FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Carver - AVI

n/a

Amy McCormick - Tahoma High

Amy Michael - TBHS

n/a

Andrew Chadwell - Gig Harbor

Andy Stuckey - TAFA

n/a

Angie Stephens - Highland High

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

Anthony Park - Jefferson

n/a

Ben Croft - Highland High

Clash!! Clash!! Clash!!  I like theory and analogy.  I'm fine with speed.  I'm open to any type of debate both traditional and progressive. If you run theory in any event make sure you know  your theorist.  Don't drop arguments.  I look for an all round debater who can show me how the impacts should be measured and why.

Benton Coblentz - AVI

n/a

Bill Hollands - Hazen

n/a

Brent DeCracker - Cedar Park

n/a

Brian Coyle - Kingston

Carmen Gale - Kingston

Carrie Shaw - Hazen

n/a

Cesar Bernal - NKHS

n/a

Chet Dawson - Jefferson

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.

Claire Ahl - Kingston

David Moore - Kentlake

n/a

Dean Haynes - AVI

n/a

Donna Bowler - ARHS

n/a

Dylan Lasher - Kentlake

n/a

Gabriel Oros - IHS

n/a

Garrick Graham - Federal Way

n/a

Glenda Braun - Trojans

n/a

Isaiah Parker - Jefferson

n/a

JC Romero - Peninsula

n/a

Jake Nelson - Gig Harbor

Janie Grosvenor - IHS

n/a

Jim Anderson - Capital HS

n/a

Jimmy Nguyen - AVI

n/a

Jina Yi - Jefferson

n/a

John Doty - AVI

n/a

Kaelyn East - Gig Harbor

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

Kaveh Dilmaghani - Tahoma High

Kirill Volkov - Jefferson

n/a

Kyla Barnes - NKHS

n/a

Lance McMillan - Peninsula

Lasica Crane - Kingston

I am the head coach at Kingston High School and have been involved with the program since 2007. In judging LD: I hate speed when it affects your ability to speak clearly. I want to hear what you are claiming and I like to be able to understand and assess what your arguments are. I love philosophy so I don't mind hearing interesting philosophical arguments. I don't hate theory, although I would rather hear you discuss the actual resolution unless there is a compelling reason to run a theory shell. I'm pretty flexible really. Speed is my main annoyance. I like some clash. I pay attention to how you speak. Avoid using filler words.

Linda Youngchild - Peninsula

Lizzy Lee - ARHS

n/a

Lois Gorne - Federal Way

n/a

Madison Derksema - NKHS

n/a

Madison Ruppel - Jefferson

n/a

Mark Smith - Hazen

n/a

Mark Davis - ARHS

n/a

Mary Orlosky - Cedar Park

n/a

Mary-Kaye Soderlind - Jefferson

n/a

Max Johnston - Highland High

I debated 4 years in highschool and 1 year in college. Now i assistant coach for Highland in Idaho. I debated critiques my senior year and my freshman year of college, so i am familiar with that literature but i also am comfortable with more policy maker debate. I dont have a lot of preferences, mostly just do whats strategic and what you think you can win. I do not mind speed, just make sure that you are clear on tags and authors, and if there is somethign you think is really important and i need to vote on,slow down and make sure i really understand how important that issue is.  T My partner went for topicallity ~90% of our senior year and won on it consistently, so i am familiar with t and can keep up with the technical line by line. I default to competing interpretations unless you tell me otherwise. Dont make a mess on the t debate  Theory  I dont like theory debates. This isnt to say i wont vote on Theory, but i dont like useless theory debates. If you read condo bad and they only read 1 conditional cp and a disad i wont vote on it. If they read 6 advocacies i would be hard pressed not to vote on condo bad. I dont like useless theory debates, and my threshold is higher then others.  Framework  I tend to be more open and liberal with framework, but im not opposed to a more traditional policy approach either. Which one i use is up to the debate obviously, but arguments aimed towards political agency/activism and debates ability to train us to engage politics tend to carry alot of weight with me. This isnt to say you cant make other education/ground/limits claims.  Critiques Like i said above i debated critiques the last two years of my debate career, i enjoy them when they are executed well. Need to have a role of the ballot analysis, as well as comparative impact calc as to why certain ethical considerations (poverty/racism/sexism etc) outweigh nuclear war or other large magnitude impacts. You also need to let me know what it means when i vote for the alternative (or affirmative if its a critical 1 ac) and what sort of world i am endorsing with my ballot.  Disadvantages Read em, dont read em. Its your call. I dont care if its generic or ultra specific, if you can explain it well, defend it well and make a cohesive story i will vote on them. Good impact calc really makes a difference here for me.  Counterplans  I was never a huge counterplan debater, but given this years topic i know counterplans are strategic so run em. Just make sure at some point during the debate you take the time to really explain exactly what the counterplan does, and why that is preferable to a world with the affirmative.    Beyond that if you have any questions feel free to ask, i know its not the longest paradigm, but the biggest thing for me is for you to read the arguments you feel most comfortable with, and those you think you can win and take the time to explain to me you will probably win.

Michael Buchanan - AMHS

n/a

Michael King - Renton HS

n/a

Morgia Belcher - Gig Harbor

Mrs. Peyton Jones - Jefferson

n/a

Nathan Lemanski - AMHS

Nyree Dawson - Jefferson

n/a

Olimpia Diaz - AVI

n/a

Patrick Spieker - Gig Harbor

n/a

Patrick LaShell - Tahoma High

Piper Ragland - Kingston

Sara Hopkins - AMHS

Scott Mercer - Tahoma High

Sheri Ahlheim - Peninsula

Stan Sidor - Jefferson

n/a

Susan Mohn - Interlake

Suzanne Price - Highland High

Tjitske Dekker - Interlake

Tom Wiley - Kingston

I majored in philosophy & math in college. I have 5 years experience judging LD/PuFo & Congress. When it comes to a judging paradigm, I follow my heart.

2013 UW Tacoma Fall Invitational