FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Glascock - AVI

n/a

Danielle Jackson - Mariner

<h1>How to debate in front of me:</h1>   <h2>Speed:</h2> I am generally good with very little speed! That being said, I am put off by debaters sitting down and spreading into a screen. To me that isn't what a real round should be like.   <h2>Framework:</h2> Slow down and explain the function of your arguments and the burdens set up by your framework. I would prefer more simple, intuitive frameworks with simple burdens and intelligent analysis than complex frameworks that seek to preclude your opponent on multiple levels.    <h2>Theory/Topicality:</h2> PLEASE NO! If your opponent is really being abusive or is genuinely not topical, go ahead, run theory or topicality, and while I will try to evaluate these debates, you will run the risk of me not completely understanding your argument.   <h2>Policy Arguments (Plans, CPs, Disads):</h2> Don't do it!   <h2>Misc. Off-case Positions:</h2> Nope!   <h2>Tricks:</h2> If this is how you plan on winning my ballot, you are badly mistaken.   <h2>Speaker Points:</h2> I give between 25 and 30.

Aaron Floyd - Gig Harbor

n/a

Aishanee Wijeratna - Interlake

Alec Dionne - Peninsula

Alec Bellis - Gig Harbor

n/a

Ally Lee - Jefferson

n/a

Amanda Han - Newport

n/a

Amina Ali - Peninsula

Andrew Buchan - Jefferson

n/a

Andrew Chadwell - Gig Harbor

Andy Stuckey - TAFA

n/a

Angela Lee - Newport

n/a

Ashley Simmons - Puyallup

n/a

Bill Hollands - Hazen

n/a

Bob Gomulkiewiz - Bear Creek

Bob Mauck - Eastlake HS

n/a

Bret Bertolin - Capital HS

n/a

Brian Coyle - Kingston

Brigid Majmudar - Gig Harbor

n/a

Bruce Arbtin - Newport

n/a

Caroline Wright - Puyallup

Carrie Walker - Kamiak

n/a

Cathy Renner - Mt Si

n/a

Chai Vedullapalli - Mt Si

n/a

Chase Hutchinson - Tahoma High

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.

Christine Smet - Interlake

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.

Cliff Shettler - AVI

n/a

Conner Rice - Seattle Academy

n/a

Cori Jo Jahnsen - Chehalis

n/a

Curtis Leighton - Bishop Blanchet

n/a

Cynthia Tran - AVI

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 Perlin - Seattle Academy

n/a

David Hancock - Puyallup

Delores Lee - Seattle Academy

n/a

Diana Stalter - Seattle Academy

n/a

Donna Bowler - Trojans

n/a

Doug Weinmaster - Mt Si

n/a

Duncan Deutsch - Mt Si

n/a

Dylan Thomas - Ingraham

Elizabeth Young - Garfield

Ellen Schoonover - Newport

n/a

Heidi Parr - Mt Si

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 ^_^

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 Cleary - Trojans

n/a

James Stevenson - Interlake

Janelle Williams - Chehalis

n/a

Jared Nilsen - Puyallup

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 Griffith - Gig Harbor

n/a

Jenny Hsu - Interlake

Jeremy Barclay - Capital HS

n/a

Jerry Song - BHS

n/a

Jessica Jiang - Interlake

Joel Underwood - Seattle Academy

n/a

John Julian - Bear Creek

n/a

John Doty - AVI

n/a

John Clare - Tahoma High

n/a

John Mercer - Tahoma High

Justin Choi - Federal Way

n/a

Kaelyn Holguin - Gig Harbor

n/a

Kaitlan Harbaugh - Gig Harbor

n/a

Karen Rossman - Redmond

Kathy Chace - SWHS

n/a

Katie Bergus - Gig Harbor

Years Coaching LD: 4 years WNDI lab leader Years Competing in LD: 3 Coach or Compete in LD in the Northwest? Yes Coach or Compete on the LD National Circuit? Yes Involved in Other Events? CEDA policy - 3 years, NPDA parli - 4 years   How I decide LD Debates: I look to the framework established for the debate and weigh impacts through the winning framework. If you want to debate the value and criterion, do it and make sure that you explain how your offense filters through this structure. If you want to read a plan or if you want to read a CP and some disads, do it and make sure you have tangible impacts in a net benefits framework. If you want to have a procedural debate, do it but don't think that you reading a theory argument means that you automatically win the debate--you still have to win your arg.    Unique Views on LD Arguments: Although I find the switch to more include more policy-style args in LD to be educational, due to the nature of LD resolutions, I think that adopting policy args isn't always incredibly intuitive. For you, this means that I will be incrementally more susceptible to arguments like "the 1ac doesn't pass a plan, so we don't cause the change that would be necessary to trigger the link the disad," etc. Rest assured: I'll still vote for you if you win your argument.   Presentational Preferences? Speed is not a problem for me.    Other Info: I think that you should debate the args that you are most comfortable with. I prefer progressive debate but I do not think that you should sacrifice your strengths to appeal to my interests. Feel free to ask specific questions before the debate.

Kayla Chaney - Hazen

n/a

Keanan Taute - Puyallup

n/a

Kelsey Jones - Peninsula

n/a

Ken Boyer - Eastlake HS

n/a

Kendall Martin - Trojans

n/a

Kenza Houki - Newport

n/a

Kim Leach - TAFA

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

Lesly Lam - Redmond

Liam Donnelly - Tahoma High

n/a

Linda Zhang - BHS

n/a

Lisa Weber - Interlake

Liz Shine - Capital HS

n/a

Lois Gorne - Federal Way

n/a

Lona Medhane - AVI

n/a

Lukas Graham - Puyallup

n/a

Luke Maghirang - Puyallup

n/a

Mady Lyon - Puyallup

Maria Yepes - Mt Si

n/a

Maria Caoagdan - Federal Way

n/a

Mary-Kaye Soderlind - Jefferson

n/a

Matt Tilden - Vashon

n/a

Matt Fitgerald - Kamiak

n/a

Matthew Witek - Rogers

n/a

Max Stephens - Gig Harbor

n/a

Max Powers - Capital HS

n/a

McKenna Mains - Puyallup

Mei Wu - Newport

n/a

Melanie Nadon - Redmond

Michael King - Renton HS

n/a

Micheal Elizondo - Ingraham

n/a

Michelle Glasser - Seattle Academy

n/a

Mike Fitzgerald - Kamiak

n/a

Modhu Motukuri - Newport

n/a

Morgia Belcher - Gig Harbor

Nick Van Baak - Bear Creek

n/a

Nikol Aquino - AVI

n/a

Paul Sealey - Federal Way

n/a

Piper Ragland - Kingston

Rebecca Petrone - Ingraham

n/a

Rebecca Swanson - Renton HS

n/a

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>

Rupinder Jindal - Newport

n/a

Sarah Wheeler - Tahoma High

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.

Shengliu Dai - Interlake

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 McCartt - SWHS

n/a

Steve Rowe - Interlake

Steven Helman - Kamiak

n/a

Susan Truong - Redmond

Tate Adams - Capital HS

n/a

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.

Taylor Reynolds - Puyallup

Terry Jess - BHS

n/a

Tim Pollard - Ingraham

n/a

Tim Ahern - OHS

n/a

Tim Everitt - Vashon

n/a

Todd Bohannon - Eastlake HS

n/a

Todd Baker - Tahoma High

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.

Vicki Orrico - Newport

Victoria Wang - Interlake

Vince Lee - Interlake

Yasi Zhong - AVI

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!

2015 Tahoma High School Golden Bear Classic