Judge Philosophies
Alex Bruell - Federal Way
n/a
Alyssa Shewey - Lindbergh
n/a
Amanda Tobey - Gig Harbor
n/a
Amy McCormick - Tahoma High
Andy Stuckey - TAFA
n/a
April Emerson - Wolves
n/a
Atlas Kulish - Kingston
n/a
Bill Hollands - Hazen
n/a
Brandon Williams - TAFA
n/a
Brian Coyle - Kingston
Cesar Bernal - NKHS
n/a
Chalen Kelly - CKHS
<p>Most notes here are for my preferences in relation to LD:</p> <p>As a coach and teacher I believe that debate is an educational activity that supports citizenship in a participatory democracy. As such, debate ought to prioritize communication in an accessible format for all involved. Because the forensics community ought to strive to broaden our reach and bridge the gap between academic focus and the needs of the broader community, we need to maintain events that are accessible to all kinds of people. That said, I will judge competitors both on their ability to critically analyze their topics and on their ability to communicate their analysis to their audience. I love philosophy and I see LD as one of the few activities that prizes and articulates the value of philosophy in relation to politics, it is depressing to watch the LD world shrink as it moves further from accessibility to new students and to the larger community. As a judge, I value accessibility of the event to a wide audience as a means to maintain the vitality of the activity. Thus, when I ask you to avoid spreading, it isn't because I can't keep up, it is because I want the debate to be presented in a way that will make new students and families want to support the event. In the current CX style, I see the LD world fading. Please don't contribute to that pattern.</p> <p>I am a former LD debater, and I enjoy philosophy, so if you are cabable of running a strong resolutional analysis using philosophical underpinnings, I'll probably enjoy the round. I don't mind the use of Kritics (in fact I really like them when they are done well), but I'm not a fan of theory focused on burdens and abuse issues like RVI's. Please don't spend your precious time arguing the finer points of burden while neglecting the more significant aspects of clash in your rounds. I also find topicality arguments generally tiresome as they tend to be too focused on technicalities and less focused on the central clash.</p> <p>I already dealt with spread/speed by telling you that I value communication, but in case you missed it, here it is again. Don't try to spread your arguments if you are sacrificing your ability to communicate clearly with your audience. There are not many students that can both communicate clearly and spread, so you are running a risk if you spread in rounds with me as the judge. I can keep up, but often don't see the benefit of doing so...</p> <p>I wrote a longer philosphy on the Wiki page for judges. Feel free to ask me about your arguments at tournaments, I'll be happy to discuss the round and current resolutions if I have time.</p> <p>All of the information noted above is aimed toward my role as an LD judge. I am likely to be judging Public Forum or Congress due to the competitor list for our team.</p> <p>In<strong> Public Forum</strong>, I generally try to keep a clean slate. <strong>Look fors: </strong>good analysis, strong evidence, cost/benefit analysis, generally well formatted presentation, clear signposting, strong voters, crystalization and impacts at the end of the speech. An especially strong team will provide regional analysis and impacts for their issues that explain international connections when appropriate. I don't mind some bleed from other forms of debate as long as it isn't overly fast or jargon-filled. If you use a lot of acronyms, be careful to explain them. I change the kinds of debate I judge on a regular basis, so I'm not always as familiar with the current resolutional lingo as you are. Blipping a turn this or drop that without explaining why is generally a bad idea, so remember to explain why you think I should turn an argument, cross apply or drop it. Thanks.</p> <p> </p>
Dave Conn - Peninsula
n/a
David-Alex Lewis-Jimmerson - Peninsula
Denise Comeau - NKHS
n/a
Diana Stalter - Seattle Academy
n/a
Eileen DeMetrio - Hazen
n/a
Gregory Stevens - Orting
n/a
Jaime Holguin - Gig Harbor
<p>Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000183 EndHTML:0000005304 StartFragment:0000002721 EndFragment:0000005268 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/coov/Downloads/Jaime%20judge%20paradigm.doc</p> <p>Two years of high school policy debate, will be my fourth year of judging.</p> <p>Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and Analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.</p> <p> </p> <p>Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does need to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round.</p> <p> </p> <p>Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me the judge to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW.</p> <p> </p> <p>Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don't just tell me to reject the 1AC and that it somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get strong analysis of the warranted evidence of the neg to vote for a reject alt.</p> <p> </p> <p>Counterplan: If you show how the CP is a better policy than the Aff, I will vote for it.</p> <p> </p> <p>Theory: No matter what the theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the argument not the team.</p> <p> </p> <p>For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don't make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before the round.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
James Cleary - Trojans
n/a
Jason Woehler - Federal Way
n/a
Jeanne Blair - Wolves
n/a
Jennifer Griffith - Gig Harbor
n/a
Jim Winton - Seattle Academy
n/a
Joel Underwood - Seattle Academy
n/a
John Mercer - Tahoma High
Julie Johnson - Tahoma High
Kaelyn Holguin - Gig Harbor
n/a
Katherine Horelick - Lindbergh
n/a
Kaveh Dilmaghani - Tahoma High
Kendall Martin - Trojans
n/a
Kim Leach - TAFA
n/a
Kyle Kendall - Peninsula
n/a
Lasica Crane - Kingston
<p>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. <br /> </p>
Lauren Hillard - Gig Harbor
Linga Reddy - Newport
n/a
Lois Gorne - Federal Way
n/a
Mark Davis - ARHS
n/a
Mary Kulish - Kingston
n/a
Matthew Witek - Rogers
n/a
Max Davatos - Hazen
n/a
Melissa Fleming - Kingston
n/a
Michael King - Renton HS
n/a
Michelle Sutterfield - Tahoma High
n/a
Morgia Belcher - Gig Harbor
Mrs. Bannon - NKHS
n/a
Neal Nuckolls - Seattle Academy
n/a
Nich McIntosh - Trojans
n/a
Paul Sealey - Federal Way
n/a
Piper Ragland - Kingston
Rebecca Swanson - Renton HS
n/a
Scott Mercer - Tahoma High
Tom Wiley - Kingston
<p>I majored in philosophy & math in college. I have 5 years experience judging LD/PuFo & Congress. When it comes to a judging paradigm, I follow my heart.</p>
Vicki Orrico - Newport
Virginia Hunter - Kingston
n/a