter Lukevich - Bishop Blanchet

n/a

Richard Lund - Redmond

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>

Rudy Domingo - Bear Creek

Shawn Marshall - 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>

Steve McCartt - SWHS

n/a

Steven Helman - Kamiak

n/a

Susan Mohn - Interlake

Susan Zong - AVI

n/a

Terry Jess - BHS

n/a

Trea Reilly - BHS

n/a

Vivian Hom - Bear Creek

Woojin Lim - BC ACADEMY

n/a

Zoe Burstyn - Newport

n/a

2014 SNOHOMISH PANTHERS INVITATIONAL