Judge Philosophies
Amy Reid - Jefferson
n/a
Andy Stuckey - TAFA
n/a
Ann Ewel - Overlake
n/a
April Emerson - Wolves
n/a
Ben Richmond - Jefferson
n/a
Brandon Marleau - Mt Si
n/a
Brandon Cole - Mt Si
n/a
Brian Coyle - Kingston
Cesar Bernal - NKHS
n/a
Chalen Kelly - CKHS
<p>Most notes here are for my preferences in relation to LD:</p> <p>As a coach and teacher I believe that debate is an educational activity that supports citizenship in a participatory democracy. As such, debate ought to prioritize communication in an accessible format for all involved. Because the forensics community ought to strive to broaden our reach and bridge the gap between academic focus and the needs of the broader community, we need to maintain events that are accessible to all kinds of people. That said, I will judge competitors both on their ability to critically analyze their topics and on their ability to communicate their analysis to their audience. I love philosophy and I see LD as one of the few activities that prizes and articulates the value of philosophy in relation to politics, it is depressing to watch the LD world shrink as it moves further from accessibility to new students and to the larger community. As a judge, I value accessibility of the event to a wide audience as a means to maintain the vitality of the activity. Thus, when I ask you to avoid spreading, it isn't because I can't keep up, it is because I want the debate to be presented in a way that will make new students and families want to support the event. In the current CX style, I see the LD world fading. Please don't contribute to that pattern.</p> <p>I am a former LD debater, and I enjoy philosophy, so if you are cabable of running a strong resolutional analysis using philosophical underpinnings, I'll probably enjoy the round. I don't mind the use of Kritics (in fact I really like them when they are done well), but I'm not a fan of theory focused on burdens and abuse issues like RVI's. Please don't spend your precious time arguing the finer points of burden while neglecting the more significant aspects of clash in your rounds. I also find topicality arguments generally tiresome as they tend to be too focused on technicalities and less focused on the central clash.</p> <p>I already dealt with spread/speed by telling you that I value communication, but in case you missed it, here it is again. Don't try to spread your arguments if you are sacrificing your ability to communicate clearly with your audience. There are not many students that can both communicate clearly and spread, so you are running a risk if you spread in rounds with me as the judge. I can keep up, but often don't see the benefit of doing so...</p> <p>I wrote a longer philosphy on the Wiki page for judges. Feel free to ask me about your arguments at tournaments, I'll be happy to discuss the round and current resolutions if I have time.</p> <p>All of the information noted above is aimed toward my role as an LD judge. I am likely to be judging Public Forum or Congress due to the competitor list for our team.</p> <p>In<strong> Public Forum</strong>, I generally try to keep a clean slate. <strong>Look fors: </strong>good analysis, strong evidence, cost/benefit analysis, generally well formatted presentation, clear signposting, strong voters, crystalization and impacts at the end of the speech. An especially strong team will provide regional analysis and impacts for their issues that explain international connections when appropriate. I don't mind some bleed from other forms of debate as long as it isn't overly fast or jargon-filled. If you use a lot of acronyms, be careful to explain them. I change the kinds of debate I judge on a regular basis, so I'm not always as familiar with the current resolutional lingo as you are. Blipping a turn this or drop that without explaining why is generally a bad idea, so remember to explain why you think I should turn an argument, cross apply or drop it. Thanks.</p> <p> </p>
Chelsea King - Mt Si
n/a
Cheri Page - NKHS
n/a
Chet Dawson - Jefferson
n/a
Chris Criqui - Jefferson
n/a
David-Alex Lewis-Jimmerson - Peninsula
Dylan Alvis - CKHS
Elizabeth Spalt - TAFA
n/a
James Cleary - Trojans
n/a
Jason Woehler - Federal Way
n/a
Jeanne Blair - Wolves
n/a
Justin Choi - Federal Way
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>
Kim Leach - TAFA
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>
Lois Gorne - Federal Way
n/a
Mary Kulish - Kingston
n/a
Matthew Witek - Rogers
n/a
Melissa Morrison - Peninsula
n/a
Noah Weston - CKHS
Nyree Dawson - Jefferson
n/a
Patricia Roberts - Overlake
n/a
Paul Sealey - Federal Way
n/a
Piper Ragland - Kingston
Rhonda Nelson - CKHS
Sara Hopkins - Mt Si
n/a
Sheri Ahlheim - Peninsula
Tevas Lacey-Wood - Mt Si
n/a
Tiffany Wilhelm - Wolves
n/a