Judge Philosophies
Alisha Bond - TAFA
n/a
Amina Ali - Peninsula
Amy Michael - TBHS
n/a
Amy McCormick - Tahoma High
Andy Stuckey - TAFA
n/a
Bill Hollands - Hazen
n/a
Brian Coyle - Kingston
Carrie Walker - Kamiak
n/a
Chet Dawson - Jefferson
n/a
Craig Woods - Jefferson
n/a
Dante Miguel - Kingston
<p>I am a former debater and current student of philosophy, political science & economics.</p> <p><br /> <strong><strong>LD:</strong><br /> <strong>Don't</strong></strong> 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 <strong>rephrase</strong>. "Hobbsian logic trumps 1 AFF because..." is a much better phrasing. However, whatever case you are running should be your own; I consider it <strong>plagiarism</strong> 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.</p> <p>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, <strong>make it</strong> <strong>clear</strong>, and be careful of the caveats. Running alternative philosophy is about relevant moral debate, <strong>not</strong> 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.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Congress:</strong><br /> 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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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. <strong>But</strong> if someone who is not prepared needs a speech, a "nudge" in the right direction is acceptable <strong>if you aren't speaking</strong> on the same topic.</p> <p>Chambers are long, humor is good.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>PuFo:</strong><br /> If I have to judge PuFo, you're all winners in my book.</p> <p><br /> <strong>IE's:</strong></p> <p>Be respectful and have fun with it :)</p>
David-Alex Lewis-Jimmerson - Peninsula
Deb Sopher - Seattle Academy
n/a
Diana Stalter - Seattle Academy
n/a
Donna Bellew - Seattle Academy
n/a
Donna Squires - Gig Harbor
Donna Bowler - ARHS
n/a
Dylan Lasher - Kentlake
n/a
Elisabeth McKeen - Anacortes HS
n/a
Elizabeth Spalt - TAFA
n/a
Erin Gibson - Anacortes HS
n/a
Garrick Graham - Federal Way
n/a
Isaiah Parker - Jefferson
n/a
Jacob Ball - Kamiak
n/a
Jane Pemberton - Seattle Academy
n/a
Jason Woehler - Federal Way
n/a
Jim Anderson - Capital HS
n/a
John Sterbick - MRLH
n/a
John Garing - Kingston
John Mercer - Tahoma High
Josh Hird - Capital HS
n/a
Kaelyn East - Gig Harbor
<p>My name is Kaelyn and I did LD for 3 years in high school and have been judging and coaching for past 5 years. </p> <p> </p> <p>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.</p> <p> </p> <p>Other aspects to keep in mind:</p> <p> </p> <p>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. </p> <p> </p> <p>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. </p> <p>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. </p> <p>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. </p> <p>Overall, I am looking for clarity,</p>
Kathy Raymond - Kingston
Kaveh Dilmaghani - Tahoma High
Kelli Meeker - ARHS
n/a
Kelli Chaney - Hazen
n/a
Kirill Volkov - Jefferson
n/a
Lance McMillan - Peninsula
Lasica Crane - Kingston
<p>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. <br /> </p>
Linda Youngchild - Peninsula
Lois Gorne - Federal Way
n/a
Mark Smith - Hazen
n/a
Mark Davis - ARHS
n/a
Mary Orlosky - Cedar Park
n/a
Mary-Kaye Soderlind - Jefferson
n/a
Matthew Witek - Rogers
n/a
Megan Larsen - Puyallup
n/a
Meredith Hale - Seattle Academy
n/a
Michael King - Renton HS
n/a
Mike Fitzgerald - Kamiak
n/a
Morgia Belcher - Gig Harbor
Nyree Dawson - Jefferson
n/a
Peter Fowler - Kentlake
n/a
Piper Ragland - Kingston
Rachel Adams - Capital HS
n/a
Rachel Akisada - ARHS
n/a
Rebecca Swanson - Renton HS
n/a
Ruth Etzioni - Seattle Academy
n/a
Sarah Sherry - Puyallup
<p>Coach since 1996 - started team at Clover Park High School (3 years) (Coach at Puyallup High School since 2000)<br /> Competed in high school and college - Policy, LD, Interp<br /> Charter Board member of The Women's Debate Institute<br /> <br /> General - (scale of 1-10) 1=low, 10 high<br /> Speed - 7ish - 8 if it's really clear<br /> 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.<br /> 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.<br /> 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.<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> 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<br /> <br /> 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".<br /> <br /> 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.</p>
Scott Mercer - Tahoma High
Shelly Casale - Cedar Park
n/a
Stephanie Harris - Puyallup
Steven Helman - Kamiak
n/a
Tom Wiley - Kingston
<p>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.</p>
Valerie Kampe - Seattle Academy
n/a