FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Floyd - Gig Harbor

n/a

Alec Bellis - Gig Harbor

n/a

Alex Boettcher - Bear Creek

n/a

Alex Levasseur - Bear Creek

n/a

Alex Dykeman - Puyallup

n/a

Alice Lundt - Tahoma High

Alice Gusev - Kamiak

n/a

Alicia Jekel - PCCS

n/a

Alisa Liu - Interlake

Alyssa Shewey - Lindbergh

n/a

Amanda Kopchynski - TAFA

n/a

Amanda Bideman - Eastlake HS

n/a

Amy Qin - Interlake

Andrea Lairson - Bear Creek

Andrew Chadwell - Gig Harbor

Andrew Buchan - Jefferson

n/a

Andy Stuckey - TAFA

n/a

Ann Jones - Seattle Academy

n/a

Annie Fitzsimmons - Curtis

n/a

Ashley Hartson - Snohomish

n/a

Austin Vaarvik - Gig Harbor

Austin Ballard - Gig Harbor

Ben Cushman - Capital HS

n/a

Benton Coblentz - AVI

n/a

Bill Hollands - Hazen

n/a

Bill Nicolay - Snohomish

n/a

Bob Gomulkiewiz - Bear Creek

Brian Coyle - Kingston

Bruce Arbtin - Newport

n/a

Carly Woo - Holy Names

Carol Rasmussen - Bear Creek

n/a

Cayla Lee - Interlake

Cesar Bernal - NKHS

n/a

Chelsea King - Mt Si

n/a

Chloe James - Puyallup

n/a

Chris Barnes - Capital HS

n/a

Christina Glass - Bear Creek

n/a

Christine Davis-Goff - Seattle Academy

n/a

Chuck Hamaker-Teals - Southridge WA

I am the coach for Southridge High School in eastern Washington.  I competed in high school debate in the 90s.  I've been coaching for 18 years.  Each topic has lots of ground, find it and bring the arguments into the round.  Be polite and kind.  Rude debaters almost never win.  I can flow relatively quickly but will punish debaters’ speaks if they are unclear or unprepared.  I try to vote on the flow, although I don't like Topicality run without forethought.  I am not a fan of the kritik but I will vote for one.  I don't mind theory arguments, I just need to be clearly told how the impact relates to what is happening in the round.   I vote on issues where I can clearly see the impact in the round.  I like clear, fast, well organized debates with lots of good arguments and lots of impacts.  When I sit on out round panels, my decisions are very similar to those of current college debaters, not communication judges.   Arguments about sources are tiresome and I am more persuaded by rationale or meta-analysis.

Dan Adams - Capital HS

n/a

Dante Miguel - Kingston

I am a former debater and current student of philosophy, political science & economics. LD: Don't speed. Be courteous. Your arguments win the round, not you, and it seems that "I win because Hobbs..." is a far too personal statement. I am not here to bask in your glory. Use the same idea, just feel free to rephrase. "Hobbsian logic trumps 1 AFF because..." is a much better phrasing. However, whatever case you are running should be your own; I consider it plagiarism to share entire cases. I don't care who wrote it first, if I hear a regurgitation speech in finals, you're going last in round. You might score points on CX, but I won't count any of your case. Use real definitions, not made up ones-and hold on to them as your foundation. I'm familiar with most philosophical concepts, so you don't have to stick with only utility. In fact I'd prefer if you don't. Multi strategies utility only goes so far between aff and neg. But if you run Kantian ethics or others, I expect more to prove you know it, make it clear, and be careful of the caveats. Running alternative philosophy is about relevant moral debate, not confusing the other person. If they can prove that you didn't make it clear, you will have to clarify before winning any points. Clarity, clarity, clarity....if you can say "let me be clear" in a mock Obama tone and a straight face, you've won.   Congress: Parliamentary procedures are big...if you don't know them I suggest you brush up because you'll be losing points. I can't keep myself impartial if you aren't going to be taking that seriously. Small/infrequent mistakes are tolerable, but many are not. Call for full cycles of debate (1 aff and 1 neg is a cycle) before entertaining or making motions to table, vote, etc. Keep courteous. Use facts and science to prove your point. Don't reiterate the same thing someone else has said....again. Every person after the first is losing points at an exponentially increasing level every time they say the same thing. If you want to "mention" it to make a point that hasn't been made, that's different from making a 5 minute speech from <s>hell</s> "the underworld" that I have to listen to again. Again, if you didn't read the LD part, sharing the same speeches as other people at your school is a bad idea and you will all get marked last in round. You'll be ranked behind people not making a speech. Not being able to pronounce a word and squinting at it as you sound it out is indicative of not having written something. But if someone who is not prepared needs a speech, a "nudge" in the right direction is acceptable if you aren't speaking on the same topic. Chambers are long, humor is good.   PuFo: If I have to judge PuFo, you're all winners in my book. IE's: Be respectful and have fun with it :)

David Moore - Kentlake

n/a

David Hancock - Puyallup

Derek Hanson - Kamiak

n/a

Diana Stalter - Seattle Academy

n/a

Don Vidger - Seattle Academy

n/a

Donna Bowler - Trojans

n/a

Dorothy Marquez - Gig Harbor

n/a

Dylan Mccarthy - Gig Harbor

Dylan Thomas - Ingraham

Dylan Lasher - Kentlake

n/a

Eileen DeMetrio - Hazen

n/a

Elizabeth Young - Garfield

Emily Feder - Seattle Academy

n/a

Eric Palossari - Tahoma High

Eric Anderson - Gig Harbor

n/a

Erik Uri - Kamiak

n/a

Erin Stewart - Garfield

Francis Carhart - Bear Creek

n/a

Gerardo Lopez - Puyallup

n/a

Hanan Diriye - AVI

n/a

Heather Helman - GPHS

n/a

Heidi Hostetter - Bear Creek

n/a

Isaiah Parker - Jefferson

n/a

Jabari Barton - Tahoma High

Hallo, I did LD for the last 4 years so I am capable of understanding progressive arguments. What I really want you to do is to explain things very, very well to me because even if you completely win the argument and I don't understand it, then I can't evaluate it. So that burden is on you. My face often tells you what I think about the argument (nodding, smiling, quesetioning look etc.) so it is beneficial to look at me every now and again. If you win the framework (especially the standard) then you have a significantly higher chance of winning the round. Make clear extensions and please for the love of god impact back to whatever standard we are looking to in the round. As for speed, I can handle fairly fast speed but once it goes over the top then it will be significantly more difficult for me to get the arguments down. So it's probably beneficial for you to not go top speed in front of me. Lastly, have fun and stuff ^_^

Jacob Durrance - Puyallup

Jaime Holguin - Gig Harbor

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000183 EndHTML:0000005304 StartFragment:0000002721 EndFragment:0000005268 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/coov/Downloads/Jaime%20judge%20paradigm.doc Two years of high school policy debate, will be my fourth year of judging. Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and Analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.   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.   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.   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.   Counterplan: If you show how the CP is a better policy than the Aff, I will vote for it.   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.   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.

James Stevenson - Interlake

Jane McCoy - ECHS

Janelle Williams - Chehalis

n/a

Jason Woehler - Federal Way

n/a

Jason Young - Garfield

Experience/Background: I debated policy for 4 years in high school (Centerville High School, OH), I did not debate in college. I started a policy team at Garfield High School, WA in 2014, and have been coaching them since then. As a debater I pursued a mix of policy and critical arguments, so I'm familiar and comfortable with a wide range of arguments. I am currently in a PhD program that is very much oriented toward critical theory, so my knowledge base for kritiks is reasonably extensive. I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual male that was educated and socialized within a Western context, which has likely produced certain subtle biases in terms of my epistemological view of the world. Judging Framework: I believe that a debate should be about the debaters, not about me. I will therefore do my best to decide the round based on arguments made by the debaters, rather than based on my own beliefs. Be clear about how you think I should be judging, and there shouldn't be any big surprises. Biases: Unless I am convinced to do something different, I will generally do/believe the following: -I will flow the round, and will give weight to arguments that are not answered by the opposing team. -I will protect the negative team from new arguments in the 2AR. This means that if I cannot connect an argument in the 2AR back to the 1AR, then I will likely give that argument less, or no, weight. -In general, I do not believe that completely new arguments should be made in the rebuttals. I also think that it is difficult for the negative to introduce completely new off-case positions in the 2NC and then develop them completely. This isn't to say that the 2NC shouldn't be allowed to introduce new off-case positions... I just think that the negative has to do a lot of work to convincingly develop such arguments to the point where I will vote for them. -I will vote for one team or the other. -I am pretty skeptical of the open source movement that seems to have devoured the activity. While I see some benefits to open source wikis, etc., I am not certain that coaches and competitors have fully considered some of the ways in which open knowledge supports certain facets of neoliberal logic, and ultimately widens inequalities (despite rhetoric to the contrary). As the coach of a new team, I find it ironic that I most often and most loudly hear open source ethics being pushed by individuals from large, well-established, and well-resourced teams. While I suppose it is nice for our team to know what arguments other teams are running, we literally do not have the research power to prep for them or the network to get necessary evidence from others... particularly when compared with the large schools. All of this is to say that I don't find 'non-disclosure' or 'you should lose because you don't participate in the wiki' theory arguments to be particularly persuasive. Speaking: Be clear! One pet peeve, especially at local tournaments in Washington: I really dislike it when debaters are only clear on tags. I'm listening to all of your evidence, not just the tag... so make sure I can hear everything! If I can't hear the evidence, then your tag was just an analytical assertion. Finally, please feel free to ask me questions before the round! I'm happy to answer specific questions about my paradigm.

Jennifer Jones - Jefferson

n/a

Jennifer Griffith - Gig Harbor

n/a

Jenny Hsu - Interlake

Jim Anderson - Capital HS

n/a

Jim Scott - Capital HS

n/a

Joel Underwood - Seattle Academy

n/a

John Julian - Bear Creek

n/a

John Mercer - Tahoma High

Jonah Kolar - Ingraham

n/a

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.

Justin Choi - Federal Way

n/a

Kaelyn Holguin - Gig Harbor

n/a

Karina Whitmarsh - Peninsula

n/a

Karla Frasier - Capital HS

n/a

Katherine Horelick - Lindbergh

n/a

Katie McConville - AVI

n/a

Kayla Neal - Kentlake

n/a

Kayle Klinefelter - Snohomish

n/a

Kelli Meeker - ARHS

n/a

Kevin Patrick - Seattle Academy

n/a

Kim Newton - AVI

n/a

Kimberly Hartman - Mt Si

Krista Eades - Tahoma High

Kristin Moomaw - Bear Creek

n/a

Kyle Kendall - Peninsula

n/a

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.

Laura Wiseman - TBHS

n/a

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

Lily Kelly - Ingraham

n/a

Lisa Weber - Newport

Lisanne Bannister - Curtis

n/a

Lois Gorne - Federal Way

n/a

Maddy Foreman - Puyallup

Madeleine Hodges - Snohomish

n/a

Manpreet Bassi - TAFA

n/a

Mark Smith - Hazen

n/a

Mark Davis - ARHS

n/a

Mary-Kaye Soderlind - Jefferson

n/a

Matthew Witek - Rogers

n/a

Matthew Rice - Capital HS

n/a

Melissa Morrison - Peninsula

n/a

Meykia Smith - Jefferson

n/a

Michael Musard - Tahoma High

Micheal Zwarts - Snohomish

n/a

Mike Fitzgerald - Kamiak

n/a

Moin Shaikh - Newport

n/a

Morgia Belcher - Gig Harbor

Mrs. Bannon - NKHS

n/a

Natalie Murphy - Gig Harbor

n/a

Nicki Klimisch - Bear Creek

n/a

Nikol Aquino - AVI

n/a

Olimpia Diaz - AVI

n/a

Paige Carruth - Bear Creek

n/a

Paul Sealey - Federal Way

n/a

Piper Ragland - Kingston

Ren Wilcox - Gig Harbor

n/a

Renee Smith - Peninsula

n/a

Rian Chandra - Capital HS

n/a

Rich Dobson - Tahoma High

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 Tissot - Peninsula

n/a

Rose Wong - AVI

n/a

Sadie Hoffman-Miller - Puyallup

Sarah Rissberg - Gig Harbor

n/a

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.

Sarah Dickmeyer - Snohomish

n/a

Sarajane Powell - Tahoma High

Shirley Lim - Newport

Sibyl Frankenburg - Seattle Academy

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>

Stephen Young - Gig Harbor

n/a

Steven Helman - Kamiak

n/a

Susan Mohn - Interlake

Susan Diamond - Bear Creek

Taylor Deardorf - Southridge WA

I debated for Southridge High School but most of my judging criteria come from my experience come form my colegiate Mock Trial competitions.  I am a college student at the University of Washington. Because of this experience in the trial court, PF teams would be more successful laying out cogent arguments in real world situations. Debaters, especially for Public Forum, should focus on clarity and well-warranted, logical arguments. That being said, debaters should feel free to use any really creative impacts or arguments as they like, as long as they can back it up and is somewhat believable. Real wolrd impacts play a huge role for me when I vote. Furthermore, disrespectful, overly-aggressive, and/or dishonest debaters will also be deducted significant speaker points. I expect a good clear framework or I will simply default to my personal preference for a framework. In the end, I will vote for the team who persuades me in believing that their side will create a better world or the least-worse world (so impacts are important for me). If the aff fails to provide any reason for change, and I feel the status quo is the most reasonable, then I will default to con because it is the aff’s job to create change and withhold the entirety of the resolution. I do not like to disclose unless the tournament requires to, but I am willing to give constructive feedback.

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.

Tyler Lincoln - Tahoma High

Tyler Julian - Bear Creek

n/a

Wendy You - Interlake

Wendy Wadhwani - Bear Creek

n/a

Zach Maghirang - Puyallup

Background: In the process of helping revive the University of Washington Policy Debate program 3 years debating policy at Puyallup High School 4th in the Washington State tournament two years in a row, along with breaking at the Whitman tournament all three years Overview: I’ll default to policy-making if no framework is presented, but with that being said, I’ve run my fair-share of performance AFFs and the K so I’m prepared to listen to anything. You could say I’m tabula-rasa, but of course everyone has certain ideas about thing. Realize that no matter what position you decide to run, I want it to be clearly developed and in-depth, not just buzzwords and blippy cards. Do what you do best! Things to know: - I can flow your speed as long as you’re clear and I appreciate if you’re organized. - I’ve only judged one tournament on the topic so far, so don’t expect me to know your AFF that’s about some contrived acronym like SGURY. Make reference to what you mean at least once, so I know what you’re talking about. - My facial expressions are usually a good clue to see if I understand what you’re saying. - Tag team is cool just don’t overwhelm the person who’s supposed to be cross-exing - Prep stops when you take the USB drive out of the computer. Let me know if you are having issues. - I enjoy short, concise overviews before your speech. - Most cases I reject the arg, not the team, unless there is a VERY compelling reason. - Be nice. I like nice people. Specific Positions: AFF: - If performance, explain why you’re performance is important and how it relates (or why it doesn’t) to the topic. - Use your evidence from the 1AC, it’s there for a reason. - 2AR should tell me where I should vote and why, and then go on to explain further why they win and respond to the NEG's arguments. NEG: - Very similar to the AFF - 2NR should tell me where I should vote and why, and then go on to explain further why they win - I enjoy impact analysis. - Narrow yourselves down to a few positions by the end of the debate, don’t spread yourselves thin and go for too many positions in the end. - Condo’s cool within reason. 5 CPs, and 3 Ks is probably abusive.   Topicality: - Fun fact: I was awarded “Topicality Whiz” at the Whitman Debate camp. - THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I WILL AUTOMATICALLY VOTE ON T, if fact, I probably have a pretty high standard here. - Explain why your standards are better than theirs and how they improve debate. AFF, respond in the same way. - Make sure you explain why I am voting for fairness and the real-world impact it brings, not just “T is a voter for Education and Fairness” - I can be convinced to look at T from both competing interpretations and reasonability, though I’ll probably default to reasonability if there’s no argument for competing interps. DAs: - Impact comparison - Links are necessary - Yeah, they’re cool. CPs: - Explain the Net Benefit! - I’d prefer it if discussions of textual vs. functional competition weren’t brought up - However, theory against Consult, Process, and Conditions CPs is very welcome Kritiks: - Clearly explain all parts of your K, but especially explain how the K links to the AFF, and how your alt solves. - Don’t group perms, each should be answered specifically. Watch out for the “Perm: do the plan then the alt in all other instances.” - I like overviews explaining the K, but more than 1-3 minutes and it’s getting excessive. All in all, I’ll evaluate the round to the best of my ability! I know that I can be a bit unclear or confusing, so if you have any paradigm questions, or questions about my decision, please ask before and/or after round. You’re welcome to email me at Zmaghirang52@gmail.com as well!

2014 Tahoma High School Golden Bear Classic