FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

- Lincoln

Policy Debate Paradigm I am the policy debate coach for Lincoln High School in Portland, OR.  I was a policy/LD debater for Lincoln High School and CEDA debater for The American University in Washington, DC. Upon graduation, I returned to coach the American CEDA program for three more years. After a long hiatus, I’ve been called back to the activity that I love.   Debate is awesome! But … it’s only as good as we, as a community, make it. I am coming back to the activity to make sure that it continues for future generations. Teams that disrespect their opponent, or this activity, will be dealt with severely on my ballot. Integrity is not something to trifle with for short-term strategic benefits.  <ol> <li>Stand during speaking times, unless you’re medically unable.</li> <li>Homophobic, racist, religiously intolerant, or sexist language and/or behavior will not be tolerated.</li> <li>Rudeness, dishonesty, cruelty and vulgarity devalues the activity.</li> <li>Have fun! Strive for creativity, humor, debate scholarship, humility, compassion, and being strategic.</li> </ol>   Stylistic Overview <ol> <li>CLASH!</li> <li>Quality over quantity. Just because I can handle a faster round doesn't mean that it impresses me.</li> <li>Smart analytics is always better than lazy warrantless evidence.</li> <li>Debates about evidence QUALITY and CONTEXT are to be encouraged!  </li> <li>I am ok with tag teaming during cross ex so long as it provides greater clarity and isn’t abused.</li> <li>So long as it’s not a new case, advantage/scenario or neg position. The negative and affirmative positions should be disclosed pre round, if asked.</li> <li>If asked, evidence must be made available to the opposition.</li> <li>Prep stops when the flash leaves your computer.</li> <li>Provide a clear decision-making calculus judge from the start throughout the round and please do all of the impact analysis for me.</li> <li> I believe one or two prestandards (a propri) arguments are sufficient, anything more and I lean towards abuse.</li> </ol>   Positions Kritiks I’m more than open to them. But know that I’d probably rather judge just about anything … than a postmodernism debate. Even if you argued this in front of me 5 times this season, debate a K as if I’ve never heard the topic before. Topicality/theory debates Slow down for clarity, these debates tend to be nuanced.  Try to limit these positions to only abusive situation Disadvantages Not shockingly, case specific disads are better than generic. Counterplans Competition is key. Aff leaning on Conditionality. Legit perms must include all of plan and part of the counter plan.   I will try to judge whatever you want, within reason, so long as you justify it.

Alexander Erwig - South

I debated for four years in high school TOC level LD for Crescent Valley, and did three years of college parli for the University of Oregon. I've coached at multiple high school summer camps and am also currently coaching South Eugene’s policy team. Ultimately, you should deploy whichever strategy you are most comfortable and proficient with, and I’ll be happy to evaluate it. My favorite debates are those in which both teams are making smart, strategic arguments, regardless of whether those are critical or policy or theoretical debates.   I'm fine with any speed, any type of argument, and will not impose my own views about debate on you. I fundamentally believe that debate is an activity where each individual has an opportunity to speak about issues and arguments important to them, so I am fully open to whatever you want to do.    That being said, I’ll lay out a few of my general beliefs about debate. This isn’t to say that you should just conform to them, as I believe any theoretical issue is up for debate in-round, but should give you a heads-up as to what my inclinations are.   Specific Issues:  Kritiks: A strong framework with clear role of the ballot claims ideally accompanies most successful criticisms. I think a lot of critical debate suffers from a lack of warrant comparison and thesis-level analysis, so good comparative analysis and solid overviews will get you a long way. Just because I am versed in this kind of literature does not mean that I like seeing poorly executed critical strategies, so know your author's claims and be able to explain them. Extending tags and re-reading lines from your evidence is not the same as understanding and being able to explain your argument. Be able to sum up the thesis of your criticism in three sentences or less.   Theory: I like theory debates, especially those in which the interpretations are cleverly crafted (ex. Not “PICs bad” but rather “Counterplans that create an artificial net-benefit bad”). I am not a fan of the blatant doctored evidence that I’ve seen on the domestic surveillance topic to support some T interpretations. I’ll be reading the evidence that supports your interp, so be sure that your evidence actually says what you claim it does. Be sure to include fleshed out voters (“vote b/c education and fairness” is not sufficient).   DA/CP: I really enjoy evaluating these debates, and think that a well-crafted and argued DA/CP strat is probably one of my favorite debates to watch. The more specific and recent your evidence is, the better your disad is likely to perform in the debate. I tend to think that the internal links on most disads I’ve seen are the most lacking component, so having a well fleshed-out story is important in these areas.     Speaker points: My speaker points are primarily based on strategic execution in the debate, so even if you speak really well but make poor strategic choices you will get fewer speaks than someone who executes a winning strategy very well but doesn’t speak as well. That being said, I think most high school policy debaters would benefit from taking their speed down a level or two and increasing clarity. Not only does this ultimately make you faster (counterintuitive but true), but it also makes your speaker points go up. Especially in the rebuttals, many speeches would be more effective at a slightly slower pace while still making all of the necessary arguments.

Allie Taylor - Timberline

n/a

Amy McLoughlin - Southridge WA

Andie Chapin - Ferris

n/a

Andrew McGlowen - Eastside Cath 2

n/a

Andrew McGlone - ECHS

I debated four years in high school and four years in college (2 years CEDA, 2 years NDT). I consider debate a game and judge accordingly. I’m comfortable with theory or procedural discussions. K is fine. As with anything in debate, like life I err on the side of 'reasonability' as a standard for anything if not provided a practical alternative. No issues with speed. MOST IMPORTANTLY – if you’re rude to your opponent in any fashion during the debate you WILL lose my ballot. Debate should be fun and you should demonstrate respect for your oponent. That outweighs any framework you've labored to assemble.

Andrew Durand - Whitman

Annie Capestany - Walla Walla

I am an assistant coach and this is my 5th year judging. I don't like theory, speed or jargon. But I do like logic and reasonable arguments. Remember, it is your job to persuade me. If you go so fast that I can't understand your arguments, you lose. (I will put down my pen and cross my arms if you go too fast. You should slow down if you want to win.) Please roadmap and follow the flow.  I won't start the timer until after your roadmap (if any). You can use your own timers too. I give hand signals. I don't disclose.

Anusha Fernando - ECHS

Arinola Dada - ECHS

Arthur Shemitz - Whitman

Avery Miller - Whitman

Ben Weinhardt - Whitman

Brandy Music - Boise High

n/a

Brittany Clark - Boise High

n/a

Bruce Cole - Walla Walla

Chris Meabe - Whitman

Chuck Hamaker-Teals - Southridge WA

I am the coach for Southridge High School in eastern Washington.  I competed in high school debate in the 90s.  I've been coaching for 18 years.  Each topic has lots of ground, find it and bring the arguments into the round.  Be polite and kind.  Rude debaters almost never win.  I can flow relatively quickly but will punish debaters’ speaks if they are unclear or unprepared.  I try to vote on the flow, although I don't like Topicality run without forethought.  I am not a fan of the kritik but I will vote for one.  I don't mind theory arguments, I just need to be clearly told how the impact relates to what is happening in the round.   I vote on issues where I can clearly see the impact in the round.  I like clear, fast, well organized debates with lots of good arguments and lots of impacts.  When I sit on out round panels, my decisions are very similar to those of current college debaters, not communication judges.   Arguments about sources are tiresome and I am more persuaded by rationale or meta-analysis.

Colton Smith - ECHS

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. Novice, JV, and Traditional/Local Varsity Paradigm: Do whatever you're best at or want to do and enjoy them novice times. Varsity Paradigm: I default to competing interps. Fairness is a voter, education may or may not be. Things I will not vote for under any circumstance: •Skepticism (Using skepticism to justify a framework is fine) •Framework triggers •A prioris or NIBs that are unrelated to the standard •Permissibility •Unwarranted arguments Things I enjoy: •Arguments •Util •Plans, CPs, and DAs •Perms •Impact turns •Impact defense (I believe in terminal defense and give more strength to defense than most judges) •Weighing (Debaters do not do enough of this but it will take you a long way in front of me) •Extinction first arguments •Textual advocacies •Theoretical reasons to prefer util •CX checks I base speaks purely off technical proficiency. If you are aff, make your 1AR good and you will get good speaks. If an argument is conceded you do not need to extend the warrant, just the claim. Feel free to ask me questions before the round!

Connor Sabin - Whitman

Danica Wilbanks - Whitman

Daniel Lovato - Whitman

David Jung - BC ACADEMY

n/a

David Curry - Sprague

David Augustine - Lincoln

Devon Downey - Timberline

n/a

Elise Frank - Ferris

n/a

Emma Singer - CapitalID

n/a

Emma Thompson - Whitman

I've been doing policy debate for Whitman for 2 years, and did PF and LD all four years of high school.   How I decide Policy debates: I will vote the way you tell me to.  That means that I need some sort of framing done in the 2NR/ 2AR.  Absent arguments about how I should weigh impacts, I'll default to offense/ defense.  Also, I'm much more likely to vote for you if you give me clear voters - that usually means saying something like "vote here" and then doing some sort of impact calc.  I'm open to voting off a non-policy framework, but if you want me to do that you have the burden of proof as to why that should happen, otherwise I default to a pretty basic util calculation.   Affs: I am very unlikely to vote on an argument that I don't understand, which should be viewed as a warning to teams planning on running crazy affs/ Ks.  I'm likely to give negs a lot of leeway on framework against affs that are clearly not topical.  That said, if the aff is advocating a topical plan, even if it's through a weird/ critical method, I expect the neg to be extending something beyond framework in the 2NR.  Ks: I will vote on Ks.  However, I think that alts are often underexplained and I have a pretty high threshold for solvency arguments on either Ks or CPs.  So if you want to win on a K make sure that you have a good explination of what your alt does and how it solves the K by at least the block.  Note that this makes me generally skeptical of alts that are just reject the aff.  In terms of affs reading FW against the K, I view FW as a reason why I should weigh the impacts of the aff/ have a higher threshold for links, not as a reason that the neg doesn't get access to the K. CPs: Strategic CPs are good.  Cheating CPs are bad (i.e. consult, CPs that create a new mechanism without a solvency advocate).  You should have a clear articulation of a net benefit.  I'm also probably a little more prone to accepting perm solves arguments than most judges (this is also true of Ks where relevant). The more ridiculous the CP the more leeway I'll give the aff in terms of perms/ analytics Theory: On theory questions I'm sympathetic to voting on reasonability and drop the arg not the team arguments.  The two major exceptions to that are consult/ delay CPs, which  I am likely to accept theory arguments against, and T, on which I will default to competing interps unless told otherwise.  I tend to think ASPEC is awful and will almost never vote on it. I also have a pretty high threshold on contradictory arguments - I'm ok with condo but I will drop arguments that you have answered on a different flow (which means you need to be careful about what cards you're reading).   DAs: I'm perhaps a bigger advocate of the educational value of politics DAs than the average judge but almost all cards are terrible so I will value smart spin over dumping evidence.  Otherwise the debate I'd most like to judge is one with topic DAs and good case defense.   Presentational Preferences: Tag team cx is fine. I don't mind aggression but speaker points will start going down if you don't answer the question or start being rude. Speed is fine, with the understanding that I do not flow at a thousand words per second. Don't forget that your aim is to get me to write down your arguments, and if I can't understand what you are saying, I won't write it down. I will try to warn you if you are consistently unclear. That means you should extend cards by argument, not author, if you extend them by author there's a 50-50 chance I won't know what card you want me to extend.   Other Info: Keep things organized, if I don't know where you are I will stop flowing.  Also, I'll call for cards after round but I expect you to be extending warrants in round if you want me to vote on them.  I have absolutely no sympathy for any sort of evidence abuse (clipping cards, fabricating evidence, etc.) and I will drop you if you're caught.

Emma Newmark - Whitman

Eric Sungho Cho - BC ACADEMY

Generally, I believe that debaters, especially for Public Forum, should focus on clarity (because the style was created to be more relatable to the normal citizen) and well-warranted, logical arguments. That being said, debaters should feel free to use any really creative impacts or arguments as they like, as long as they can back it up and is somewhat believable. Impacts play a huge role for me when I vote.   Please do not spread, because PF isn’t policy, or else debaters will lose speaker points. Furthermore, disrespectful, overly-aggressive, and/or dishonest debaters will also be deducted significant speaker points.   Frameworks are not too important for novice PF debaters (for me), because I believe debaters should start with simply content-based arguments in the earlier parts of their debate career. However, for junior/open PF debaters, I expect a good clear framework or I will simply default to my personal preference for a framework.   In terms of evidence, I won’t be impressed if debaters simply reiterate quotations or empirical data. I’m more concerned of if the debaters actually understand “how”, for example, GDP will increase, rather than simply stating that GDP will increase because so-and-so said so. This makes for much more interesting, and higher-quality debate, rather than comparing evidence. I’m not really a fan of PF debaters discrediting an entire argument by attacking the source of evidence; even if debaters are attacking sources, they should still give the opposition the benefit of the doubt and deconstruct the flaws of the opponent’s arguments (but debaters can of course point out unreliable sources).   In the end, I will vote for the team who persuades me in believing that their side will create a better world or the least-worse world (so impacts are important for me). If the aff fails to provide any reason for change, and I feel the status quo is the most reasonable, then I will default to con because it is the aff’s job to create change and withhold the entirety of the resolution.   I do not like to disclose unless the tournament requires to, but I am willing to give constructive feedback for all debaters.

Felipe Rivera - Whitman

George-Michael Pescaru - Timberline

n/a

Gordon Kochman - Whitman

Hee Young Choi - BC ACADEMY

n/a

Jamie Maas - CapitalID

n/a

Jan Pizzo - Butte Falls

Two years high school speech Judging since 1980 First coaching assignment 1981 Debate coach 1993-1994 and 2004 to present. LD: Clash between aff and neg. Value/Crit should be integrated throughout cases. Analysis and cards are both important. Speaking speed should not be as fast as Policy. Line by line rebuttals are important. Debaters will be expected to know the rules, especially concerning new arguments. Ethical behavior is always a must. Policy: T, K and CP arguments are all fine. Generic disads and random T arguments tend to strike me as lazy. Old style stock issue debate is fine. My paradigm is: "Don't do anything to drive people out of the event." Line by line or grouping are both fine. Spread/speed okay. Speed should not be so fast that I need your written case/cards to understand the debate. Do not panic if I use a paper flow pad, I just like it better than the computer. Also, do not panic if I stop flowing, it does not mean I am not following the debate. Tag team does not work for me when it results in only one partner doing the C-X.  Debaters will be expected to understand the rules, especially concerning new arguments. Ethical behavior is a must. Policy-maker slant. Therefore, tell me why we need new legislation/law/plan, how it will fix the problem and why the plan is better than the status quo. Give me justification for voting for the plan on aff. On neg, tell me either why the status quo is not bad, why the aff plan will not work, why the aff plan is not needed or how the plan will create bigger issues. Alternatively, a K or CP is also a fine neg. approach as long as it connects. Traditional stock issue take-outs on-case of aff is also fine. For example, minor repair arguments work with me. PF: I will try my best to judge this form of debate from the perspective of a lay judge. Therefore, theory arguments, excessive speed or spread and jargon will be judged less favorably than in LD or Policy. Communication, illustrations, eye-contact and writing style will have more emphasis. Ethical behavior is a must. Oral critiques provided when permitted by the tournament.

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.

Jeffrey Richards - ECHS

Background: I was a policy debater for Dimond High School in Anchorage, AK; in college, I debated in CEDA 4 years for Northwest Nazarene University in Nampa, ID. I have coached policy, LD, and I.E.'s at Meridian High School in Boise, ID, Sammamish High School in Seattle, WA, and currently with Eastside Catholic High School in Sammamish, WA. I have had two textbooks on competitive debate published by National Textbook Company (now McGraw-Hill): Moving from Policy to Value Debate and Debating by Doing. I have coached LD competitors at the NFL Nationals tournament and my students placed 2nd, Semifinalist, and Quarterfinalist at the Washington State Debate championships in 2012, 2013, and 2014. I have judged many policy and LD high school debate rounds locally in WA and at national circuit tournaments. Approach: I see competitive debate as a strategic activity where both sides attempt to exclude the other’s arguments and keep them from functioning. As such, I expect both debaters to argue the evaluative frameworks that apply in this particular round and how they function with regard to the positions that have been advanced. My Ballot: The better you access my ballot, the more you keep me from intervening. You access my ballot best when you clearly and simply tell me (1) what argument you won, (2) why you won it, and (3) why that means you win the round. Don’t under-estimate the importance of #3: It would be a mistake to assume that all arguments are voters and that winning the argument means you win the round. You need to clearly provide the comparative analysis by which arguments should be weighed or you risk the round by leaving that analysis in my hands. I will not look to evaluate every nuance of the line-by-line; it is your responsibility to tell me which arguments are most relevant and significant to the decision. Let’s use Reverse Voters as an example. Some judges disfavor these arguments, but in front of me, they are perfectly acceptable. However, the fact that you beat back a theory argument from your opponent does not, in and of itself, provide you access to an RVI. To win an RVI posted against a theory position generally requires that you demonstrate that your opponent ran the argument in bad faith (e.g., only as a time suck, without intent to go for the argument), and that the argument caused actual harm in the round. When it comes to potential abuse, I tend to agree with the Supreme Court's view in FCC v. Pacifica: "Invalidating any rule on the basis of its hypothetical application to situations not before the Court is 'strong medicine' to be applied 'sparingly and only as a last resort.'" You certainly can argue for a different evaluative framework for the RVI, but you cannot assume that I already have one. Think, before you start your rebuttal(s). Ask yourself, what do I have to win in order to win the round? Whatever the answer to that question is, that is where you start and end your speech. Paradigm: The most important thing I can do in any debate round is to critique the arguments presented in the round. As such, I consider myself very liberal about what you do in a debate round, but conservative about how you do it. What that means for debaters is that you can run just about any argument you like, but you will need to be persuasive and thorough about how you do it. If you run theory, for example, you will need to understand the jurisdictional nature of theory arguments and either provide a compelling argument why the violation is so critical that dropping the debater is the only appropriate remedy or a convincing justification as to why theory should have a low threshold. I try very hard not to inject myself into the debate, and I do my best to allow the speakers to develop what they think are the important issues. Additional Items to Consider: 1. Speed is fine, but don’t chop off the ends of your words, or I will have trouble understanding you. Rapid speech is no excuse for failing to enunciate and emphasize arguments you want to be sure I get on my flow. 2. Argue competing paradigms. This is true in every form of debate. I am not married to any single framework, but too often, the underlying assumptions of how I need to view the round to give your arguments more impact than those of your opponent go unstated, much less debated. Tell me WHY your argument matters most. It’s okay to shift my paradigm to better access your impacts; just tell me why I should do so and how. 3. Presumption is a framework issue but is given short shrift almost every time I hear it argued. My default position is to be skeptical of any proposition until there is good and sufficient reason to accept it. That means presumption generally lies against the resolution until the affirmative presents a prima facie case to accept it. If you want to shift presumption so that it lies in a different position (with the prevailing attitude, in favor of fundamental human rights, etc.), then be sure to justify the shift in mindset and clearly explain whether that means we err on the side of the resolution being true or false.

Jenny Owen - Lincoln

Previous debate and practical experience: High school policy debate (1977-1981); legal career; past seven years judging all forms of debate, individual events & Student Congress in Pacific NW for 15-20 tournaments/year as well as 2-3 ToC Tournaments/year; and, six years of coaching a large, comprehensive speech and debate team. I value and thank debaters for pre-round research and preparation, but I view the actual round as the place where even more is required, namely: Engagement, clash, aggressive advocacy/defense of positions, respectful behavior and proportionality. Use of canned arguments, kritiks and counterplans without specific links into the actual debate fail even if they are entertaining, well planned and/or superior to the alternative. I prefer the substance of the debate over the form. Taglines make flowing easier, but do not warrant claims nor constitute extensions of arguments per se. I try to flow all of the debate but not robotically. I aim to judge competitors on their round at hand, not on all the arguments that could have/should have been made, but were not. I do not view the ballot as my chance to cure all that is wrong in the world though I wish it were that easy. I offer a caveat: Rude or malicious conduct are ill-advised. I will default to the rules of that form of debate (to which I will refer if they are called into question) as the base for my decision within the context of debate before me.

Jesse Moneyhun - Ferris

n/a

Jim Magdich - EHS

I am an Engineering Manager; communications is my primary focus, make your points succinctly.  Frame your case, construct your own argument point by point, and deconstruct your opponent’s argument; bonus points if you deconstruct their argument using THEIR value system.   Tell me EXACTLY why I should vote for you.  Make your points with reasoning, not speed of speaking.   Lastly, definitions matter, and definitions which are not agreed to but go unchallenged definitely matter.

Joan Miller - Centennial

Joe Skoog - Whitman

John Lyon - Whitman

Jonathan Barsky - Whitman

Jordan Hudgens - Bridge

tl;dr: Make extensions when appropriate, clearly weigh arguments (direct comparisons and take-outs are lovely), and illustrate how you win the standard debate and what that means for your arguments. The 1AC and 1NC are certainly crucial, but they are (in my mind) stepping stones to the more nuanced and particular aspects of the debate. It all comes down to the 1AR/1NR/2AR, explication of warrants/impacts, link analysis, etc. Very basically I want to see how you're winning the debate, why that's true (warrant), and what that means for the round/value debate (impact). I'm a very flow oriented judge, and I flow on my computer. As such, it is difficult to lose me on the flow...with some exceptions. The best debaters know how to help the judge navigate the flow, and understand that proper labeling and communicating with the judge are essential towards that end. Crystallization helps, but you shouldn't resort to rehashing your argument at the end of a speech simply to fill up time. The state of value debate in Lincoln-Douglas is, in a word, defunct. 90% of the values at present are morality (or a permutation, such as moral permissibility), and the debates are taking place largely about what type of morality we're using and the advantages/disadvantages of each. You are certainly welcome to use another value; however, if you are going to offer justice, orsocial welfare, or something of that nature, it should be clearly demarcated from morality (uniquely good or valuable). Arguments for why 'your value should be preferred' should be considerably more substantial than, say, 'life is a prerequisite for morality!' if you wish them to be taken seriously in the round. Link into your standard, or give me clear weighing and re-emphasis of your standard in your final speech! You don't need to constantly reference it, but it should be brought up at some point. Theory and weird args are fine; in fact, I enjoy interesting philosophical viewpoints a great deal, provided they are warranted and clearly argued. I think that processual debates can be very intriguing, and consider theory to be either a check on abuse or kritik of the current debate round (perhaps the other person being deliberately obfuscating, etc). I consider RVIs a de-facto option for the affirmative, though the negative can certainly present arguments for why the affirmative doesn't get an RVI. The threshold for winning an RVI, though, is extremely high. I'm not certain that going all-in on an RVI in front of me is an effective strategy, and I find that debaters are better served by utilizing imeets or counter interps to handle theory. I've found that a lot of the theory debates can become very unclear for a judge to evaluate on solely, so if you don't think you can convincingly win on theory, I recommend not trying for the (2AR) RVI. Getting a 30: speak clearly (not necessarily slowly, but I expect above-average intelligibility), don't make drops (or be incredibly efficient with cross applications), use all your speech time, and, most crucially, THOROUGHLY DOMINATE YOUR OPPONENT.I don't care that much about your body language (eye contact, inflection, etc. are good to have but I'm not going to punish you beyond speaker points on what may be simply bad habits), but I do care that you speak intelligibly, whether it's ludicrously fast or unbelievably slow. Being courteous is very important.

Jordan Edelson - Whitman

Joseph Fernando - ECHS

Josh Ward - Whitman

Katie Kirkpatrick - EHS

communications judge

Kaycee Babb - Boise High

n/a

Keith Eddins - Oak Hill

I prefer and default to a policymaker paradigm in CX policy debate.  In current jargon, I reside in the truth-over-tech world.  That said, I try to evaluate the round from (almost) any framework on which the debaters agree.  If they cannot or do not agree, I will do my best to adjudicate the framework issue, as well, based on the arguments presented in the round. Regardless, I believe AFF cases should have a plan, not just a generalized statement of intent.  I still consider inherency an issue that must be addressed by the AFF, and I think solvency should be demonstrated in the 1AC.  In my mind, the notion of presumption favoring the status quo (and, thus, the NEG) continues to exist.  That said, if AFF presents a prima facie case and NEG chooses not to contest it, presumption essentially shifts to AFF, and NEG better have some pretty persuasive off-case positions.  I am liberal on T (at least from an affirmative perspective).  But if NEG presents a strong T argument that AFF fails to rebut effectively, I will treat T as an a priori voting issue. In NEG terms, a well-constructed, logical, evidence-based DISAD remains the most persuasive argument against an AFF plan.  It need not result in nuclear war or the end of the world.  In fact, I find most DISADs more persuasive when not taken to the ultimate extreme.  Ks are fine arguments provided you really understand and explain them.  But you need to present them in terms I can understand; while I know my Marx, Engels, and Lenin quite well, I would never even pretend to comprehend French post-modernist philosophy (to use one example).  CPs should offer sufficient detail to be fully evaluated and include evidence-based solvency arguments. As for other forms of debate, I will gladly evaluate an LD round from either a value or policy perspective depending on the nature of the resolution and the results of any framework debate.  Plans, Ks, and CPs are fine in LD.  In Parli, I am also quite comfortable with plans, Ks, and CPs, but they are not necessary.  However, I will discount arguments in Parli that are based on a gross factual misstatement (even if the other team fails to challenge it).  In Public Forum, I am looking for solid evidence-based argumentation and real clash (too often the clash is missing in PF debate). In each of these forms of debate I am a flow judge.  But for me to flow your arguments effectively, I need good signposting and clearly stated tag lines.  Remember: I neither receive nor do I want a flashed version of your speech.  Your best arguments may prove meaningless if you fail to tell me where to record them on the flow.

Kendall Dunovant - Walla Walla

Kimberly Hartman - Mt Si

Kramer Hudgens - Bridge

<blockquote>I prefer to work off the flow, in a substantive way. I don't think mass argumentation that is quickly and poorly developed holds as much weight as focused argumentation. Focus the round for me and then tell me why specific issues are important not just that you are winning more issues. I'm fine with speed and theoretical argumentation, although I feel that theory requires more backing and a clear presentation of violation before it is valid. Clarity is key</blockquote>

Kyle Hendrix - Whitman

Lauren Johnson - Whitman

Lester Wyer - Timberline

n/a

Logan Emlet - Whitman

Lori Wheat - Rocky HS

n/a

Margaret Rockey - Whitman

Mark Little - OES

n/a

Marlene Anderson - Whitman

I'm Marlene Anderson. I have been debating at Whitman College for 1 year. Before that I debated policy for 3 years in high school. I enjoy running and judging all types of arguments and I want y'all to do your thing in front of me. I will try to be as fair as possible and evaluate the round the way the debaters tell me to.If neither team agrees on how that evaluation should happen, then there should be a debate about whose framework is better and why.   While I don't have huge bias against types of arguments (DAs,Ks, performances, CPs,T,etc), like everyone, I do have some general preconceptions/preferences. I like passionate and clear debaters. Don't forget that I'm there! Have fun and make connections. I expect y'all to be respectful and kind to each other. That does not mean I don't like aggressiveness, that means aggressiveness should be directed at arguments, not people and is not mutually exclusive with respect.   All of the specific preferences below are by no means absolutes. If y'all take nothing else from this paradigm, just DO YOUR THING and MAKE GOOD ARGUMENTS... All caps may have been excessive there...Anyways.    Topicality- I generally default to competing interpretations until told to do otherwise. I really like a good T debate, but I dislike poorly impacted ones. Tell me why this argument matters or doesn't matter in context of this round and this topic.    Disads/Ks- I like specific link stories and explanations. I find specific DAs and Ks more interesting than generic politics shells or the Cap K, but specific links are the most important. Don't assume I'm familiar with the arguments or literature y'all are reading. Clear explanations matter,and I can't vote for it if I don't understand it.     Theory- I dislike blippy theory debates. 1 word is not an argument, and certainly does not have warrants.    Performance- I like when the method debate is engaged on both sides. Providing me a picture of a problem is powerful but less so if there is no articulation of a reason your method addresses that problem. I am not persuaded by theory or framework arguments that people/teams or certain arguments should on face be excluded from debate. This does not mean framework is un-winnable in front of me. I think that there are compelling reasons why topic/resolution engagement is good. However, I am less persuaded by plan text or USFG key framework arguments.       Speaker points- Ways to get good ones: Being your most funny,smart,passionate,YOU self. Being respectful of yourself, your opponents, your partner, your judge, and your community. Ways to get bad ones: cheating,stealing prep, taking 8 million years to flash things, saying offensive things, etc. These things bum me out and will bum you out too, when you get bad speaks.

Matt Filpi - Whitman

Matthew Hurt - CapitalID

n/a

Michael Curry - Sprague

For all forms of debate: BE NICE! Be nice to me. Be nice to your opponent. Be nice to your partner. There is no money on the table, so don't act like there is. Speech and Debate is one of the most important things you do as a human being. So help make this wonderful activity accessible to all! Public Forum I expect cases to reflect the speaking expectations of event. 4 minutes of information presented in 4 minutes of time. I see my role as evaluating what you feel is important and would be worth speaking about, listening, and learning about. That being said, I do need clear signposting. The cleaner my flow, the more legitimate decision I can make. I expect to see impacts accessed in the round. If I have my way, all I have to do is look at the flow and weigh Aff world versus Neg world. I would like to make my decision solely off of the arguments first. If necessary, I may have to fill in some gaps . . . but I'd like to avoid this. If the debate is very messy on the flow, or lacks impacts, then and only then would I look to speaking style as a way to render a decision. Parliamentary Debate In a parli round I see my role as a non-intervening policy maker who is accustomed to, but doesn't necessarily require, stock issues as a part of the presentation. It's weird I know, but I don't think any one judge fits squarely into any one paradigm. More importantly, I would like to base my decision on the best arguments in the round. My need for some stock issues is more an acknowledgement that there should be some common expectation amongst the debaters about what to run. I do tend to policy make more often then stock issue, but I do presume Neg to an extent. Still, a bad Neg case will always lose to a better Aff, even if the Aff doesn't fulfill all its burdens. Unlike many of my Oregonian peers, I am very much in favor of teaching policy and theory arguments in parli debate. For me, especially considering that Neg's prep time is almost useless, providing the Neg with offensive opportunities is necessary. I do expect off case arguments to be run correctly. The #1 reason why I rarely vote (for example) on T is because elementary facets of the shell are missing, lack of impacts, or a general misunderstanding of what the argument even is. If you have me for a judge, don't run off case just for its own sake. I have a high threshold for pulling the trigger on a procedural, or a K. So be wise in these arguments' applications. My opinion on speed is the same for Parli as it is for Public Forum in one area. I expect both first constructives to be delivered at a reasonable speed. If I have a clean flow at the beginning, then I can place responses properly once the pace picks up. I still don't want spreading, but I get it that the Aff needs to move at a quick pace in order to cover the flow prior to and after the Neg block. I expect arguments that are complete. Good link stories. Weighable impacts. Voting issues in the rebuttals. No tag teaming when questions are presented. Also, THERE IS NO RULE IN OREGON ABOUT ONLY HAVING 3 QUESTIONS!!! If you say "I'll take the first of three questions," I will weigh that against you. Take the questions if the opponent has been asking good questions. I won't blame you if you don't because the questions haven't been probing. Ideally, I want to weigh the round on impacts. I like comparing Aff and Neg worlds. If necessary, I may have to fill in some gaps in order to render a verdict . . . but I'd like to avoid this. If the debate is very messy on the flow, or lacks impacts, then and only then would I look to speaking style as a way to render a decision. LDV Debate In an LD round I see my role as a non-intervening judge who wants to leave the direction of the round open as much as possible to what the debaters bring to the table. LDV is wide open for me in many regards. In Oregon, I value the V/C debate and would love all communication at a reasonable speed. Yet, we travel to some circuit tournaments on the West Coast, so of course I enjoy seeing the diversity of policy and framework arguments. So here's what would make my decision more legitimate. In regards to the case, run what you believe is worth speaking about, listening about, and learning about. Chances are really good that you know some stuff I don't. You are really focusing on this topic, and I have to teach classes, grade assignments, and raise my two sons. So you have the information advantage. You are going to have to educate me and sell me on whatever you are running. One point that is very important: I'm a smart guy. I'll get it only if you are proficient at delivering it. If I "didn't understand" your position, it's probably because you failed to adequately explain it. I do need clear signposting. I do need the constructives to be at medium speed. I find most people who spread are bad at it for a number of reasons. But the impact is devastating: I will have a messy flow. If you can give me a clear beginning, then you can pick up the pace in the rebuttals, and I can flow it better. I like to compare Aff and Neg worlds. I like to do this weighing with impacts. I would like to be able to base my decision off of the flow. If necessary, I may have to fill in some gaps in order to render a verdict . . . but I'd like to avoid this. If the debate is very messy on the flow, or lacks impacts, then and only then would I look to speaking style as a way to render a decision.

Monique Warner - EHS

communications judge

Natasha Carpenter - LC Tigers

n/a

Noah Stern - Whitman

Paige Spraker - Centennial

<a name="x----Background"></a>Background 4 years of policy debate at Centennial High School Freshman debating for Gonzaga University 5-week lab assistant for Geoff Lundeen and Steve Pointer at the GDI  <a name="x----Overview"></a>Overview I will default to a policy-making paradigm and feel most comfortable judging these sorts of debates. That does not mean that I’m unwilling to listen to critical arguments, it just means that you will not get by throwing out blippy K words and will have to thoroughly develop your position. I come from a high school debate community that discourages personal preferences in favor of judge adaptation, and I find that model to be antithetical to the educational purpose of debate. I will be much happier if you do what you’re best at instead of trying to conform to my proclivities.  <a name="x----Miscellaneous"></a>Miscellaneous - Be fast and be clear. If you are too fast, my face will look disgruntled and you should slow down. I think it is much more important to be clear than fast. I prefer to listen to persuasive, compelling debaters rather than techy robots. I’ve been trained to think that communication is still a very important part of debate, so I will reward a 4-off strategy with much better speaker points than I will a 7-off strategy (cite: Ryan Hand). - Read case arguments. Debate the case on the level of the internal links, not just the terminal impacts. - I think negative teams get a logical (not contradictory) amount of conditional advocacies. - I don’t think dispositionality “solves your offense.” I would prefer an interpretation in the 2AC that limits the amount of conditional advocacies the negative has access to. - Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves your computer. - Overviews should not be the majority of your speech time. Use them as a tool for efficiency, not for explanation. - Flow the speech, not the speech doc. One negative aspect of paperless debate is the amount of faces that end up buried in a computer. - Be a good person. Don’t say/imply/engage in things that are racist, sexist, ableist, or discriminatory in some other way.  <a name="x----Things I Think About Being Aff"></a>Things I Think About Being Aff - I think you should read a plan text. - If you are not going to read a plan text, read an advocacy statement. - If you are not going to read an advocacy statement or will not defend the one that you have read, I will do my very best to evaluate your position but am less experienced with these types of debates, so please make sure you explain any nuances or intricacies. - Reiterated: please read the affirmative you are most comfortable reading, whether this is a performance aff or a heg aff. I will not predispose myself to vote against you one way or another, the debate is about you, not about me. - If you would like to advance a theory argument, you should know that I was a 2N for the entirety of my high school debate career. That being said, I think there are plenty of negative arguments that are unproductive and I can be persuaded to reject teams that read an excessive amount of cheating positions. - I am perfectly willing to assign zero risk to a disad if you have the evidence or spin to support this claim. - You should be able to characterize your permutation as more than “do both.” - I do not think “perm do the counterplan/alternative” is an argument, I think if you know what this claim means you should just characterize it as a reason that the advocacy is the functional equivalent of the affirmative. - Do not forget that you have read a 1AC. All too often, I think that after the 1NC occurs, debaters focus more on responding to off-case positions than utilizing offense that has already been established. - You should not pride yourself on getting through your response to case arguments in the 2AC as fast as you possibly can. Arguments have three components (a claim, a warrant, and an impact), and it seems like this portion of the debate is often the most lacking in that structure. - The phrase “try or die” is not compelling to me. I liken this sentence to “vote aff on presumption” and that is silly when you are debating the case vs. the status quo.  <a name="x----Things I Think About Being Neg"></a>Things I Think About Being Neg - Topicality   <ul> <li>I default to competing interpretations but can be easily persuaded by a thoroughly explained reasonability argument.</li> <li>You should be able to list affirmatives that your interpretation allows or justifies.</li> <li>Discuss your standards as internal links to terminal impacts as you would when debating a disad.</li> <li>Evidence comparison is important to me; predictability is not the only litmus test for the desirability of a given definition.</li> <li>Please do not “group the standards debate” or “go up to the aff’s we meet argument.” Do a line by line and be technical.</li> <li>If you feel as though topicality is genocide, I am not the right judge for you.</li> </ul> - Counterplans   <ul> <li>I think that negative teams get fiat if there is a solvency advocate that agrees with the counterplan text.</li> <li>I will kick the counterplan if the 2NR establishes a judge choice argument.</li> <li>If the 2NR does not make this argument, I think the 2AR ought to make clear that the negative is stuck with the counterplan.</li> <li>I will reward smart, case specific advantage counterplans more than I will generic agent/process counterplans.</li> <li>I think the following counterplans are cheating and should be theoretically objected to: <ul> <li>Process counterplans</li> <li>Consult counterplans</li> <li>Condition counterplans</li> <li>Anything that could be remotely characterized as “plan plus”</li> <li>50 state fiat (I am very compelled by the argument that there is no literature to generate affirmative traction with)</li> </ul> </li> </ul> - Disads   <ul> <li>They’re great and should be constructed with case specific links in the 1NC.</li> <li>Turns case arguments are necessary in any block overview.</li> <li>Your impact comparison needs to be more than a list about why “you outweigh on magnitude, timeframe and probability.” Be comparative, talk about your internal links just as much as you talk about your terminal impact scenario.</li> <li>“More evidence” (or my personal favorite, “mo ev”) is not a tagline</li> <li>Neither is “extinction”</li> <li>The politics disad: <ul> <li>I like this argument</li> <li>I’m not persuaded by “the intrinsicness test,” “fiat solves the link,” or “bottom of the docket,” I think these models of fiat are inconsistent and eliminate negative ground</li> <li>I am unlikely to vote on these “cheap shots”</li> <li>I do, however, think you need to be able to characterize your disad as an opportunity cost to the plan</li> </ul> </li> </ul> - Kritiks   <ul> <li>I will have an easier time understanding and evaluating topic specific kritiks than I will trying to discern your Baudrillard performance.</li> <li>I’m not a fan of the increasing presence of 2ARs that attempt to go for the impact turn and the permutation, the 2NR should preempt this.</li> <li>The impact debate should focus on contextualizing your evidence to the aff’s advantages or mechanism.</li> <li>Be technical. Try to avoid reading your cards and pre-written explanations wherever you please; utilize the 2AC structure.</li> <li>Each permutation requires its own answer.</li> <li>I will be sympathetic to a conditionality argument if your kritik explicitly contradicts one or more of your other off-case positions.</li> <li>Your overview should not be the entirety of the 2NC/1NR.</li> <li>Please invest time thoroughly explaining, not asserting, your link.</li> </ul> I will evaluate the debate that you want to have to the best of my ability. If you have questions, feel free to ask before the round or email me: paigespraker@gmail.com.   <a href="http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Spraker%2C+Paige" target="_blank">http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Spraker%2C+Paige</a>

Pam Fleming - EHS

communications judge

Paul Apostolidis - Walla Walla

Paul Meehan - ECHS

Robert Dwyer - Butte Central

This is my second year judging.  This tournament will be my first opportunity to judge this year.  I typically judge LD.  I value substance and well-structured arguments over speed – if I can’t understand what is being said, I can’t judge the content of the argument.  Speak clearly – I want to hear clearly articulated positions.  Build your position, and then tell me how and why your opponent’s position is not tenable.

Robert Gordon - EHS

This is my 5th year judging policy debate I will go through each argument seperately so that you know exactly what I like. General: I am a flow judge. I usually just go off of the flow and if you are able to articulate the arguments to me. I tend to lean more policy maker however seeing as how those are usually the arguments that people are able to explain to me better. Speed it ok with me but go slow on the tag lines and author so that I can flow them the rest you can speed through that is for your opponents not me. Aff: I do not have a whole lot of experience with performance aff’s. If you are going to run one be sure to articulate why I should vote for you and why the performance is relevant. Aff’s with kritikal advantages are fine but yet again impact calc it out and explain why. DA’s: Obviously couldn’t have policy without them as long as you can impact calc them out I will vote on them. I will go off the flow here if you can prove it and the other team doesn’t attack it then it goes conceded. CP’s: PIC’s are fine. And really anything here is fine I am not to picky. I love a good CP that can tie in the DA’s and give an alternate to just full out rejecting the aff. Kritik’s: I am fine with these however explain them to me. Just because you use 13 syllable words does not mean you are going to win. You have to explain to me the world of the alternative; ie. What happens after we reject this one instance of capitalism. Be sure you explain it to me. I see to many K teams running huge words in their K that they don’t even know. THAT WILL NOT WIN YOU THE BALLOT! Impact calc again and line by line Topicality: I have a high threshold for T. Unless it is obvious don’t run it. I am fine if you use T as a gateway issue but if that’s the case and they give you your links don’t carry it into the 2NR. There has to be real abuse I do not vote on potential abuse! Theory: See T. Framework: Again as long as you win the flow and tell me why to prefer yours

Sarah Rissberger - Whitman

Silas Morgan - Whitman

Tom Lininger - South

Run anything.  I am a flow judge.  Speed is fine.  Have fun and don't be rude.  I have taught debate and other subjects (mostly law) at the University of Oregon.  I used to be a policy debater back in the day.

Wendy Gordon - EHS

I have judged policy debate for 2 years now. This doesn’t mean I understand it all. I am a hard core comms judge. If I can’t understand you I won’t vote on it. You have to paint a picture for me. If you do not explain your world and why I should vote for it I probably won’t. I know enough about policy to get me by but don’t assume I know what you are talking about. SLOW! I can’t follow speed. I like good traditional policy debate without the jargon and speed! Aff: I want traditional aff’s. I do not like performance aff’s and I WILL NOT VOTE ON THEM! Kritikal advantages are also another no no. DA’s Explain it to me show me why your way is better! CP’s RUN THEM BECAUSE I HATE JUST OUTRIGHT REJECTING THE AFF! I love a good CP that can tie the world together. Kritik’s NO. That’s all I am going to say. Topicality: Prove it to me cause I won’t vote on potential abuse. Theory: Same as T. Run a traditional case and you should be fine with me as long as you impact calc it out.

Zac Parker - Whitman

My name is Zac Parker and I debate for Whitman.  I have been competing in college Parli for  3 years and competed in high school for 3 years in LD.    For LD: I view the criterion as the framework by which the rest of the round is evaluated.  Winning that debate doesn't guarantee my ballot, but it will put you ahead since I'll be reading the rest of the debate through the criterion that's still standing at the end of the round.     For all debate events: I do Parli for Whitman, so I admittedly value analytics over out-carding your opponent, especially with regard to evidence analysis, weighing arguments, or topicality/theory debates.   A connection to the resolution is appreciated, but debate is a game where all rules are up for discussion, so deliberately nontopical affirmatives with a framework justifying a refusal to directly affirm are fine. Absent any framework I default to net-benefits.    What I'm looking for in the final speeches especially is a clear story of how the round goes your way.  Extensions made for their own sake absent any contextualization for how they affect the rest of the debate are not going to get you a whole lot of mileage.  If you want my ballot, focus on weighing and impact calculus and how they interact with the story you're going for in the rebuttals.

Zach Harbauer - Centennial

n/a

2014 Whitman "Remy Wilcox" High School Tournament

Judge Philosophies

- Lincoln

Alexander Erwig - South

Allie Taylor - Timberline

Amy McLoughlin - Southridge WA

Andie Chapin - Ferris

Andrew McGlowen - Eastside Cath 2

Andrew McGlone - ECHS

Andrew Durand - Whitman

Annie Capestany - Walla Walla

Anusha Fernando - ECHS

Arinola Dada - ECHS

Arthur Shemitz - Whitman

Avery Miller - Whitman

Ben Weinhardt - Whitman

Brandy Music - Boise High

Brittany Clark - Boise High

Bruce Cole - Walla Walla

Chris Meabe - Whitman

Chuck Hamaker-Teals - Southridge WA

Colton Smith - ECHS

Connor Sabin - Whitman

Danica Wilbanks - Whitman

Daniel Lovato - Whitman

David Jung - BC ACADEMY

David Curry - Sprague

David Augustine - Lincoln

Devon Downey - Timberline

Elise Frank - Ferris

Emma Singer - CapitalID

Emma Thompson - Whitman

Emma Newmark - Whitman

Eric Sungho Cho - BC ACADEMY

Felipe Rivera - Whitman

George-Michael Pescaru - Timberline

Gordon Kochman - Whitman

Hee Young Choi - BC ACADEMY

Jamie Maas - CapitalID

Jan Pizzo - Butte Falls

Jean Tobin - Walla Walla

Jeffrey Richards - ECHS

Jenny Owen - Lincoln

Jesse Moneyhun - Ferris

Jim Magdich - EHS

Joan Miller - Centennial

Joe Skoog - Whitman

John Lyon - Whitman

Jonathan Barsky - Whitman

Jordan Hudgens - Bridge

Jordan Edelson - Whitman

Joseph Fernando - ECHS

Josh Ward - Whitman

Katie Kirkpatrick - EHS

Kaycee Babb - Boise High

Keith Eddins - Oak Hill

Kendall Dunovant - Walla Walla

Kimberly Hartman - Mt Si

Kramer Hudgens - Bridge

Kyle Hendrix - Whitman

Lauren Johnson - Whitman

Lester Wyer - Timberline

Logan Emlet - Whitman

Lori Wheat - Rocky HS

Margaret Rockey - Whitman

Mark Little - OES

Marlene Anderson - Whitman

Matt Filpi - Whitman

Matthew Hurt - CapitalID

Michael Curry - Sprague

Monique Warner - EHS

Natasha Carpenter - LC Tigers

Noah Stern - Whitman

Paige Spraker - Centennial

Pam Fleming - EHS

Paul Apostolidis - Walla Walla

Paul Meehan - ECHS

Robert Dwyer - Butte Central

Robert Gordon - EHS

Sarah Rissberger - Whitman