FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adrick Moore - Lake City

n/a

Aidan Burgeson - CDA

n/a

Alexis Di Sanza - Central Valley Hig

Policy: I typically prefer policy-based arguments, and do not have as much experience with kritiks. However, if that’s what you run, I’ll listen. Just be aware that I do not know the literature as well and I have a slightly higher threshold for explanation. I default to an offense/defense paradigm unless you tell me otherwise.  CX is binding. Topicality: I tend to lean aff on topicality arguments. The best way to win T in front of me is to articulate external impacts. Specific impacts are superior to potential abuse, and comparison of standards is very important for both sides. T is not an RVI. Theory: I am more sympathetic to aff conditionality arguments than other judges when the negative reads multiple conditional counterplans, especially if any those counterplans have multiple conditional planks. However, the aff has to develop these conditionality arguments throughout the round, and have a counter interpretation. Blippy tags won’t cut it. Most other theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, not the team. CPs/DAs: The more specific, the better. I tend to believe that counterplans should be both textually and functionally competitive. Even though I evaluate a round based on offense/defense, I will assign zero risk of a disad if you are substantially winning a defensive argument. Kritiks: As I mentioned, I am not as familiar with this style, but I have both seen and run kritiks, and I can figure out what you’re saying and vote on it if you explain your link/impact/alternative clearly.  Please avoid buzzwords, as I don’t regularly read much literature that is often introduced in kritik debates. LD: Do what you do best, and I will follow. Non-traditional formats are fine. I evaluate LD debates in a very similar manner as I do policy, offense is important.  Value to value clash is very important but should not be separate from the rest of the debate. I really don’t think Topicality or theory are RVIs. I have an extremely high threshold for this argument. I have never voted on an RVI and going for one will result in low speaker points. That being said, I can tell the difference between good theory arguments and dumb ones. I flow the affirmative and negative on two separate sheets of paper. You will be expected to adjust your speeches and signpost accordingly.

Ann Nesbitt - TEC

n/a

Anna Kecskes - Ferris

n/a

Anya Gumke - Mt Spokane

n/a

Arienne Baker - Lake City

n/a

Ashley Alexandrovich - CDA

n/a

BethAnn Long - Ferris

n/a

Bill Bailey - NC HS

n/a

Bill Wagstaff - Mead

Bill Hope - Ferris

n/a

Bonnie Carson - Mead

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.

Bree Ferris - Mt Spokane

n/a

Caleb Palmquist - U-High

n/a

Cara Langsfeld - Mt Spokane

n/a

Cara Urich - TEC

n/a

Cathy Yates - Oaks Christian

n/a

Cathy Helman - Ferris

n/a

Charles Manchester - Mead

Chris Regan - CDA

n/a

Corrine Schmidt - Ferris

n/a

Dan Cooper - Lake City

n/a

Dan Wu - Ferris

n/a

Dan Biwer - Ferris

n/a

Dave Collins - Mead

I'm Dave Collins. I'm one of the assistant coaches at Mead. I debated last year at Eastern Washington University, but I've debated for a couple of other schools as well. I would be happy to tell you about it after the round, if you want. But you don't care about where I have debated, you care about my judging philosophy. So here it is. I feel the most equatable way to determine who won is to based my decision off the flow. This is where I will default. If, however, you feel that I should be a stock issues judge, then persuade me to do so and I will vote on the stock issues. Likewise for discourse, or T, or whatever. Most of my background is in critical argumentation, but that doesn't mean I haven't also voted on T. I will vote on any argument that is impacted out. Speed is fine, but a lack of clarity is not. I will let you know verbally if you aren't being clear a few times, then I'll just stop flowing. Debate is a communication activity and if I can't understand what you are saying, then you are going to have a tough time getting my ballot. I feel similiar about tag team cross-ex. In addition to being a communication activity, debate is also a team activity, and if you don't let your partner answer cross ex questions than your speaker points will reflect that. But mostly, have fun! We are giving up our weekend to be here, so we should enjoy ourselves. I've been known to give slightly improved speaker points to teams that incorporate memes into their speeches.

David Sutman - Mt Spokane

n/a

David Smith - U-High

n/a

Denis Hanson - Central Valley Hig

Derek Slaughter - TEC

n/a

G Prep Parent #1 - Gonzaga Prep

n/a

G Prep Parent #2 - Gonzaga Prep

n/a

Gina Peterson - Oaks Christian

n/a

Hailey Clawson - Saint George

n/a

Heidi Becker - Ferris

n/a

Holly Musgrave - U-High

n/a

Jackson Eubanks - Lake City

n/a

James Heath - Gonzaga Prep

Jason Schow - Ferris

n/a

Jeni Leidenfrost - Moscow HIgh

n/a

Jessica Mulholland - CDA

n/a

JoAnn Flaherty - LC Tigers

n/a

Joe Engel - Gonzaga Prep

n/a

Jon Bagby - TEC

n/a

Jonanthan Moore - LC Tigers

n/a

Jordan Welter - U-High

n/a

Julie Trail - Moscow HIgh

n/a

Justin Peterson - Lake City

n/a

Kelley Matthews - Ferris

n/a

Lani Ghirarduzzi - CDA

n/a

Laryssa Lynch - Mt Spokane

n/a

Lindsay Oden - Lake City

n/a

Liz Bremner - Republic

n/a

Lori Cossette - Gonzaga Prep

Luke O'Bannon - Ferris

n/a

Maegan James - Rogers

n/a

Margot Cioccio - TEC

n/a

Martin Trail - Moscow HIgh

n/a

Mary Corr - Ferris

n/a

Matt Campbell - Ferris

n/a

Max Brady-Hoover - U-High

n/a

Megan Cox - Lake City

n/a

Michael Hightower - Moscow HIgh

n/a

Michelle Klein - Ferris

n/a

Nichole Clegern - Central Valley Hig

Nick Corr - Ferris

n/a

Phletha Wynn - CDA

n/a

Ping Ping Zhou - Ferris

n/a

Rhiannon Kubes - U-High

n/a

Rob Modderman - Oaks Christian

n/a

Rob Peterson - Oaks Christian

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>

Samuel Page - Ferris

n/a

Sandra Marguiles - Ferris

n/a

Sarah McIntire - Lake City

n/a

Sarah Pickering - Ferris

n/a

Tamara Cooney - Ferris

n/a

Taylar McClure - Lake City

n/a

Taylor Anne Sims - Mead

Valeri Schwaderer - CDA

n/a

Will Spilker - LC Tigers

n/a

Wraith Snow - Mead

Zach Culpepper - Lake City

n/a

Zach Cheeley - Oaks Christian

n/a

2013 Southside Invitational