FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Mathers - MVHS

n/a

Aidan Burgeson - CDA

n/a

Alex Hoffmann - Mt Spokane

n/a

Alicia Jekel - PCCS

n/a

Allen Benson - LC Tigers

n/a

Aly Horry - Sehome

n/a

Amanda Strong - Mt Spokane

n/a

Amber Strehle - Snohomish

n/a

Amy Massey - Cascade

n/a

Andre Cossette - Gonzaga Prep

I've been judging Policy, LD, and now Public Forum for 30 years or more.  I hate Kritiks that are used just to win rounds, unless they're Kritiks criticizing the state of debate these days.  They have to be read slowly for me to understand them, though: philosophy read at 400 words per minute just goes over my head (I have enough trouble understanding philosophy read at 100 words per minute).  As I advance in age, my ability to process information at a rapid rate diminishes, so if you can boil the round down to a few simple principles, then I become a thinking judge instead of a judge who merely connects points on the flow.  I like to hear evidence being read, so sometimes I'll slow down debaters when they read their cards so I can understand the warrants and not just mindlessly write down the taglines.  I have a decent knowledge of theory because debate theory rarely changes over the years (sometimes the names of the arguments change but the logic stays the same), so if you use words like "conditionality" and "permutation" and "reciprocity", I'd know what you were talking about.  And, I usually don't disclose (except for Novices who might benefit from some education), and I don't like shaking hands with the debaters after the round.

Ann Nesbitt - TEC

n/a

AnnMarie Stephens - TEC

n/a

Arienne Baker - Lake City

n/a

Audra Bradstreet - U-High

n/a

Autumn Jane - U-High

n/a

Bill Wagstaff - Mead

Bill Nicolay - Snohomish

n/a

Bill Bailey - NC HS

n/a

Brad Thew - Central Valley Hig

I’ve coached LD for about eight years, most significantly at Central Valley High School in Washington, and I coached the 2010 Washington State 4A LD champ. Although I don’t like the implications that often come with the phrase “traditional judge,” that is probably the best way to describe myself judging. I try to check my opinions at the door and keep it tab. However, I only understand what I’m capable of understanding, and I’m not always up to date on the most recent trends in LD. I rely on my flow, and if it isn’t on there, it isn’t evaluated. Make clear extensions as a result. I really like real world debates with logical argumentation. Framework- I work best in rounds that operate with a traditional framework. Generally this means a V/VC, but I can deal with an advantage/standard as long as you link into it. I don’t think that plans are necessary, and I don’t know that I like them because honestly I don’t hear them often enough in an LD context to really have an opinion yet. Honestly, I have reservations about plans because I think the structure of an LD resolution does not necessitate a plan, but I believe that they have the potential to operate effectively. At the point an affirmative has ran a plan, it is acceptable for the NC to present a CP. Presentation/Speaker Points- I can handle moderate speed. I will say slow/clear if necessary. I’m not used to people particularly caring about the speaker points I award, but I generally stay in the range of 27. I like hearing what a card says, and I don’t like having to card call after a round. Be explicit in your signposting. Tags need to be super clear. Don’t be rude or deceptive. Try to be helpful and cordial in round. Humor is a plus, as rounds can get stale as tournaments drag on, but don’t take it too far. If/when I disclose, don’t bicker with me. Doing these things equals good speaker points, and I’ll try to compare you to what I’ve seen recently. Theory- I’m not the biggest fan of theory debate, but I understand the growing necessity of it. Do not run theory just because you feel like it, do it because there is a genuine need to correct a wrong. You need to be super clear in the structure of the argument, and it needs to be shelled properly. I need to know what sort of violation has occurred, and I need to understand its implication. Don’t use it as a time suck. Philosophically, I’m ok with RVI’s. I default to drop the argument, not the debater, and I default to reasonability over competing interps. I don’t want theory to be a strategy to win. Kritiks- I’m not a fan of critical positions. I know a bit about philosophy, but not everything. You don’t know me though, and you don’t know how much I know, and I can’t guarantee that you can tell me everything I need to know about Derrida or Foucault in 6-7 minutes in order to evaluate an argument properly. I feel that the greatest flaw of the k is that it requires so much preexisting knowledge on the part of me the judge, your competition, and yourself to be of any substantive value in the round. Most debaters really aren’t up to the task, and even if they are, the time constraints inherent in an LD round make it tough to evaluate properly. I like the idea of a k, but in reality, it just doesn’t work. Miscellaneous- 1- Flex: You need to use CX for questions. Do what you want with your prep. Don’t abuse flex. This will effect speaks. 2- I don’t care if you sit or stand. You’ll speak better if you stand though. 3- If you are paperless, I will time flashing. I don’t want to wait around forever. 4- You should be pre-flowed before the round. 5- Don’t be smug. 6- I constantly flow. I generally flow by hand. If I stop flowing, it means I’m lost and trying to figure out where you are, or that you’re going too fast, or that you’re just rehashing old material. In any case, it’s probably not a good thing. 7- If I didn’t mention a type of argument, I probably have no idea what it means. Don’t run it. Or ask me first. I’m not stupid, I promise. I just coach in a place where I don’t have to think very hard.

Brad Read - LC Tigers

n/a

Brenda Kjosleth - U-High

n/a

Brian Higgins - Wenatchee

n/a

Bruce Davison - PHS

Cara Heath - John R.

n/a

Danielle Dunbrosky - U-High

n/a

Danny Hemachandra - NC HS

n/a

Darby Swanson - PHS

When I judge a debate I am looking for well constructed and supported cases.  I also want to see clash that is logical and directed toward the specific issues that are being debated rather than a generic argument that students use on a regular basis regardless of what their opponents have brought to the table, a sort of "one argument fits all brief."

Darci Bierman - LC Tigers

n/a

Daron Fredricks - Gonzaga Prep

n/a

Dave Carlson - Wenatchee

n/a

David McCaw - Lake City

n/a

Denise Lambert - LC Tigers

n/a

Donovan DiDio - Mead

n/a

Dwayne Allen - Cascade

n/a

Elliny Hiebert - CDA

n/a

Emily Woodroof - Oaks Christian

n/a

Evan Carlsson - Mead

n/a

Forrest Bristow - CDA

n/a

Gina Su - PCCS

n/a

Ingrid LaVoie - Oaks Christian

n/a

Irene Beimers Kubes - U-High

n/a

JT Lewey - Mead

n/a

Jackson Eubanks - Lake City

n/a

Jamari Lawson - Lake City

n/a

Jane McCoy - Eastside Catholic

Please don't shake my hand because it is flu season. I do not like a lot of speed. I like a good criterion and value clash between the two sides. I like real world examples. I will vote on clear voters emphasized especially in the last two speeches.

Janine Koffel - Republic

n/a

Jason Stein - Charter

n/a

Jean Tobin - Walla Walla

This is my 7th year coaching LD debate. I am familiar with the topics when I judge but not always prepared for unusual arguments, so be sure to clearly explain link/impacts if the argument is outside the norm. I'm comfortable with speed. I will say "speed" if you are speaking too fast for me to flow or understand. I am relatively new to theory arguments, so you should probably slow down on them and make sure they are not too blippy. I'm like logic and consider debate to be a game so theory (especially T) is interesting to me but I don’t like to punish people for their arguments. I prefer it if theory impacts make sense and are logical in the round - such as drop the argument, as opposed to drop the debater. However, that is only my default position. If you argue drop the debater well in the round, I will vote on it. I don't like sexist or racist arguments and I won't vote for them if they are obviously offensive, even if they are dropped.  I try not to make arguments for debaters. Your arguments should be well supported and explained. It is your job to explain the argument in a way that is straight forward and clear. In particular, I do not like extremely odd value/criteria debates where the evidence seems designed to confuse, not explain. And if you are not able to clearly explain your value/criteria/k in c-x, I will not vote for it. I value debaters understanding each other's arguments and responding to them effectively - I see a lot of discussion about disclosure as it applies to evidence but not much about honest disclosure in c-x.  I do convey my opinion on arguments through facial expressions - so if I think you are spending too much time on an argument I will show that visually and if I like an argument I will show that visually. I will vote on value and criteria arguments, but I love case arguments that have clear impacts that relate back to value and criteria. I like impacts to be identified and weighed in final arguments. I'm much more a policy judge than a traditional LD judge.  I do view debate as a game, I'm open to most arguments, I think debate is fluid and debaters are allowed to define and create the game as they go so long as their support for doing so is strong and valid. However, I don't like rudeness. Overwhelmingly for me that is defined as a debater responding to another debater (or more rarely, me) in a condescending manner. But rudeness only affects your speaker points. I like clear, consice, fast, organized debating. I think I generally give higher speaker points (I feel bad when I go below a 27 and will usually give a 30 at least once a tournament). I don't need tons of persuasion vocally - it isn't a performance, but I love and reward clear, intellectual persuasion with high speaker points.

Jeff Koffel - Republic

n/a

Jenn Little - U-High

n/a

Jenn Dempsey - Central Valley Hig

~~Background: I competed in debate all four years of high school - primarily in LD, but also competed in Public Forum and Congress. Since graduating I have judged primarily in Eastern Washington.   To me, the most educational aspects of debate include exposure to multiple subject areas and the ability to clearly articulate well-reasoned arguments. I like v/vc debate and want your case to clearly link to those. Real world evidence and practical application goes a long way for me, but I also appreciate the philosophical side of LD. Although I can handle speed, I expect that you can utilize tone, speed, and inflection to provide clarity. I care far more about quality of evidence and reasoning than sheer volume of cards. Also, please give impacts rather than merely pointing out drops and give me clear and compelling voters.   A certain level of civility and professionalism are preferred. If you are especially hostile in round I will drop your speaks.

Jenni Kevis - Snohomish

n/a

Jennifer McPherson - LC Tigers

n/a

Jennifer Williams - Kamiak

n/a

Jessica Brock - CDA

n/a

Jessica Pederson - OHS

n/a

Jessica Mulholland - CDA

n/a

Jim Zhou - NC HS

n/a

Jim Heath - Mt Spokane

n/a

JoAnn Flaherty - LC Tigers

n/a

Jodi Fitzgerald - Wenatchee

n/a

Joe Engel - Gonzaga Prep

n/a

Jolie Monasterio - Gonzaga Prep

n/a

Jon Furbee - Charter

n/a

Joseph Hyink - PCCS

n/a

Jude Payne - NC HS

n/a

Julie Caruso - NC HS

n/a

Karen Hartson - Snohomish

n/a

Katherine Hoot - U-High

n/a

Kelly Staves - U-High

n/a

Kelly Smoot - Gonzaga Prep

n/a

Kendra Eidam - Lake City

n/a

Kenneth Bisbee - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

Kera Parsons - Walla Walla

Kyle Jackson - CDA

n/a

Kyndal Gottberg - U-High

n/a

Lani Ghirarduzzi - CDA

n/a

Laura Livingston - Sehome

n/a

Laura Read - LC Tigers

n/a

Lauren Baker - Oaks Christian

n/a

Lisa Weber - Newport

Liz Bremner - Republic

n/a

Lori Cossette - Gonzaga Prep

Lori Patrick - LBHS

n/a

Luke OBannan - NC HS

n/a

Margot Cioccio - TEC

n/a

Marissa Florio - U-High

n/a

Mary Rourke - Republic

n/a

Mary Bacon - LC Tigers

n/a

Mathew McPherson - LC Tigers

n/a

Mattie Cupps - Lake City

n/a

Megan Cox - Lake City

n/a

Micah Sacks - Mead

n/a

Michael Cooper - OHS

n/a

Michelle Reese - Wenatchee

n/a

Mike Haines - LC Tigers

n/a

Mike Page - TEC

n/a

Mike Fitzgerald - Kamiak

n/a

Millayna Klingback - Mt Spokane

n/a

Mimi Price - CDA

n/a

Mrs. Carter - Gonzaga Prep

n/a

Nathan Medeiros - Wenatchee

n/a

Nichole Clegern - Central Valley Hig

Nick Kuisti - Lake City

n/a

Paige Spraker - Gonzaga Prep

n/a

Pam Snook - Snohomish

n/a

Phil Koestner - Chiawana

n/a

Philip Amado - LC Tigers

n/a

Phletha Wynn - U-High

n/a

Rachel Rice - CDA

n/a

Rachel Obenchain - Mt Spokane

n/a

Ramona Mitchell - Chiawana

n/a

Randy Brown - U-High

n/a

Rhiannon Kubes - U-High

n/a

Richard Calcavecchia - Chiawana

n/a

Robert Aneiro - U-High

n/a

Ryan Hand - Mead

Experience: 4 year policy debater at Centennial High School, Boise, ID 1 and 1/2 years of policy debate at Idaho State University Currently debate at Gonzaga University 2-week lab assistant for Lincoln Garrett and Judd Kimball at the GDI Cliff notes version:   <ul> <li>I assisted a lab at the GDI this summer, I'm pretty comfortable with both the literature and arguments that exist on the topic. Last year I judged 75+ topics at tournaments from Whitman to the TOC, I judge a fair amount of debates and try to keep up with the new developments that are happening on the topic</li> <li>I like speed, people who are much, much smarter have told me that speed is not your WPM but your arguments communicated effectively. I flow on my computer and do my very best to get the tag and author of all of the cards you read, I also try to flow warrants of the cards--keep this in mind when extending evidence. I find it less compelling for you to say "extend the Brown 10 evidence" and more compelling when debaters explain the warrants of their evidence and then reference the author, that makes it easier for me to know what you're referring to if I didn't get the name</li> <li>Ideal 2NRs (assuming execution and quality of evidence): A topic critique, DA/CP, topicality, a DA and case, and lastly, a shitty uber-generic critique</li> <li>Affirmatives don't need a 'plan'. They do need an advocacy statement or an interpretation of what it means to "affirm" the resolution. I'm an optimistic person, and I think refusing affirmation is both unfair and does injustice to the potential of debate to create change.</li> <li>Flashing is prep, I time everything and your prep ends when the flash drive is ejected (use email chains when possible, they're faster)</li> <li>Be nice to each other please</li> <li>Framing and impact comparison is the most important aspect of debate, do them and be rewarded.</li> <li>Tech over truth. This may be a reflection of my frustration of what I think the speech doc has done to debate, but I think that being technical and organized is one of the most important skills that debate has to offer.</li> <li>Depth over breadth. I'm less interested in your ability to shallowly engage on a bunch of arguments, and more interested in you showing me that you have a thorough understanding of arguments that you are going for.</li> </ul> Aff: <ul> <li> <ul> <li>A few things I think:I do NOT think the aff MUST have a plan text, I think the aff SHOULD have an advocacy statement, although if an aff doesn't have a plan text or advocacy statement, I will be more easily persuaded by framework arguments from the negative team. The best affirmatives are at least germane to the topic, and are ready to defend their "link" to the topic.</li> <li>No one wants to hear you read your theory blocks at your highest speed</li> <li>I believe that the 2AR can go for impact turns to framework arguments, even in a world where the negative has kicked their framework argument; although this will be an uphill battle, I will vote on it.</li> <li>Politics Disad--I am a sucker for intrinsicness arguments here, and also will reward you if you know things and make arguments on the uniqueness and link level that don't necessarily need cards--i know what's going on in politics, and if you can give a warranted arguments about why what the negative is saying is untrue--I don't think you always need a card.</li> <li>Uniqueness does not control the direction of the link, this is a statement of fact, not opinion.</li> <li>I think that contradictory truth claims are bad, conditions and consult CPs are cheating, and you should go for those arguments when I'm in the back of the room.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> Neg:   <ul> <li> <ul> <li>A negative team that reads 7 off case positions will certainly get lower speaker points than one that reads 4 off case positions</li> <li>I love a good CP/case strategy, i think it rewards good research and strategy. There is a lack of understanding of counterplan theory in debate, and I think that if pressed, the negative ought to be ready to defend the theoretical basis for their counterplan existing in debate.</li> <li>Disads--yes, do them. I think you need to explain your internal link chain, you just do. Debate is an educational activity, and you reading your pre-written extensions of your disad does not show me that you have critically thought about the potential consequences of the aff.</li> <li>There is such thing as no risk of a link.</li> <li>Critiques---the more topic specific, the better. I don't like the generics as much, but I find arguments that fundamentally challenge the assumptions of the affirmative interesting. You need to explain and understand the link arguments, after all, what is your argument if the aff doesn't link? If you want to go for the critique in the 2NR, you need to do a few things--1) explain how the alternative either solves the aff or the impacts of the 1nc 2) Extend impacts, i know it seems obvious, but it's lacking and finally 3) do impact comparison--HINT: if you're not starting your 2NC/2NRs when going for the critique with these words, "the critique outweighs and turns the aff--then explain why" you're probably losing</li> <li>Topicality: I think this is the absolutely best place in debate for debaters to be technical and efficient. You should not group parts of the T debate, you should be highly technical. I default to competing interpretations on questions of framework and topicality, but I do not believe that unwarranted extensions of vague impact claims like "limits" and "education" are enough to get the job done. I've often thought that debates that I watch regarding topicality are often very good on the top level, that is comparing evidence and addressing things like how either team's interpretation impact the standards debate, but they are very bad on the question of the impacts of things like overlimiting and either side not having ground. I do not want to hear your buzzwords in the 2NR like "the aff underlimits, that makes it impossible to debate we win" I would much rather hear you talk about the counterinterpretation and a) what it would justify and why that would be uniquely bad for the negative and b) what the impact to that kind of interpretation of debate is. Put more succinctly, talk about the "terminal" impacts of T as you would a disad (stolen from Paige Spraker). I consistently give the highest speaker points to well executed 2NRs that are great on that question, and if you do that in front of me, you will be rewarded with my pleasure and high points.</li> <li>I call for cards and read them, this often is because both teams are insufficient at evidence comparison and just assert that their evidence is better without warrants or comparisons. If you make detailed evidence comparison in last rebuttals so I don't have to call for cards, I'll be a happy camper.</li> <li>Presumption arguments are tight.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> I'm good with speed, but watch my face. I will tell you to slow down or clear if I can't flow. Tag team is fine, but don't dominate your partners CX. Inflection and speaking style-you NEED to say "next" or "and" between cards, my flows go to hell if people don't do that. I love debaters that are funny. I have started to try to be more expressive when i'm watching debates, because i think that there is a real problem with people not looking at their judge in debate and burying their face on the computer and speech doc. If you do this, I will roll my eyes and sigh until you know what you're doing. Have fun! you can email me if my post-round doesn't compute. <a href="mailto:ryan.hand11@gmail.com" target="_blank">ryan.hand11@gmail.com</a>

Sadie Comer - Lake City

n/a

Sally Conner - Central Valley Hig

I have judged debate events for about 15 years, most frequently congress, with occasional LD and PF. I enjoy rounds that stay away from excessive jargon and debaters focus on clear communication. I think that the value is important in a LD round, and I think that evidence is important in a round, but that it is an even more important skill to focus on deciding what evidence is important to include in a round, and to explain the relevance of this information. I do not enjoy speed.

Sandy Hartzell - Charter

n/a

Sarah-Rose Taylor - Lake City

n/a

Scott Kazmi - Snohomish

n/a

Sean Milligan - U-High

n/a

Steven Helman - Kamiak

n/a

Suzanne Harris - Charter

n/a

Taylar McClure - Lake City

n/a

Teresa Oswald - Charter

n/a

Tiffany Bidne - Snohomish

n/a

Tim Vial - U-High

n/a

Travis Griffith - Charter

n/a

Tyler Kuisti - Lake City

n/a

Wade Entezar - Charter

n/a

Wendy Ricks - Charter

n/a

2014 The Honorable Thomas S Foley Memorial Forensics Tournament