FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adrian Chavey - liberty Bell

n/a

Aidan Burgeson - CDA

n/a

Alexis DeSanza - Central Valley Hig

Amanda Eastbrooks - Rogers

n/a

Andrea Benson - U-High

n/a

Andrew Myers - Mead

Anya Gumke - Mt Spokane

n/a

Ashley Alexandrovich - CDA

n/a

Bill Wagstaff - Mead

Bobbi Croneberger - U-High

n/a

Bree Ferris - Mt Spokane

n/a

Cara Langsfeld - Mt Spokane

n/a

Carolyn Petek - LC Tigers

n/a

Chester Hoberg - Gonzaga Prep

Dalton Deatrich - Mead

David Spivey - Mead

David Smith - U-High

n/a

Dylan Adamson - Ephrata

n/a

Elliny Hiebert - CDA

n/a

Ericka Hills - CDA

n/a

Gabrielle Zigarlick - Republic

n/a

Gordy Reynaud - liberty Bell

n/a

Grant Montoya - Central Valley Hig

Holly Musgrave - U-High

n/a

Jackie Murray-Weston - Gonzaga Prep

Jackson Eubanks - Lake City

n/a

James Heath - Gonzaga Prep

Jeni Leidenfrost - Moscow HIgh

n/a

JoAnn Flaherty - NC HS

n/a

Jody Cramsie - Gonzaga Prep

Joe Phipps - Rogers

n/a

Joey Wecker - Ferris

n/a

Jordan Welter - U-High

n/a

Jordon Newton - Saint George

First, a little background on my experience in the debate community. I debated at Saint George's for 4 years in high school, and am in my second year debating at Gonzaga University. As for some general things, I think debate is supposed to be a fun activity for everyone involved. Please try to be respectful of those participating of the activity, and do not be rude or offensive in front of me, that's an easy way to tank your speaks. For paperless debate, I stop prep when the debater is done preparing their speech. I think that framing of how I should evaluate the arguments in the debate is critical in the 2nr/2ar. In close debates, the team who does a better job framing why I should evaluate their impacts first will shape how I look at the debate going into the decision, and you should try to use your framing argument as a lens to how I view the majority of the debate. That being said, don't take this as an excuse to decrease technical coverage, because that will only hurt you in the long run. About some views I have on specific arguments: Kritiks/Non-traditional affs: As a judge, I've found myself much more willing to vote for teams defending non-policy frameworks than I thought I would have been. Don't hesitate to read your normal arguments in front of me. Just be warned, I might not be an expert in the literature you are reading, and you should have a strong explanation of how what the argument is/how it functions for kritiks that are further from the political realm. While I'm willing to evaluate any framework, I think there is something to be said for a strong defense of political action. I'm unlikely to vote on 'kritiks shouldn't be allowed' in debate type arguments. Especially in terms of kritiks and kritik impacts, I think that impact framing is the most important thing in terms of how I'll evaluate both sides arguments, and a defense of why your impacts matter is critical. I find myself less willing to vote on generic, broad sweeping turns case/serial policy failure arguments unless the team advancing those positions provides a warrant for why it applies to the other teams scenarios. Specificity of link arguments are critical for any criticism. Counterplans: I love a good advantage counterplan, or case specific counterplan. I'm generally fine with other agent counterplans as well. I tend to err aff on counterplan theory related to counterplans that do the entirety of the aff, and counterplans that are not textually competitive. These are not unwinnable, but I am very convinced by theory arguments against arguments like consult, delay, and process counterplans. As for conditionality, I believe that conditionality is probably good, but am uncomfortable with the idea of three conditional worlds. Contextualizing how I should evaluate counterplan vs aff internal link structures can only help your chances of winning the debate. DA's: Impact comparison is the most significant portion of the debate for me. Turns the impact arguments are very compelling in debates where there is little else to distinguish impacts, but you need to be more articulate than just x turns y, you need to explain what about your impact uniquely accesses your opponents, especially if access your opponents impact args are going in both directions. I personally dislike the uniqueness controls the direction of the link framing on DA's, especially in close debates, but can be convinced to evaluate in that direction if you provide a strong warrant to do so. The more specific your DA/Link arguments, the better. T/Theory: I love a good T debate. However, if you are not clearly impacting your education/limits claim, I find it very difficult to evaluate at times how I should vote. I do not think that limits are good for limits sake, the debaters need to articulate why the aff uniquely is bad or causes bad cases to be read. For theory, I mentioned most of my theory preferences above, but I'll make a note here about my evaluation: these debates are very messy, and think that clearly articulating a small number of offensive arguments and explaining those in depth gets you a lot further than reading a generic block at me. I believe most arguments are a reason to reject the argument and not the team, external of conditionality, and think it woiuld be difficult to win an argument they don't go for is a reason the other team should lose. In terms of 2nr choice, unless the 2nr says conditionality means I can kick the counterplan/alt for you if you lose them, I will not kick those arguments for you. And even if you do, if the 2ar provides a compelling reason why I shouldn't, its a debate to be evaluated. Overall, just do what you do best, and try to have fun in the debate.

Julie Trail - Moscow HIgh

n/a

Justine Bunch - CDA

n/a

K. Danielson - Gonzaga Prep

Kari Steele - Ephrata

n/a

Kathy Helman - Ferris

n/a

Lani Ghirarduzzi - CDA

n/a

Laurie Rogers - Gonzaga Prep

Lindsay Oden - Lake City

n/a

Liz Bremner - Republic

n/a

Lori Cossette - Gonzaga Prep

Marissa Owen - Lake City

n/a

Mark Wenzel - liberty Bell

n/a

Matt Hall - Lake City

n/a

Michael Hightower - Moscow HIgh

n/a

Mike Stovern - Mead

I will follow my flow fairly closely, and I consider drops concessions, but please don't tell me that what your opponent dropped is a voter. Instead, tell me about the impact of that concession. Primarily, I will make my decisions based upon the quality of your voting issues when they are filtered through your value/criterion. Please give me voters that show impact and demonstrate an effective use of how your criterion upholds your value. Show me what the world is like under the side of the resolution that you are defending. I am willing to vote on anything as long as you can support it, or your opponent doesn’t discredit it.   Your criterion should serve as a weighing mechanism and a means to uphold your value. All contentions should uphold your value unless you have a contention with the purpose of showing how the opposing side is immoral/impossible. Rebuttals should have no new evidence.   Remember to roadmap and signpost. Feel free to speak quickly, but slow down on tag lines and be clear. Be polite; you are attacking a position not a person.

Mike Page - TEC

n/a

Mrs. Kilayko - Gonzaga Prep

Nick Corr - Ferris

n/a

Pat Simmons - Ephrata

n/a

Paul Kanellopoulos - Saint George

Phletha Wynn - CDA

n/a

Sally Conner - Central Valley Hig

I have judged debate events for about 15 years, most frequently congress, with occasional LD and PF. I enjoy rounds that stay away from excessive jargon and debaters focus on clear communication. I think that the value is important in a LD round, and I think that evidence is important in a round, but that it is an even more important skill to focus on deciding what evidence is important to include in a round, and to explain the relevance of this information. I do not enjoy speed.

Sam Normington - U-High

n/a

Sam Normington - Saint George

<h2> <span style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: en-us; mso-fareast-language: en-us; mso-bidi-language: ar-sa"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: en-us; mso-fareast-language: en-us; mso-bidi-language: ar-sa">I competed in policy debate in high school and have been coaching all forms of debate the past ten years.  I traditionally judge policy debate, so often find myself preferring its trappings. Speed, topicality, kritiks, are all fine by me, use them or don't, doesn't bother me.  I will do my best to evaluate the round using the framework the debaters put forth.  I like clash, and I like impact calculus.  </h2>

Scott Kaster - U-High

n/a

Sean Flaherty - NC HS

n/a

Tim Harper - Gonzaga Prep

<a data-hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/hovercard.php?id=1450020135" href="http://www.facebook.com/tim.harper.359" id="js_1">Tim Harper</a> <div class="_53" id="id.255042037952260"> <div class="_3hi"> <div class="_1yr">  </div> <div class="_38 direction_ltr"> Judging philosophy: Experience: I have been debating for 6 years – Three for Ashland High School and three for Gonzaga. I am a senior and captain of the Gonzaga debate team. I have 20+ rounds of experience on this year’s topic. Preferences: General: I default to an offense-defense paradigm. I don’t think a conceded argument automatically constitutes a win—you must explain the arguments you want me to evaluate and extrapolate why I should do so. why do I care and what does it mean to the rest of the debate? That said, concessions are tie-breakers. I will read evidence. Most likely, I will read lots of it. However putting evidence in my hands means I will give it only as much weight as it deserves and not necessarily as much as you tell me it does. Make sure if you tell me to read a card that you are willing to stake the debate on it being as good as you think it is. I reward concise, articulate, well-reasoned arguments over pedantic soap boxing. With this in mind, you will be well served to remove filler phrases from your vocabulary – “pull the trigger,” “at the point where,” “extend across the flow” etc, etc… If you could choose to be funny or be smart and professional while debating in front of me, I prefer the latter. CP: I will accept a lens of sufficiency for evaluating counterplans and believe the aff must win a large risk of a solvency deficit, permutation or disadvantage to the counterplan to win a debate against a counterplan that resolves a large portion of the aff. I am not adverse to conditions, multi-plank advantage, process, or consultation counterplans. Theory arguments except conditionality are a reason to reject the team unless persuasively proven otherwise. DA: I think a DA that turns the whole case can outweigh the whole aff without substantive case defense, but you are well suited to cover your bases and sufficiently mitigate aff advantages to be safe. For the aff, I will vote on terminal defense on a disadvantage, however because I default to offense-defense, the threshold for winning zero risk of the DA is somewhat higher than winning some risk of offense, especially if there is a counterplan that solves all of the aff. Impact calculus should not be ignored – it can often be the tie-breaker in close case v. disad debates. Topicality: I will default to competing interpretations but will usually lean aff unless the T argument is particularly compelling or the affirmative is very obviously non- or anti-topical. Kritik: Although I am not a K debater, I increasingly find myself voting for K teams because highschool debaters largely do not a) understand or b) forward a framework argument. That said, I will likely understand and simultaneously detest your kritik. If you think your opponent is smart enough to read my philosophy (an admittedly unlikely proposition) and therefore decide to go for framework, you are likely in a less-than-desirable position. I will evaluate alternatives in the following manner—It will either need to establish a competing role of the ballot through which I should view the alternative, or I will default to assuming it operates within the same worldview of the aff and therefore should be able to outweigh or solve those competing impacts. </div> </div> </div>

2012 Southside Invitational