Judge Philosophies
Aiden Moran - Newport
n/a
Alicia Jekel - PCCS
n/a
April Emerson - Wolves
n/a
Arielle Menn - Interlake
Brian Huynh - AVI
n/a
Bruce Arbtin - Newport
n/a
Colton Smith - ECHS
<p>I graduated in 2013 after debating for Wenatchee High School in WA. I primarily debated on the national circuit and qualified to the TOC my junior and senior year.</p> <p>Novice, JV, and Traditional/Local Varsity Paradigm: Do whatever you're best at or want to do and enjoy them novice times.</p> <p>Varsity Paradigm:</p> <p>I default to competing interps. Fairness is a voter, education may or may not be.</p> <p>Things I will not vote for under any circumstance:</p> <p>•Skepticism (Using skepticism to justify a framework is fine)<br /> •Framework triggers<br /> •A prioris or NIBs that are unrelated to the standard<br /> •Permissibility<br /> •Unwarranted arguments</p> <p>Things I enjoy:</p> <p>•Arguments<br /> •Util<br /> •Plans, CPs, and DAs<br /> •Perms<br /> •Impact turns<br /> •Impact defense (I believe in terminal defense and give more strength to defense than most judges)<br /> •Weighing (Debaters do not do enough of this but it will take you a long way in front of me)<br /> •Extinction first arguments<br /> •Textual advocacies<br /> •Theoretical reasons to prefer util<br /> •CX checks</p> <p>I base speaks purely off technical proficiency. If you are aff, make your 1AR good and you will get good speaks.</p> <p>If an argument is conceded you do not need to extend the warrant, just the claim.</p> <p>Feel free to ask me questions before the round!</p>
Diane Vasquez - Eastlake HS
n/a
Jane McCoy - ECHS
Joanna Walker - IHS
n/a
John Julian - Bear Creek
n/a
John Doty - AVI
n/a
Joseph Hyink - PCCS
n/a
Joshua Wiley - MRLH
n/a
Jyoti Bawa - Eastlake HS
Ken Nichols - Newport
n/a
Kevin Ma - BC ACADEMY
n/a
Lisa Weber - Newport
Mary Orlosky - Cedar Park
n/a
Merrily Foreman - Redmond
Mr Bae - Newport
n/a
Nassim Loukil - IHS
n/a
Nick Nyguyen - Eastlake HS
n/a
Nicolas Wong - Eastlake HS
n/a
Richard Lund - Redmond
Ryan Thomas - Redmond
Shirley Lim - Newport
Stephen Thornsberry - Redmond
<p>The following is roughly taken from the NFL LD judging guidelines.</p> <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>
Terry Jess - BHS
n/a
Tiffany Wilhelm - Wolves
n/a