FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Alex Ong - Federal Way

n/a

Alisha Bond - TAFA

n/a

Amber Strehle - Snohomish

n/a

Amy Michael - TBHS

n/a

Amy Qin - Interlake

Andrea Dunnavant - Lakes

n/a

Andrea Lairson - Bear Creek

Andrew Chadwell - Gig Harbor

Andrew Buchan - Jefferson

n/a

Andy Stuckey - TAFA

n/a

Angie Stephens - Highland High

When judging any and all types of debate I want to see the debaters utilize their personal strengths.  I do not mind speed as long as you are still interacting with me and making sure I can follow.  If I drop my pen slow down.  I like K and Counterplan debates and enjoy solvency on case.  Don't drop arguments. Any further questions you have i would be happy to answer before round. I prefer realistic impacts over magnitude. In LD I like heavy theory!!!!  I excpect you to know your theorists and their work and amalgamate data with theory.  I hate dropped arguments and want you to do logical work on the value.  I expect you to use the value to win.  I hate policy in LD.  If you run a plan, counterplan or k in LD I will not pick you up.  I respect the value of each style of debate and will not tolerate them running together.   In PF use logic, but do not run a case.  I want links and style.  Impacts are good, but not if they are improbably.  Make sure you are professional and clash.  Don't drop arguments

Ann Jones - Seattle Academy

n/a

April Wiese - Eastlake HS

n/a

Austin Vaarvik - Gig Harbor

Ben Cushman - Capital HS

n/a

Bill Hollands - Hazen

n/a

Bill Nicolay - Snohomish

n/a

Bill Messing - Bridge

Blythe Simmons - AVI

n/a

Bob Gomulkiewiz - Bear Creek

Brent DeCracker - Cedar Park

n/a

Brenton Bennett - Ingraham

Brian Coyle - Kingston

C. Steve Rowe - Interlake

Carmen Gale - Kingston

Carrie Walker - Kamiak

n/a

Chalen Kelly - CKHS

n/a

Chance Corey - CKHS

n/a

Chet Dawson - Jefferson

n/a

Chris Kassler - CKHS

n/a

Chris Coovert - Gig Harbor

Chris Coovert, Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA Coached LD: 17 years Coached CX: 12 years Competed in LD: 4 years Competed in NPDA: 2 years LD Paradigm: I have been competing in, judging and coaching Lincoln Douglas debate for over twenty years. I have seen a lot of changes, some good, some not so good. This is what you should know<a href="http://wiki.cgm.ucdavis.edu/groups/mah01/wiki/5dbc6/All_about_lego.html">.</a> I will evaluate the round based on the framework provided by the debaters. The affirmative needs to establish a framework (usually a value and criterion) and then show why based on the framework, the resolution is true. The negative should either show why the resolution is not true under that framework or provide a competing framework which negates. My stock paradigm is what most people now call truth testing: the aff's burden is to prove the resolution true and the negatives is to prove it false. I will default to this absent another framework being established in the round. If both debaters agree that I should evaluate as a policymaker, I am able to do that and will. If you both put me in some other mode, that is reasonable as well. If there is an argument, however, between truth testing and another way of looking at the round the higher burden of proof will be on the debater attempting the shift away from truth testing. As far as specific arguments go. 1. I find topicality arguments generally do not apply in Lincoln Douglas debate. If the affirmative is not dealing with the resolution, then they are not meeting their burden to prove the resolution true. This is the issue, not artificial education or abuse standards. I have voted on T in the past, but I think there are more logical ways to approach these arguments. 2. I find the vast majority of theory arguments to be very poorly run bastardizations of policy theory that do not really apply to LD. 3. I have a strong, strong, bias against debaters using theory shells as their main offensive weapon in rounds when the other debater is running stock, predictable cases. I am open to theory arguments against abusive positions, but I want you to debate the resolution, not how we should debate. 4. You need to keep site of the big picture. Impact individual arguments back to framework. Finally, I am a flow judge. I will vote on the arguments. That said, I prefer to see debaters keep speeds reasonable, especially in the constructives. You don’t have to be conversational, but I want to be able to make out individual words and get what you are saying. It is especially important to slow down a little bit when reading lists of framework or theory arguments that are not followed by cards. I will tell you if you are unclear. CX Paradigm I have not judged very much CX lately, but I still do coach it and judge it occasionally. I used to consider myself a policy maker, but I am probably open enough to critical arguments that this is not completely accurate anymore. At the same time, I am not Tab. I don't think any judge truly is. I do enter the room with some knowledge of the world and I have a bias toward arguments that are true and backed by logic. In general: 1. I will evaluate the round by comparing impacts unless you convince me to do otherwise. 2. I am very open to K's that provide real alternatives and but much less likely to vote on a K that provides no real alt. 3. If you make post-modern K arguments at mock speed and don't explain them to me, do not expect me to do the work for you. 4. I tend to vote on abuse stories on T more than competing interpretations. 5. I really hate theory debates. Please try to avoid them unless the other team leaves you no choice. 6. The way to win my ballot is to employ a logical, coherent strategy and provide solid comparison of your position to your opponents. I am able to flow fairly quickly, but I don't judge enough to keep up with the fastest teams. If I tell you to be clear or slow down please listen.

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.

Cindy Kerns - Federal Way

n/a

Colleen Malcolm - Puyallup

n/a

Colton Smith - Eastside Catholic

My name is Colton Smith. I graduated in 2013 after debating for Wenatchee High School in WA. I primarily debated on the national circuit and qualified to the TOC my junior and senior year. I am a tab judge with a few caveats. Util is true and thus I default to an util framework. Other frameworks are fine though as well. If you want to run critical or dense philosophy I may not be the best judge to pref. I presume theory is a reason to drop the argument not the debater. I default to competing interps with the nuance that I will give large leeway to a debater that is answering a frivolous theory shell (especially when aff). Fairness is a voter, education may or may not be. I default to theory NOT being a RVI but can be persuaded the other way. Things I will not vote for under any circumstance:   <ul> <li>Skepticism</li> <li>Framework triggers</li> <li>A prioris or NIBs that are unrelated to the standard</li> <li>Presumption</li> <li>Permissibility</li> <li>Unwarranted arguments</li> <li>Any micropolitical position</li> </ul> Things I enjoy: <ul> <li>Util</li> <li>Plans, CPs, and DAs</li> <li>Perms</li> <li>Impact turns</li> <li>Impact defense (I believe in terminal defense and give more strength to defense than most judges)</li> <li>Weighing (Debaters do not do enough of this but it will take you a long way in front of me)</li> <li>Extinction first arguments</li> <li>Textual advocacies</li> <li>Theoretical reasons to prefer util</li> <li>CX checks</li> </ul> I base speaks purely off technical proficiency. If you are aff, make your 1AR good and you will get good speaks.  If an argument is conceded you do not need to extend the warrant, just the claim. Feel free to ask me questions before the round!

Connor Magee - Gig Harbor

Connor Mildenberger - Puyallup

Daniel Brokaw - Peninsula

David Gilchrist - Eastside Catholic

n/a

David Hancock - Puyallup

Dean Haynes - AVI

n/a

Dee Kowalis - Highland High

n/a

Diana Stalter - Seattle Academy

n/a

Don Davis - Newport

n/a

Drew Kent - Gig Harbor

Dylan Mccarthy - Gig Harbor

Dylan Thomas - Ingraham

Eric Palossari - Tahoma High

Eric Ranz - Holy Names

n/a

Erin Burdick - Tahoma High

Faye Wu - Newport

Gabriella Bulman - Lakes

n/a

Garrick Graham - Federal Way

n/a

Glenda Braun - Trojans

n/a

Gordon Zhang - Mercer Island

Irina Menn - Interlake

Isaac Menninga - Interlake

Isaiah Parker - Jefferson

n/a

Jack McGougan - VHS

I debated policy for four years at St. George’s in Spokane, WA where I was competitive on the national circuit and now I’m a freshman debater at the University of Puget Sound. I’ll keep this brief since, if you’re reading this, you are probably trying to prep. To get high speaker points: -use cross-x effectively, don’t waste time -start evidence comparison early -read good ev -have foresight, strategy going into the round (specific>generic when it comes to strategies but I’m from a small school, so I understand) -don’t steal prep (looking at you paperless debaters) -sound good, be clear, I think I should have an okay idea of what your ev is saying when you read it (to be clear, my flow is okay, it’s not a big deal if you’re very fast) Things you might need to know… Regarding theory/T: -unfamiliar with the nuances or cases of the topic -I default to offense-defense -I don’t like to vote on cheap shots. However, if there is a developed warrant for rejecting the team, I don’t care if it’s a bad arg, I’ll vote on it (probably not though if it’s like agent CPs bad on a CP they didn’t go for)   Regarding the K: -love substantive framework debates on the K. That’s just to say that 2As should confront the ontology, epistemology, methodology, w/e of the K and relate that to questions of political action, the possibility of things like the case, etc. This is opposed to a theoretical fwk debate about limits, ground, t spec edu, which is A. boring/unpersuasive and B. too easy for the neg to win because they’ll always have better ev on that. Regarding CPs: -I do think CPs should be textually and functionally competitive and 2As shouldn’t fear going for theory and the perm in front of me when debating these CPs. Negatives, if you have a CP with an interesting, topic-specific way to explain how the CP competes, that’s cool too. DA -there such thing as zero risk, or at least such marginal risk as to make it irrelevant to a decision calculus -UQ determines direction of link -usually err neg on theory regarding the politics DA I love debate. Be respectful, be passionate, be yourself, debate smart.

Jason Woehler - Federal Way

n/a

Jeff Gans - Eastside Catholic

I am the head coach at Eastside Catholic in Sammamish, WA, and am the former coach at Bainbridge and Mercer Island. My students have competed at the TOC and have won or advanced to significant outrounds at Bronx, Greenhill, Valley, Berkeley, Blake, Stanford, Whitman, the WA State tournament, and Nationals. I have taught for three summers at VBI and serve on the TOC's LD committee. My school debates 15-20 weeks a year, including three or four national circuit tournaments. I default to Competing Interpretations as a paradigm unless told otherwise. I will call "clear" if you're being unclear, "slow" if you're going too fast for me, and "loud" if you're too quiet. In general, you should be louder than you think you need to be. I am willing to vote anywhere on the flow, so long as it is justified and warranted, though I prefer a clear standard (whatever it is) and get frustrated when you don't give me one. Tell me how arguments function and how to order them. This goes for theory and other "pre-standard" issues as well as those that come in traditional case debate. Note: I reserve the right to give stupid/blippy arguments minimal consideration in favor of developed ideas, even if your opponent doesn't attack them. While tek debate does guide my evaluation, the single two-second spike you extend probably isn't enough to invalidate an entire case on its own. I'm a thinking person who considers the merit of your position, not a blank-slate robot. Theory is fine by me, but please be explicit about the violation. The more specific and targeted the interp and violation, the more likely I am to vote on it. Also, you should weigh between competing theory shells, just as you would in any other part of the round. Not doing so just forces me to intervene and decide which shell is more important, which you don't want me to do. Here's what I dislike: <ul> <li>Lies or incorrect information, especially if you're arguing about real-world events. For example, if you tell me that Nixon told Stalin to tear down the Berlin Wall or that American settlers didn't know that the blankets they offered their hosts were infested with smallpox, I will laugh at you.</li> <li>Discursive arguments in theory. I generally see these arguments as being hypocritical and often cynically presented. If you truly think that I ought to vote down your opponent to stop his or her hateful oppression of subaltern groups then you need to never have said a derogatory thing in your life. That said, if I hear you being hateful (in or out of round), you can expect to have a tougher time winning my ballot. The caveat to this is when you present a morally repugnant idea but justify it in-round through some other means. In that case, fire away. For other theory tactics - the standards you use, RVIs, etc. - I'm persuaded by the merits of your argument. It's especially nice when you frame your voters in terms of what my role in the round is as the judge.</li> <li>Skep. My bias is that the whole point of a skep strat is to collapse the debate to presumption, which is a reductive way to debate. Maybe I'm wrong about this; if you're running skep, you should tell me why.</li> <li>Determinism. Call me naive or arrogant, but I like to think that I have control over my own mind and decisions. Furthermore there's no proof in the world that G_d/the Universe/the Master and Commander/Unicron is on your side rather than your opponent's, so even if determinism exists I don't know why I have to vote for you.</li> </ul> I really like alternative frameworks, Kritiks, etc., but they need to be explained in complete detail; don't just assume that we're in the same ideological or philosophical crowd and shirk on your responsibilities by giving me jargon or philosophical shorthand. I flow by hand. Speed doesn't irritate me, but there is a threshold after which I stop flowing and just try to listen to your arguments as best I can. You can help yourself by enunciating and varying your pitch; for clear speakers I'm about an 8.5 on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being Colton Smith or Annie Kors. Don't speed up while reading cards: I like to hear what the authors say, not just your assertions about what's in the evidence. With that in mind, I'll call for cases after the round to re-read cards, though not to reconstruct arguments. If I've missed your tactic due to speed, denseness, or enunciation the first time, it's gone. I tend to give speaks based off in-round proficiency and my own running comparison of you with other debaters I've seen in the pool, with 28.0/28.5 being about average for national circuit debate. (Have no fear, young'uns and lone wolves: I don't give higher speaks based on rep; I'll only compare you with debaters I've actually seen.) Higher speaks do not always go to the winner of the round. Two other requests: First, please begin your speeches at about 85% of your final rate so that I can get used to your voice. Second, don't bend over or scrunch down - it'll constrict your lungs and you won't speak as clearly. This may mean you have to stand up and use one of those silly laptop stands, but whatevs. Feel free to email me if you have any questions. I look forward to seeing some great rounds! <a href="mailto:jeffrey.w.gans@gmail.com">jeffrey.w.gans@gmail.com</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>

Jenni Kevis - Snohomish

n/a

Jennifer Williams - Kamiak

n/a

Jenny Hsu - Interlake

Jessica Klein - VHS

n/a

Jim Anderson - Capital HS

n/a

Jim Scott - Capital HS

n/a

Joah Jablon - Federal Way

n/a

Joel Underwood - Seattle Academy

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.

John Doty - AVI

n/a

Jordan Hudgens - Bridge

tl;dr: Make extensions when appropriate, clearly weigh arguments (direct comparisons and take-outs are lovely), and illustrate how you win the standard debate and what that means for your arguments. The 1AC and 1NC are certainly crucial, but they are (in my mind) stepping stones to the more nuanced and particular aspects of the debate. It all comes down to the 1AR/1NR/2AR, explication of warrants/impacts, link analysis, etc. Very basically I want to see how you're winning the debate, why that's true (warrant), and what that means for the round/value debate (impact). I'm a very flow oriented judge, and I flow on my computer. As such, it is difficult to lose me on the flow...with some exceptions. The best debaters know how to help the judge navigate the flow, and understand that proper labeling and communicating with the judge are essential towards that end. Crystallization helps, but you shouldn't resort to rehashing your argument at the end of a speech simply to fill up time. The state of value debate in Lincoln-Douglas is, in a word, defunct. 90% of the values at present are morality (or a permutation, such as moral permissibility), and the debates are taking place largely about what type of morality we're using and the advantages/disadvantages of each. You are certainly welcome to use another value; however, if you are going to offer justice, orsocial welfare, or something of that nature, it should be clearly demarcated from morality (uniquely good or valuable). Arguments for why 'your value should be preferred' should be considerably more substantial than, say, 'life is a prerequisite for morality!' if you wish them to be taken seriously in the round. Link into your standard, or give me clear weighing and re-emphasis of your standard in your final speech! You don't need to constantly reference it, but it should be brought up at some point. Theory and weird args are fine; in fact, I enjoy interesting philosophical viewpoints a great deal, provided they are warranted and clearly argued. I think that processual debates can be very intriguing, and consider theory to be either a check on abuse or kritik of the current debate round (perhaps the other person being deliberately obfuscating, etc). I consider RVIs a de-facto option for the affirmative, though the negative can certainly present arguments for why the affirmative doesn't get an RVI. The threshold for winning an RVI, though, is extremely high. I'm not certain that going all-in on an RVI in front of me is an effective strategy, and I find that debaters are better served by utilizing imeets or counter interps to handle theory. I've found that a lot of the theory debates can become very unclear for a judge to evaluate on solely, so if you don't think you can convincingly win on theory, I recommend not trying for the (2AR) RVI. Getting a 30: speak clearly (not necessarily slowly, but I expect above-average intelligibility), don't make drops (or be incredibly efficient with cross applications), use all your speech time, and, most crucially, THOROUGHLY DOMINATE YOUR OPPONENT.I don't care that much about your body language (eye contact, inflection, etc. are good to have but I'm not going to punish you beyond speaker points on what may be simply bad habits), but I do care that you speak intelligibly, whether it's ludicrously fast or unbelievably slow. Being courteous is very important.

Jordan "Newport" - Interlake

Josh Plumridge - Holy Names

Topicality You can of course win a t arg without collapsing down to only t in the 2nr, but it would greatly help if you didn't go for four things in the last speech. I kind of love T when it's run with care, with love - when it's not just an excuse to spread the 2ac, when the standards/impacts debate is fleshed out, when it's made clear why the aff interpretation of the res sets a bad precedent for debate.  Kritiks  It seems the most common ks this year are critiques of colonialism/empire and ks whose intellectual roots are found in psychoanalysis or something a little more obscure. Please don't run the latter unless you know what you're talking about. It cheapens the activity and the subject matter.  Counter plans  I like them a lot. Especially clever PICs. I really hope the cp debate doesn't devolve into walls of blippy theory. I actually like theory a lot, but only if it's advanced coherently, rather than in some silly glib manner.  Stylistic notes I like speed as long as you're clear. Duh. Please don't be cocky or disrespectful to the other team. It has never helped someone win. You will probably not win on "a dropped arg is a true arg" unless you heavily impact that drop.  I'm not going to say I'm a policy maker or tabula rasa. Both are literally false for almost every judge on the circuit. The more you create your own voting hierarchy and offer compelling impact analysis, the less likely it is that I'll have to intervene. Finally, I obviously prefer offense versus defense, but I also believe in curtailing the hegemony of risk analysis in debate. Sometimes the 2ac reads an impact takeout instead of a turn, and it's a 100% takeout.

Julie Denmark - Cedar Park

n/a

Jyoti Bawa - Eastlake HS

Kaelyn East - Gig Harbor

My name is Kaelyn and I did LD for 3 years in high school and have been judging and coaching for past 5 years.    I will look at the round based first by the framework (value and criterion) that is set by the affirmative. The affirmative should be using this value and criterion as a way to prove that the resolution is true and support this with evidence. The negative must then either provide a counter framework to prove why the resolution is not true, or prove why the resolution is not true under the affirmative's framework. If the affirmative cannot prove the resolution to be true or the negative provides more persuasive evidence against the resolution then I will negate. I am open to other ways to weigh the round if both debaters agree on this during the round.   Other aspects to keep in mind:   I am basically going to be deciding who wins the round by looking at the key framework in the round (whichever is established as the most supported framework in the round) and looking at my flow to see which side has the most arguments on the flow that support that framework.    I am in general looking to see the big picture at the end of the debate, I do not want to decide the round based on details of definitions or small semantics. I prefer have bigger impacts linked back to the framework.  Delivery: I am fine with speed but like tags and important information to be read slower. I will say clear if I can't understand the speed.  I do have a basic understanding of some policy arguments like topicality, theory, DAs, Ks. However, I do not find it to be the most persuasive way to win a round. I generally find most such arguments to be distracting from the focus and not well supported. They are not the most persuasive way to win a round in my opinion, but I will look at them if they are clearly explained and well supported.  Overall, I am looking for clarity,

Karen Hartson - Snohomish

n/a

Kathleen Stidham - Capital HS

n/a

Kelli Chaney - Hazen

n/a

Kenn Amy - Puyallup

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.

Kevin Coryell - Snohomish

n/a

Kiana Mohajeri - Eastlake HS

n/a

Kirill Volkov - Jefferson

n/a

Krista Eades - Tahoma High

Lance McMillan - Peninsula

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.

Leanne Hawkins - Trojans

n/a

Lexi Benjamin - Kingston

Liam Donnelly - Puyallup

<a href="http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Liam+Donnelly">Liam Donnelly</a> This philosophy is organized in order of importance, and underlined like a card would be, where you probably only need to read the underlined sections unless you're oddly interested (exception: this sentence). 13-14 season: I am a first year college debater at the university of puget sound and debated 4 years in HS (ndca elims my senior year) overall: You can do whatever. I flow, and my flow matters a lot in my decision. I also hold your arguments to a particularly high threshold in terms of your explanations of their warrants and implications. I think that I am in the tech>truth camp, but not by much. You need to explain and implicate your arguments well for them to have any effect on my decision, and having those explanations and implications be well-grounded in your research materials is fairly important, especially in closer debates where my decision process usually involves reading evidence and comparing it to the way your arguments are explained. More important, though, is the chart of engagement that occurs in the debate (the flow)--as evaluating "engagement" is, in my opinion, the most objective way of evaluating debate. Put another way, tech frames the way i approach the "truth" of the debate (I think "truth" in this context is code for "credibility given the research and communicative clarity presented in the round"). I am unlikely to make a decision that is completely based in the evidence read in the round--the way you explain it is more important--but your evidence still makes a difference.  General leanings (basically just a longer explanation of the above paragraph): 1. Win an arg, any arg, and a reason it wins you the debate and you will win the debate. I don't understand judges that say that arguments shouldn't be allowed in debate, or that they have a higher threshold for certain arguments--if you can't explain why a bad argument is bad, then me doing that work for you corrupts the educational value of this activity. I love that this activity is set by the debaters, and not by a judge, and will abide by that in making a decision. I think that debate is characterized by competing principles of logic. That is, i think that the reasoning behind my decision should be based in "truth" given the micro logic as determined by the "tech" of the debate. 2. I will flow you and I will flow you well. This is not negotiable. I will use my flow to make the decision and evidence doesn't matter to much to me. Often ev questions are important, depending on what arg it is, but I always start by evaluating ways that the arguments were framed by the debaters, the warrants that were extended by debaters, and the comparisons that were made in the round. I will flow as much of the evidence as I can understand, too, which is a reason why sometimes going slow and being clear is important. 3. I have to understand something to vote on it. I have to understand why it is true, I have to understand why it means anything to me. The threshold of "understanding" is kind of arbitrary, but blippyness should be avoided. Essentially, you need to have a warrant for your argument, and I probably have a higher threshold for warrants than most judges do. 4. I think there can be zero risk, but usually only when an argument is dropped, not answered using a complete argument, or when an argument conceded elsewhere in the debate implicates it. I don't really utilize micro-logic in my decision making--as a matter of fact, I try to avoid using it--as debate is a communicative activity.  5. Before eval'ing the substance, I usually evaluate theoretical issues and framing issues. For the purposes of the decision, I think that these shape the way substance is decided. In a K debate, for example, the negative winning that methodology should be evaluated first means that i evaluate the offense connected to the method of the k alt v the offense off of the method connected to the affirmative, 1AC, etc. These are evaluated just as I evaluate substance--there are offensive and defensive reasons why a paradigm or practice is good or bad, and I weigh them.  6. I will only use evidence in my decision under two circumstances: (1) there is evidence comparison done by both teams on the same issue or (2) how an arg fits into the debate is not discussed, which means i need to find the truthful way that the argument fits into the debate (for example, if a solvency deficit to the aff is never impacted, i'll probably read through the 1AC to decide which advantages it takes out). I will likely call for ev in other instances, because I like to read, because I like to steal cites, because i often wonder things about arguments (especially inane ones).  Instead of talking about my leanings in debate, i think that it's more appropriate to talk about common ways I end up evaluating different debates that may differ from other judges: - CP theory debates: a lot of the time, I think theory debates are won by the impacts of different standards, and the team that is spending the most time impacting those standards will probably win the debate. It doesn't really matter, but i'm pretty aff-leaning on virtually every theoretical question. If your CP doesn't use the usfg, I don't think it's theoretically legitimate, and if it's not both textually and functionally competitive, i'm likely to think perm do the cp is legit. You still have to win it, though. Condo is probably bad if it's multiple worlds, and reject the argument not the team is really dumb against all theory. - CP's in general: not enough teams impact solvency arguments, on both sides. If your solvency deficit doesn't have an impact, i'm unlikely to vote on it. Hypothetical: 1nc reads the states CP. 2ac says states are too bureaucratic. 2nc extends CP, doesn't answer "states too bureaucratic." 1ar and 2ar extend that the states are too bureaucratic, but never explain why states being too bureaucratic inhibits the CP's ability to solve. In this scenario I wouldn't look to the solvency deficit at all because i'm unsure how it matters. To carry the hypothetical, if the 1ar and 2ar extend the argument and give a reason why states being too bureaucratic implicates the CP's solvency, the 2nr gets to answer that reason, but not the premise that states are too bureaucratic (see #8 above). - I'm a fine judge for K's on both sides, but specificity is a must (for both sides). Shenanigans will probably win a lot of neg rounds in front of me, so root cause, floating pik's, etc are all things you should answer. Framing the debate is a must. As a rhetoric major, I am a fan of rhetoric-based K's run well, and abhor bad explanations of why a word is problematic or why rhetoric matters, as well as bad explanations of butler, taboo args, offensive args on these K's, etc. - Framework debates usually have too much offense and not enough defense and comparisons of offense. If you want to win on framework, you should play some defense against the other team's claims, and do impact calc. I am pretty good for both sides of the framework debate, and judge the debate much like any other debate, as a comparison for reasons why a particular model of debate should be "chosen." Judge choice is really dumb, and I have yet to hear a real reason why it's a good model of debate. Oftentimes, substantive and theoretical answers to theory aren't given the interaction they need to have in the debate. - DA's: You need to explain the interactions between different argument, especially in DA/case debates. This is often true in the case of "da turns case" arguments, where it often goes unspoken as to how one "turns case" argument is offensive, whether UQ needs to be won to win it offensively, whether is can function as link D, what internal links it actually takes out, and whether you have to win the link to the DA for it to interact (or if you win that the status quo has X happening and X turns the case, that means that the status quo solves the aff). - I don't reject "not intrinsic" args on face like some judges do. It's probably true that DA's like politics and trade-off are not questions of whether or not the plan is good--ie not intrinsic to plan action. Not enough neg teams challenge the premise that a DA has to be intrinsic, though. If you win an impact and a link, i'll reject the DA. - Case debates: It's goes without saying, but they're good. In a lot of debates, the 2ac and 1ar often don't spend nearly enough time on each argument. A lot of the time that doesn't matter because not enough neg's catch this and go for case d, but in rounds where they do, I am usually better for them simply because it never seems like the aff fleshes out a lot of their aff. After listening to most 2ac's and 1ar's, i generally am left with the conception that at least one of the neg's arguments was poorly answered to the extent that, if the neg spends a little time explaining it, they will probably win it. tldr, don't do embedded clash on case if you can't do it right. - T: If you don't know what reasonability actually means, please don't go for it. I'm a fine judge for T debates, so long as your standards are impacted well and compared. - Not enough teams talk about what fiat means. Too many teams assert durable fiat as the being a good way to view the debate, when it's really not a very real world or literature-based argument. This doesn't mean i'm a "rollback" hack, but i don't think that asserting "durable fiat solves that" to answer a solvency deficit is a good place to be in front of me if the other team is giving theoretical reasons why durable fiat is a bad model of debate. Speaks: Speaker Points are determined by Explanation/Warrants, tech, strategy, and, above all, evidence that you've done work. (i.e. it has to be clear that you know your stuff if you want above average pts.)  3 things that warrant speaks less then a 26.0: a lack of clarity (usually if i can't flow half your speech you're getting a 25), cheating of any sort (clipping, falsifying, etc is a 0), rudeness and saying offensive stuff (being generally snobbish and rude will probably be a point off or so, saying offensive things or acting in a way that i feel would negatively affect your opponents debating gets you a 20) liampirate@gmail.com if you have questions. I like to write things about debate, talk about debate, etc, so feel free to hmu

Linan Tong - Interlake

Linda Kraus - CKHS

n/a

Linda Youngchild - Peninsula

Lisa Weber - Newport

Lois Gorne - Federal Way

n/a

Manpreet Sandhu - Interlake

Marcia Domingo - Bear Creek

Mark Smith - Hazen

n/a

Marlene Anderson - Mercer Island

Marvin Tut - Kamiak

n/a

Mary-Kaye Soderlind - Jefferson

n/a

Megan Vujica - GPS

n/a

Megan Larsen - Puyallup

n/a

Michael King - Renton HS

n/a

Mike Fitzgerald - Kamiak

n/a

Miranda Smith - Tahoma High

Morgia Belcher - Gig Harbor

Nancy Lundberg - Eastlake HS

n/a

Natasha Paranjaype - Gig Harbor

Nick Crain - Puyallup

Nick Harrison - Capital HS

n/a

Nicki Klimisch - Bear Creek

n/a

Olimpia Diaz - AVI

n/a

Patrick LaShell - Tahoma High

Paul Meehan - Eastside Catholic

I am the parent of an Eastside Catholic competitor.  I prefer a clear, moderate pace and explicit voters.  Please impact your arguments to the standard and explain how arguments function in the round.  I prefer straightforward debate and am not comfortable voting on Kritiks, theory, or other alternative arguments.  Please articulate your warrants, not just your claims, in each speech.

Peter Lukevich - Bishop Blanchet

n/a

Piper Ragland - Kingston

Quinn Weber - VHS

Rachel Adams - Capital HS

n/a

Ray Lauer - Eastlake HS

Rebecca Medrano - Newport

n/a

Rebecca Shephard - Snohomish

n/a

Regina Williams - Bridge

Rhodora Darang - AVI

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>

Robert Coy - Tahoma High

Sam Cushing - VHS

n/a

Sarah Willson - Eastlake HS

Sarah Sherry - Puyallup

Coach since 1996 - started team at Clover Park High School (3 years) (Coach at Puyallup High School since 2000) Competed in high school and college - Policy, LD, Interp Charter Board member of The Women's Debate Institute General - (scale of 1-10) 1=low, 10 high Speed - 7ish - 8 if it's really clear Topicality - 3 - I have little regard for T, if you are going for it, it better be your only card on the table and the violation should be crystal clear. Kritical Arguments - depends - I'm very interested in language kritiques (hmmm . . . that may be a bit of a double turn on myself), but generally speaking I have little tolerance for po-mo philosophy - I think the vast majority of these authors are read by debaters only in the context of debate, without knowledge or consideration for their overall work. This makes for lopsided and, frankly, ridiculous debates with debaters arguing so far outside of the rational context as to make it clear as mud and a laughable interpretation of the original work. It's not that I am a super expert in philosophy, but rather a lit teacher and feel like there's something that goes against my teaching practice to buy into a shallow or faulty interpretation (all of those dreary hours of teacher torture working on close reading practices - sigh). Outside of that, I'm interested on a 7ish level. Framework - 9 - I'm all in favor of depth v. breadth and to evaluate the framework of a round or the arguments, I believe, can create a really interesting level of comparison. Theory - 8ish. While I'm generally fascinated, I can, very quickly be frustrated. I frequently feel that theory arguments are just "words on the page to debaters" - something that was bought on-line, a coach created for you, or one of the top teams at your school put together at camp. It quickly falls into the same category as po-mo K's for me. Just a me thing - not sure what else to label this, but I think that I should mention this. I struggle a lot with the multiple world's advocacy. I think that the negative team has the obligation to put together a cohesive strategy. I've had this explained to me, multiple times, it's not that I don't get it - I just disagree with it. So, if at some point this becomes part of your advocacy, know that you have a little extra work to do with me. It's easiest for my teams to explain my general philosophy, by simply saying that I am a teacher and I am involved with this activity bc of its educational value, not simply as a game. So go ahead and lump perf con in with the whole multiple worlds advocacy Ok, so my general paradigm is 1.) play nice. I hate when: debater are rude to their own partner, me, the other team. Yes, it is a competition - but there's nothing less compelling than someone whose bravado has pushed passed their ability (or pushed over their partner). Swagger is one thing, obnoxiousness is another. Be aware of your language (sexist, racist, or homophobic language will not be tolerated). 2.) Debate is a flexible game; the rules are ever changing. The way that I debated is dramatically different then the way that is debated today, versus the way that people will debate 20 years from now. I believe this requires me to be flexible in my paradigm/philosophy. However, I, also, believe that it is your game. I hate it when teams tell me over and over again what they believe that they are winning, but without any reference to their opponent’s positions or analysis as to why. Debate is more of a Venn diagram in my mind, than a "T-chart". I don't actually believe that anyone is "tabula rasa". I believe that when a judge says that, they are indicating that they will try to listen to any argument and judge it solely on the merits of the round. However, I believe that we all come to rounds with pre-conceived notions in our heads - thus we are never "tabula rasa". I will try my best to be a blank slate, but I believe that the above philosophy should shed light on my pre-conceived notions. It is your job as debaters, and not mine, to weigh out the round and leave me with a comparison and a framework for evaluation.

Sarajane Powell - Tahoma High

Scott Lincoln - Tahoma High

Sean Peerenboom - Tahoma High

Shawn Marshall - Cedar Park

n/a

Shelly Casale - Cedar Park

n/a

Sheri Ahlheim - Peninsula

Stan Sidor - Jefferson

n/a

Stephanie Harris - Puyallup

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 Wiese - Eastlake HS

n/a

Steve McCartt - SWHS

n/a

Steve Rowe - Interlake

Steven Helman - Kamiak

n/a

Susan Mohn - Interlake

Suzanne Price - Highland High

Tim Pollard - Gig Harbor

Hi. I’m Tim Pollard. I debated two years of LD at Gig Harbor to moderate success. This is my third season coaching the Gig LD Squad. You may or may not want me to judge you. Here’s why: I think debate is a game where your goal is to get me to write your name in the space on the ballot that says “The better debating was done by ______”.  I will vote on any argument that contains a reason why that argument means you win. Arguments have a claim, a warrant, and a link to the ballot (impact).  This is interpreted by my understanding of your explanation of the argument. If I don’t understand the argument/how it functions, I won’t vote on it. If you have specific questions about your style/argument/anything else, please feel free to ask the round, or just come find me at the tournament. I’d love to talk to you. That’s the short version.  More information that you may or may not care about follows. I’m fine with speed and will say clear as many times as necessary.  Two things of note:  First, if I say “clear”, that means I am unable to flow you.  You might want to back up a few seconds to make sure I get all your stuff.  Second, I’m not the best flower in the world.  PLEASE enunciate author names, standard/advocacy/interp texts and short analytical arguments.  In a similar vein, I flow on a laptop, so I would appreciate if you paused slightly when switching between sheets of paper. I don’t think my ideas about how debate should work should affect your performance in the round.  The round is yours to dictate.  I’ll do whatever you want to evaluate it.  The caveat is that you have to be specific on what that is. This means you should be VERY CAREFUL when saying things like “this argument is excluded because truth testing” or “Use competing interpretations to evaluate the theory debate.” If you don’t explain what you mean by your term, I will be forced to use my understanding of what it means.  THIS WILL POSSIBLY MAKE YOU VERY SAD.  There is a good chance that my views on styles of arguments and what they imply are very different from what you think is obvious.  If your strategy relies on a specific instance of what “competing interpretations”/”perm”/ect implies, that claim should most definitely be in your speech. In contrast to actually deciding who wins/loses, I use speaker points as a subjective evaluation of your debating.  Did I enjoy judging you?  Do I want to see your style/strategic decisions/wonderful hair again?  If so, you’ll get good speaks.  I probably give more 30s than most judges, but also give an unusually high number of 24s.  I’m going to try to keep track of speaks more carefully this year, and will attempt to average 27.5-28.  Since this is all very vague, here’s some tips: How do I get a 30? Do something I haven’t seen before. Be clever. Be polite. Completely wreck in CX. Plz note that aggressive/intimidating != winning Make me laugh. Take risky decisions. Defend bizarre interps. Heavy Framework analysis. Collapse effectively.  OVERVIEWS.  COMPARITIVE WEIGHING. PLEASE>>> Run a confusing/dense position and politely explain it concisely and helpfully in CX. What hurts my speaks? Horribly misunderstand your opponent’s position. Being a dick. Poor organization. Claiming implications of arguments of their label, instead of their function.

Tom Barton - Seattle Academy

n/a

Tom Setzer - Cedar Park

n/a

Tom Wiley - Kingston

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.

2013 Tahoma High School Golden Bear Classic