FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alex Belisle - Timberline

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Belisle%2C+Alex

Amy McCormick - Tahoma High

Andew Tinker - CapitalID

n/a

Andrew Hartman - Mt Si

I debated public forum for one and a half years at Mount Si High School. I went to state twice, and attended the Tournament of Champions, where my team placed 9th out of 54 teams. The purposed of this information is not to build my ego, it is meant to give you some idea of what I like. HOW I VOTE: I will vote based on what you say in the final focus. Nothing more. The final focus should give me a way to look at the round, and tell me about the important issues. I would enjoy to see debates that include the following: •Evidence analysis (calling for cards). Dig through their evidence and find holes. Every card has a weakness, and finding it will impress me. Be sure if you call for a card to actually use it! •Reasonable speed. Your speaker points will be very high if you can speak at a quick pace and give good presentation. •Weighing. Go beyond explaining why you win or lose points, explain why those points you won matter most. Even if you think you've won all point in the round, you rarely will on my flow. •Humor. I enjoy some lightheartedness in the round, and if you make me laugh you'll see your speaker points go up. DO NOT let it get in way of the debate, though. •Responsiveness. This will make my choice MUCH easier when I sign my ballot. Don't simply tell me your opponent is wrong, tell me why!! For example, explain why their rebuttal is non-responsive, explain why their argument is wrong. PLEASE DO NOT end clash after the rebuttal speech. You should keep arguing up until the final focus, not simply restating your case.   I do not want to see the following: •Spreading. Just don't. Seriously. •Hounding for evidence. I enjoy seeing people use evidence effectively, don't abuse this by calling for things you don't have to.

Andrew Chadwell - Gig Harbor

Andrew Durand - Whitman

Andy Larson - Whitman

I think it will be most instructive to list my preferred 2NR strategies (these also tend to be strategies that I am most qualified to judge): 1) DA + Case 2) Adv CP + DA + Case 3) CP + DA 4) Ks with links to the plan + Case 5) Anything that requires zero topic research   K Affs: I think you should have a topical advocacy even if it is not a “plan” in the traditional sense.  I tend to lean neg on framework issues, but I will judge these kinds of debates as fairly as possible.   Kritiks: Buzzwords do not help me, especially if your preferred philosopher has made up this word (this includes words not used in their dictionary sense, and words that are an amalgamation of several other words).  K overviews help me only insofar as they provide me with a thesis and some impact calculus, assuming that I will understand your "embedded clash" from the overview is a risk. I would prefer that you debate the K like a DA, doing good line by line.  I will NOT turn a 2NR or 2AR that does not refute the other team’s major offense directly, into a slayer impact turn for you in the post round.    CP Theory: I lean neg on most CP theory questions with the major exception of competition.  I think that CPs should be both textually and functionally competitive.  Conditionality should be limited to around 2 or maybe 3 advocacies.  I will judge kick counterplans assuming that SQ is a logical option is an argument made.   T: I usually lean toward reasonability when evaluating T; this has become less true for me every year I have remained in the activity.  Spec is not a winner in front of me unless it is nuanced and supported by the literature, if you think this might not be the case, I suggest you read a real strategy instead.    Other Things: Personal attacks are not cool, in any context (this applies to both sides in K debates and will be enforced with substantial deductions of speaker points).  I like jokes and points of connection, they are important for high speaks.

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

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.

Arinola Dada - Eastside Catholic

I am the parent of an Eastside Catholic competitor.  I prefer a clear, moderate pace and explicit voters.  Please impact your arguments to the standard and explain how arguments function in the round.  I prefer straightforward debate and am not comfortable voting on Kritiks, theory, or other alternative arguments.  Please articulate your warrants, not just your claims, in each speech.

Arthur Shemitz - Whitman

Ashley Creek (Skinner) - Tahoma High

Audrey Thimm - Whitman

Avery Miller - Whitman

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.

Ben Menzies - Whitman

(things have changed some - my old philosophy really didn't reflect very accurately on how my thoughts have changed over the last couple years) Short version: I’m middle of the road, willing to listen to anything, and conscious of biases that I also try to keep at arms length. I’m a senior debating at Whitman College, so you know I’m into those DAs and CPs. I do a lot of thinking and reading about “non-policy” modes of debate though, both in my academic life and in my pre-college debate career. I like contextualized analysis and am much more happy with a few good cards deployed well than a mountain of single-sentence cards extended in a list at the bottom of your speech. Be competitive, be smart, but shake hands and be nice at the end of the debate. Condescension to opponents, especially inexperienced opponents, will be punished with poor speaks. Also, in case you can’t tell from the novel below, I think long thoughts and will probably have quite a bit to say at the end of the debate – feel free to cut me off if you need to go. Update 10/28 - I will be disclosing speaker ranks in all future rounds. Typically I operate on a scale of 26-29, with 29+ points awarded for people I think should be locks for top 15 speakers at a major tournament (Cal, Harvard, USC, etc) and below 27 reserved for younger debaters with substantial progress to be made on both technical and stylistic fronts. I would guess that my average is something like 27.9. This scale will be different for JV/Novice divisions - I would probably use 28+ for debaters I think display significant promise already and could probably hang in an open division round without being blown out. Contact me at <a href="mailto:menziebr@whitman.edu">menziebr@whitman.edu</a> if you want help on going to Whitman, debating in college (anywhere) or just generally want to talk about debate or making it to college. Debates I am most qualified/happy to be judging based on 2NR strat: Case/DA CP/DA Case/K T K alone (...) Bataille Couple quotes that illustrate my perspective – “I believe I have an obligation to work as hard at judging as the debaters do preparing for the debates.” – Scott Harris – in other words, I’m gonna read a lot of cards and I’m going to think a lot of thoughts “When you go for everything, you get nothing.” – Stephen Goldberg – debate is a game of strategic choices – the best way to play it is to make conscious, intelligent choices that put you in a better position to win the debate. I give speaker points that reflect whether I think you did that or not. Long version: Debate, for me, has been a space for extraordinary diversity of thought, and has allowed me tremendous space to bounce all over the place in the past seven years. I think my primary responsibility as a critic (not a judge) to help you in whatever way I can regardless of where you are locating yourself within that space. My vision for debate is a space in which hard work necessarily results in success, despite natural ability and material inequalities. As such, I tend to reward teams with specific, contextualized arguments backed by rigorous research and deployed responsively against opposing arguments. I think judges who say they are “tab” are lying to themselves and to you, so I will not claim to be that – see below for specific argumentative proclivities – but I also think that it is my obligation to work as hard as possible to hear your arguments fairly. That means I’ll listen to any strategy – K, policy, something irreducible to such labels – and will work very hard to give you a constructive critique. I sympathize with one iteration of James Stevenson’s philosophy: “I aim to be the most middle-of-the-road judge ever”; however, I also am limited simply by what I find persuasive. Members of the community who I particularly admired and thus have exercised significant influence over the development of my perspective(s) on debate (in no particular order): Lindsay VanLuvanee, Alex Zendeh, Allison Humble, James Stevenson, Ryan Wash, Sam Allen, Meghan Hughes, Matt Schissler, Nate Cohn, Ben Meiches, Stephen Goldberg, Jimi Durkee, Aaron Hardy, Tom Meagher. I hope to add many more to this list. Inclusion on this list does not mean that I agree with everything this person things - in fact I have some very serious disagreements with a number of these people on philosophical grounds, but each person there has contributed significantly to my understanding of debate. Note that the above list would produce a very interesting squad… My background: I debated for three years in high school on the California circuit (Long Beach, USC, Cal, Stanford, Berkeley, usually a few more in there) at Nevada Union HS. We were a rural, public high school and as such encountered a LOT of difficulties in terms of resource disparities. We were lucky enough to be somewhat proximate to a lot of good debate (only an eight hour drive to LA!). The team also basically fell apart shortly before I joined. As a result, the vast majority of my time in high school was spent doing team-building things (teaching, fundraising, recruiting etc) as opposed to “debate” things. Most of this time was spent moving further towards the “critical” side of the policy/critical divide – my senior year, I read narratives about Hmong veterans on the aff and talked about Chaloupka and decoloniality (word to Tom Meagher) a lot on the neg. Then I got a massive need-based scholarship to go to Whitman and got shafted by a lot of state schools, which sort of changed my argumentative toolbox. I spent a lot of time early in college learning how to do “traditional” debate with Aaron Hardy and had a somewhat radical pendulum swing towards the “policy” stuff. At Whitman, I’ve also studied a lot of humanities – I’m a Religion major in a department headed by a brilliant Gender Studies scholar who specializes in Queer Studies, if that gives you a picture for the kind of work we do. As a result, I’m very comfortable with the general theoretical framework of “critical” arguments (even if I am a bit of a materialist at heart). I’ll also take this moment to note that while I do still have some of that “rural, poor, small, public school kid” chip on my shoulder, there’s a lot of privilege embedded in the above background, and personally, I spend a lot of time thinking about how to acknowledge that privilege without letting it entirely determine my thought and practice. In the last couple years, I’ve settled somewhat in the middle if I had to peg my ideology: I have a lot of respect for what some “critical” teams do (Emporia SW was obviously one of the best teams ever, for instance), and think the K is a strategic tool much like anything else, but I’d be lying if I didn’t say that I found the incommensurability of impacts in these debates somewhat difficult to evaluate, leaving me in an awkward position as a critic. I’ll confess: I like extinction impacts because I think they create a somewhat stable locus of impact comparison, but I’m also pretty soundly persuaded that they tend to obviate other forms of violence that have “probability” and “timeframe” metrics through the roof. “Framework” (whatever this is). I think the framework debate is becoming kind of a vestigial component of K debates, which is unfortunate. While I am almost entirely unpersuaded by the 2AC framework that says Ks are cheating, I also think some discussion of “framework” is necessary to determine how I, the critic, should evaluate new, different frames of analysis. IE – if the 1NC says your ontology is bad, you definitely need some reason why the 1AC should matter at all as a matter of ontology. At the same time, if your K is about ontology, you really should defend why an ontological focus is necessary. The basic utility of this argument, then, for the K on the neg is to “frame out” aff impacts, and for the aff, to develop a reason why I should evaluate the 1AC. My perspective on this changes significantly when there is a K aff. K affs are cool. However, a necessary cost is defending your relationship to the topic, whatever that is. I honestly don’t understand the snide dismissal of framework/T in these debates these days – it seems like a central question of the affirmative’s “mechanism” much like a plan in a more traditional debate, and thus seems an important argument to forward by the negative. I think “T version of your aff” is often devastating, and affs should be very diligent about answering it. I also think that negatives are best served by establishing an interpretation of debate that grants some space for “non-traditional” argumentation while preserving some locus of negative debates. I am also somewhat alarmed by a growth in affs that I find fundamentally un-negatable – I am deeply troubled by the prospect of compelling a negative to make arguments against a person’s identity, for instance, or forcing that same negative to discuss their identity if they do not wish to. But of course, like all things, that perspective is wrapped up in some privilege. K affs – if you don’t derive any advantage from the plan action, why read a plan text? If you’re only garnering solvency from your critical genealogy (or whatever), having a text probably only hurts you by creating space for the neg to out-radical you. Affirmative thoughts: I’ve spent most of my time in debate writing affirmatives. As such, I appreciate well-constructed affs. A good aff is much like a good article – there is a coherent purpose to each part of the aff. Furthermore, the best affs begin as responses to the best negative arguments on the topic. Thus, on the college topic, the best 1ACs contain embedded DAs to the XO counterplan. The worst affs are a bunch of random impacts strung together loosely, and these are usually defeated by intelligent counterplans. Most affs depend on fairly tenuous internal links – I reward negatives that are able to pull those apart. You don’t need cards to make case args – nothing is more devastating for a 2A than a 1NC that contains significant quantities of smart analytics against the case. Cards against the case are good though. I think a neg that doesn’t answer the aff will lose 95% of its rounds – that can mean either adequately extending defense to the case directly or a well-argued counterplan that negates the strategic benefit of the 1AC, but one way or another, that case is likely big and scary and quite persuasive to me if you aren’t challenging it. Theory – here are my biases. First, as noted above, my least favorite kinds of debates are debates between blocks written by somebody else. Theory tends to be the epitome of that. I tend to think theoretical challenges are no-cost, small reward options, and therefore will not punish you for them, but I am probably zoning out while you read your crappy shell. You probably don’t need ten standards on your conditionality violation. Interpretations are useful and make debates easier to adjudicate. I am a 2A and therefore probably somewhat aff-biased on question of cheating counterplans (I am usually not fond of CPs that just steal the whole aff, although they are also often strategic necessities), but I am also a 1N which means I am also friendly to neg claims making fun of “abuse.” The best way to get my ballot on this is to set up an intelligent, coherent, and short violation early in the debate, have offense for your interpretation, and spend a lot of time in the final rebuttals doing impact calc. I recommend you only do this if they have made a serious, round-losing error, like dropping the argument. I’ll close with a thought from James Stevenson that largely sums up my feelings: “I no longer flow answers to theory arguments, I just write "hard debate is good debate" and move on.” “The K”: If all you are looking for is whether I will listen – yes. That said, I’ve had a long and complex relationship with the K. I’ve used it to effectively demolish some teams by being crafty and working hard. I’ve also had it used against me in ways that I think sidestepped the importance of hard work in favor of obscure philosophical terms. I think the K is at its best when it is paired with a heavy case press to disprove the truth claims of the 1AC. It is at its second-best when effectively deployed to criticize a critical aff’s methodology. It is at its worst when it is the McWhorter card and the Zimmerman card in the 1NC, and the block fails to mention the aff. The K is powerful because it offers alternative theoretical understandings of the 1AC – those NECESSITATE contextualization. Your overview written in August is likely not directly applicable to the round at hand – so don’t read it verbatim. The best K debaters are those who are most flexible against the affirmative – applying their genero Burke evidence to the ways the 1AC constructs a violent ontology SPECIFICALLY (as opposed to “They said states do stuff = genocide”). I confess, my “Ivory Tower Bullshit” alarm starts going off the more cards read by abstract European intellectuals – Heidegger, Baudrillard, Derrida, Lacan, and Bataille, are all individuals I find entirely boring (but occasionally useful). I’ve rolled with many a standard cap K in my day and am very comfortable with that literature. In the right context, I think Nietzsche is slayer and I have read a lot of Nietzsche in my day. I am generally on board and quite familiar with critiques of oppressive systems – I have a ton of background in gender studies, and quite a lot of background in various strains of critical race theory (and its more contemporary iterations). The #1 problem with critiques is the alternative – the more the aff indicts it and impacts their indictments of it, the more likely the aff is to win. I am generally uncompelled by “the K is cheating” but some component of framework is necessary – see above. Analytics > cards 99% of the time in these debates – in fact, I am generally inclined that cards are not necessary for critique debates (although you should probably still read some). DAs – these exist and I frequently vote on them. Topic DAs are always better than politics DAs. The politics DA is basically on dialysis given the political dynamics of the Obama Administration, but I have seen it occasionally revived. Smart analytics are sometimes (often?) better than cards. I’m generally a “low risk = some risk” kind of guy, but can be persuaded otherwise. Counterplans – they’re important. I’m an aff guy and am therefore sympathetic to the aff’s case when you read a stupid/cheating cp that is generic to the topic. I am particularly hostile to cps that result in the entirety of the aff by some currently-nonexistent system – for instance, a counterplan creating a commission that will recommend the plan be done whose recommendation enters into law after a certain amount of time. The dumber your cp evidence, the more weight I will grant to aff analytics indicting the cp. I’m persuaded that the SQ is always a logical option, but I sure would feel uncomfortable kicking the CP and voting neg after a 2NR/2AR where these words were never uttered. Don’t interpret the above as meaning I’m anti-CP – you gotta do what you gotta do, and I anticipate what you do will probably be fine. Textual competition is a gold standard probably, but again, you should debate it. T – eh. See theory above. Debate it like a disad – don’t forget that even T debates are about impacts, NOT links – ie – if you just repeat your violation a million times without telling me the impact, I will likely not be that compelled. This seems like a pretty easy topic to be topical under. Probably should not be your A strat. Then again, if they aren’t topic, probably no excuse. T version of your aff is highly compelling. And, as we all-too-often forget in this activity of stress and anger - have fun doing whatever it is you do. If it isn't fulfilling you, find a way to make it fulfilling. This community should be a welcoming place where people come to think and talk about important things in a setting that allows them freedom to develop their own perspectives while engaging in friendly competition.

Bill Wagstaff - Mead

Bob Gomulkiewiz - Bear Creek

Brad Thew - Central Valley Hig

I’ve coached LD for about eight years, most significantly at Central Valley High School in Washington, and I coached the 2010 Washington State 4A LD champ. Although I don’t like the implications that often come with the phrase “traditional judge,” that is probably the best way to describe myself judging. I try to check my opinions at the door and keep it tab. However, I only understand what I’m capable of understanding, and I’m not always up to date on the most recent trends in LD. I rely on my flow, and if it isn’t on there, it isn’t evaluated. Make clear extensions as a result. I really like real world debates with logical argumentation. Framework- I work best in rounds that operate with a traditional framework. Generally this means a V/VC, but I can deal with an advantage/standard as long as you link into it. I don’t think that plans are necessary, and I don’t know that I like them because honestly I don’t hear them often enough in an LD context to really have an opinion yet. Honestly, I have reservations about plans because I think the structure of an LD resolution does not necessitate a plan, but I believe that they have the potential to operate effectively. At the point an affirmative has ran a plan, it is acceptable for the NC to present a CP. Presentation/Speaker Points- I can handle moderate speed. I will say slow/clear if necessary. I’m not used to people particularly caring about the speaker points I award, but I generally stay in the range of 27. I like hearing what a card says, and I don’t like having to card call after a round. Be explicit in your signposting. Tags need to be super clear. Don’t be rude or deceptive. Try to be helpful and cordial in round. Humor is a plus, as rounds can get stale as tournaments drag on, but don’t take it too far. If/when I disclose, don’t bicker with me. Doing these things equals good speaker points, and I’ll try to compare you to what I’ve seen recently. Theory- I’m not the biggest fan of theory debate, but I understand the growing necessity of it. Do not run theory just because you feel like it, do it because there is a genuine need to correct a wrong. You need to be super clear in the structure of the argument, and it needs to be shelled properly. I need to know what sort of violation has occurred, and I need to understand its implication. Don’t use it as a time suck. Philosophically, I’m ok with RVI’s. I default to drop the argument, not the debater, and I default to reasonability over competing interps. I don’t want theory to be a strategy to win. Kritiks- I’m not a fan of critical positions. I know a bit about philosophy, but not everything. You don’t know me though, and you don’t know how much I know, and I can’t guarantee that you can tell me everything I need to know about Derrida or Foucault in 6-7 minutes in order to evaluate an argument properly. I feel that the greatest flaw of the k is that it requires so much preexisting knowledge on the part of me the judge, your competition, and yourself to be of any substantive value in the round. Most debaters really aren’t up to the task, and even if they are, the time constraints inherent in an LD round make it tough to evaluate properly. I like the idea of a k, but in reality, it just doesn’t work. Miscellaneous- 1- Flex: You need to use CX for questions. Do what you want with your prep. Don’t abuse flex. This will effect speaks. 2- I don’t care if you sit or stand. You’ll speak better if you stand though. 3- If you are paperless, I will time flashing. I don’t want to wait around forever. 4- You should be pre-flowed before the round. 5- Don’t be smug. 6- I constantly flow. I generally flow by hand. If I stop flowing, it means I’m lost and trying to figure out where you are, or that you’re going too fast, or that you’re just rehashing old material. In any case, it’s probably not a good thing. 7- If I didn’t mention a type of argument, I probably have no idea what it means. Don’t run it. Or ask me first. I’m not stupid, I promise. I just coach in a place where I don’t have to think very hard.

Brandi Barnes - Highland High

I like policy.  I am nuclear engineer so if you run nuclear impacts understand the theory and technology. I am a combination of flow, impact calc and coms

Capri Holden - Central Valley Hig

I have been judging debate for over 10 years. I believe in a traditional values debate. Above all else the value should be held paramount. . . AND. . . Contentions that clearly connect back to the value criterion are essential in proving the resolution to be true/false.

Carolyn Maples - Peninsula

PF Judge.

Charlene Pavlik - Glencoe

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.

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.

Collin Mertens - Southridge WA

Colton Smith - Eastside Catholic

My name is Colton Smith. 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. I am a tab judge with a few caveats. Util is true and thus I default to an util framework. Other frameworks are fine though as well. If you want to run critical or dense philosophy I may not be the best judge to pref. I presume theory is a reason to drop the argument not the debater. I default to competing interps with the nuance that I will give large leeway to a debater that is answering a frivolous theory shell (especially when aff). Fairness is a voter, education may or may not be. I default to theory NOT being a RVI but can be persuaded the other way. Things I will not vote for under any circumstance:   <ul> <li>Skepticism</li> <li>Framework triggers</li> <li>A prioris or NIBs that are unrelated to the standard</li> <li>Presumption</li> <li>Permissibility</li> <li>Unwarranted arguments</li> <li>Any micropolitical position</li> </ul> Things I enjoy: <ul> <li>Util</li> <li>Plans, CPs, and DAs</li> <li>Perms</li> <li>Impact turns</li> <li>Impact defense (I believe in terminal defense and give more strength to defense than most judges)</li> <li>Weighing (Debaters do not do enough of this but it will take you a long way in front of me)</li> <li>Extinction first arguments</li> <li>Textual advocacies</li> <li>Theoretical reasons to prefer util</li> <li>CX checks</li> </ul> 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!

Dale Shanklin - Timberline

Dan Wolfley - Highland High

I'm brand new to judging.  I have a background in accounting so I like financial arguments and arguments that have pragmatic economic impacts.  I hate speed and value professionalism, and courtesy.

Darby Swanson - PHS

When I judge a debate I am looking for well constructed and supported cases.  I also want to see clash that is logical and directed toward the specific issues that are being debated rather than a generic argument that students use on a regular basis regardless of what their opponents have brought to the table, a sort of "one argument fits all brief."

David Tobin - Walla Walla

David Curry - Sprague

Diana Young-Blanchard - Mt Si

Donna Boudreau - Central Valley Hig

Drew Kent - Puyallup

I did Public Forum for 4 years at Gig Harbor High School, and was even lucky enough to win State in 2012. I like to see clear, concise debates. The team that is able to fluently make their case AND EXPLAIN WHY IT MATTERS will win. If you do not make impacts, or you just try to tear down your opponents case, it will be hard-pressed for me to vote for you. Explain to me why what you are saying is important, and why I should vote for you. Keep crossfire civil, and try not to be rude to your opponents in round. Also, no evidence squabbling. If you have conflicting evidence, just move on. That should be everything. Let's have a good, fun debate!

Duy Tran - Whitman

Dylan Mccarthy - Gig Harbor

Elise Frank - Whitman

Ellen Ivens-Duran - Whitman

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

Geoff Thatcher - Renaissance

<div style="margin: 0px;"> Background:</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Competitor in all debate forms for multiple high schools for 4 years</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Parli competitor for the College of Western Idaho for 1 year</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Assistant Coach for Renaissance High School for 1 year (CX, LD, PF, IEs)</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;">  </div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Philosophy:</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> I’m open to new and unique arguments however I believe that both sides still have their respective burdens to prove or disprove the argument. Having said that, I evaluate arguments based both on how those arguments appear on the flow AND how those arguments have been proven within the debate round; so quality of argumentation over quantity. Also if one side drops an argument that argument must have some merit to it to count as a voting issue in the round.</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;">  </div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> CX Issues:</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> T is a fine to run however it should not be used as a time suck.</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> SPEC arguments are fine to run once again not to be used as a time suck and you must prove violation to have it be a winning issue </div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> CPs are great </div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Ks are legit for aff and neg unless proven otherwise. I tent to vote on Ks when they are consisted with the neg strategy and don’t contradict itself or the rest of the off-case aurguments</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Impact Calc: probability> magnitude> time frame. Meaning if you have nuke war but there is only a 0.0000001% chance of it happening I will tend not to vote on it</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;">  </div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> LD Issues:</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> I am most used to a traditional value criterion debate, but I would love to see different strategies.</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Ks are legit unless proven otherwise in the round.</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Plans are OK but will take a lot more work</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;">  </div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> PF Issues:</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> I am most used to a straight-up fact round debate, but I would love to see different approaches to this form of debate.</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Ks and other various arguments are legit unless proven otherwise in the round.</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;">  </div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Any other questions, just ask.</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;">  </div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Parli issues:</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> I’m most used to a cx type round, however I understand high school is different than the type done in college.</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> What I’m expecting is slow cx round with salutations at the beginning and a nice debate</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Imperial evidence is the best evidence.</div>

Gordon Kochman - Whitman

Gracelyn Rourick - Renaissance

n/a

Hailey Clawson - Central Valley Hig

All you need to know is I have a hard time voting on cheap shots. I think debate holds a lot of value independent to winning rounds. I’ll listen to all arguments, but I like the k debate, or the impacts. I really hate topicality and resent it as being a strategic time tradeoff, this being said, I won’t punish you for running it, but I won’t vote on it without some pretty dec explanation to why its unfair. If you don’t give me another way to view the round it’ll be impacts v. impacts. T/Procedurals- I don’t really buy topicality as a good strategic argument, and will likely not vote an affirmative down if there’s a world in which they are topical. I will vote on it if there’s loss of ground on in round abuse, but I’m easily persuaded by aff reasonability arguments. Theory- I need some in round abuse claim to vote, or an independent reason why the theoretical objection is bad for debate. I’ll listen to your shells in the through the 2ac, but if you’re going to advance theory into the rebuttals, you better be doing a little more work on it. My personal belief is education outweighs fairness, but I will listen to another theory debate. Theory/topicality as the easiest way to win is not a good strat in front of me. I generally view it as a cop out and kind of unfair, however, I see the strategic value in some theory so by all means run it. Stocks- I debated in Colorado, can be easily persuaded to vote on things like Solvency and Inherency, but it’s not necessary you incorporate them if that isn’t your thing. I’m sympathetic to a good stocks debate, but will not stick you with it. I’ll listen though, you can definitely win a round on inherency, I did many times in high school. Case in general- I need to have a good vision of the way the affirmative functions or voting affirmative is an uphill battle. I don’t know a lot about the resolution this year, so the case debate is really important. I probably don’t know your acronyms, but I can also probably keep up. The rebuttals should be very clear on the case debate. I’ll vote on neg on presumption if the aff can’t prove plan is better than sqou, however presumption flips aff when the neg goes for an advocacy other than sqou. CP’s- I’m a fan, they’re good and fun and I’ll listen to them, but make sure it’s competitive. PICS are good and inevitable, although I’ll listen to theory all across the board. I’m not a fan of delay cps or consult cps, but I’ll listen and evaluate fairly. K’s Probably my favorite debate argument. I think the aff should be able to, and needs to defend the methods and ideologies they’re using. That being said, I won’t reward you for simply reading and going for a kritik, the round still needs clash and that’s a neg burden. In fact, if your kritik does NOT provide clash, I’ll vote aff on presumption in about 10 seconds. I appreciate a K that has a solid alt that can be enacted outside of the round, but it’s not necessary. I better have a good idea of why endorsing the negative alt is good in context of the impacts, because I won’t reward the neg for noticing something wrong with the squo and recognizing the affirmative does it. I really enjoy the value to life debate, but want it to go deeper than the few cards y’all have in your files. The K v Policy debate always requires a lot of articulation in the rebuttals for why my endorsing either side is net good. K Aff’s I’m game. F/W- Necessary. This goes without saying, but if you don’t win your framework, you’ll likely lose. I care about debate and find these debates really interesting and important. Have fun with them and don’t be afraid to articulate yourself without evidence on framework, I think it’s as much about the personality and opinions of the individual debater as it is about the lit. Just because you outcarded the other team does NOT mean you’ve won. Speaks: I’ll reward persuasion. Prep: Whatever man. Be fair, that’s all. That’s true for ethics in general, actually. I’m more likely to vote for you if you’re not engaging in shady business.

Heidi Brigham - Walla Walla

Holly Howard - Walla Walla

Holy Miller - Highland High

I have a background in LD.  I like strong theory, but it should be grounded in consequential realism.  Impacts should not be overestimated, they should be logical in magitude and probability.  I expect courtesy and ethics.  I also expect good eye contact and a reasonable communication speed.

Jack McGougan - VHS

I debated policy for four years at St. George’s in Spokane, WA where I was competitive on the national circuit and now I’m a freshman debater at the University of Puget Sound. I’ll keep this brief since, if you’re reading this, you are probably trying to prep. To get high speaker points: -use cross-x effectively, don’t waste time -start evidence comparison early -read good ev -have foresight, strategy going into the round (specific>generic when it comes to strategies but I’m from a small school, so I understand) -don’t steal prep (looking at you paperless debaters) -sound good, be clear, I think I should have an okay idea of what your ev is saying when you read it (to be clear, my flow is okay, it’s not a big deal if you’re very fast) Things you might need to know… Regarding theory/T: -unfamiliar with the nuances or cases of the topic -I default to offense-defense -I don’t like to vote on cheap shots. However, if there is a developed warrant for rejecting the team, I don’t care if it’s a bad arg, I’ll vote on it (probably not though if it’s like agent CPs bad on a CP they didn’t go for)   Regarding the K: -love substantive framework debates on the K. That’s just to say that 2As should confront the ontology, epistemology, methodology, w/e of the K and relate that to questions of political action, the possibility of things like the case, etc. This is opposed to a theoretical fwk debate about limits, ground, t spec edu, which is A. boring/unpersuasive and B. too easy for the neg to win because they’ll always have better ev on that. Regarding CPs: -I do think CPs should be textually and functionally competitive and 2As shouldn’t fear going for theory and the perm in front of me when debating these CPs. Negatives, if you have a CP with an interesting, topic-specific way to explain how the CP competes, that’s cool too. DA -there such thing as zero risk, or at least such marginal risk as to make it irrelevant to a decision calculus -UQ determines direction of link -usually err neg on theory regarding the politics DA I love debate. Be respectful, be passionate, be yourself, debate smart.

Jack Lassiter - Whitman

James Winchell - Walla Walla

Jane Anderson - Rocky HS

n/a

Jane McCoy - Eastside Catholic

Please don't shake my hand because it is flu season. I do not like a lot of speed. I like a good criterion and value clash between the two sides. I like real world examples. I will vote on clear voters emphasized especially in the last two speeches.

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.

Jeff Gans - Eastside Catholic

I am the head coach at Eastside Catholic in Sammamish, WA, and am the former coach at Bainbridge and Mercer Island. My students have competed at the TOC and have won or advanced to significant outrounds at Bronx, Greenhill, Valley, Berkeley, Blake, Stanford, Whitman, the WA State tournament, and Nationals. I have taught for three summers at VBI and serve on the TOC's LD committee. My school debates 15-20 weeks a year, including three or four national circuit tournaments. I default to Competing Interpretations as a paradigm unless told otherwise. I will call "clear" if you're being unclear, "slow" if you're going too fast for me, and "loud" if you're too quiet. In general, you should be louder than you think you need to be. I am willing to vote anywhere on the flow, so long as it is justified and warranted, though I prefer a clear standard (whatever it is) and get frustrated when you don't give me one. Tell me how arguments function and how to order them. This goes for theory and other "pre-standard" issues as well as those that come in traditional case debate. Note: I reserve the right to give stupid/blippy arguments minimal consideration in favor of developed ideas, even if your opponent doesn't attack them. While tek debate does guide my evaluation, the single two-second spike you extend probably isn't enough to invalidate an entire case on its own. I'm a thinking person who considers the merit of your position, not a blank-slate robot. Theory is fine by me, but please be explicit about the violation. The more specific and targeted the interp and violation, the more likely I am to vote on it. Also, you should weigh between competing theory shells, just as you would in any other part of the round. Not doing so just forces me to intervene and decide which shell is more important, which you don't want me to do. Here's what I dislike: <ul> <li>Lies or incorrect information, especially if you're arguing about real-world events. For example, if you tell me that Nixon told Stalin to tear down the Berlin Wall or that American settlers didn't know that the blankets they offered their hosts were infested with smallpox, I will laugh at you.</li> <li>Discursive arguments in theory. I generally see these arguments as being hypocritical and often cynically presented. If you truly think that I ought to vote down your opponent to stop his or her hateful oppression of subaltern groups then you need to never have said a derogatory thing in your life. That said, if I hear you being hateful (in or out of round), you can expect to have a tougher time winning my ballot. The caveat to this is when you present a morally repugnant idea but justify it in-round through some other means. In that case, fire away. For other theory tactics - the standards you use, RVIs, etc. - I'm persuaded by the merits of your argument. It's especially nice when you frame your voters in terms of what my role in the round is as the judge.</li> <li>Skep. My bias is that the whole point of a skep strat is to collapse the debate to presumption, which is a reductive way to debate. Maybe I'm wrong about this; if you're running skep, you should tell me why.</li> <li>Determinism. Call me naive or arrogant, but I like to think that I have control over my own mind and decisions. Furthermore there's no proof in the world that G_d/the Universe/the Master and Commander/Unicron is on your side rather than your opponent's, so even if determinism exists I don't know why I have to vote for you.</li> </ul> I really like alternative frameworks, Kritiks, etc., but they need to be explained in complete detail; don't just assume that we're in the same ideological or philosophical crowd and shirk on your responsibilities by giving me jargon or philosophical shorthand. I flow by hand. Speed doesn't irritate me, but there is a threshold after which I stop flowing and just try to listen to your arguments as best I can. You can help yourself by enunciating and varying your pitch; for clear speakers I'm about an 8.5 on a scale of 1-10 with 10 being Colton Smith or Annie Kors. Don't speed up while reading cards: I like to hear what the authors say, not just your assertions about what's in the evidence. With that in mind, I'll call for cases after the round to re-read cards, though not to reconstruct arguments. If I've missed your tactic due to speed, denseness, or enunciation the first time, it's gone. I tend to give speaks based off in-round proficiency and my own running comparison of you with other debaters I've seen in the pool, with 28.0/28.5 being about average for national circuit debate. (Have no fear, young'uns and lone wolves: I don't give higher speaks based on rep; I'll only compare you with debaters I've actually seen.) Higher speaks do not always go to the winner of the round. Two other requests: First, please begin your speeches at about 85% of your final rate so that I can get used to your voice. Second, don't bend over or scrunch down - it'll constrict your lungs and you won't speak as clearly. This may mean you have to stand up and use one of those silly laptop stands, but whatevs. Feel free to email me if you have any questions. I look forward to seeing some great rounds! <a href="mailto:jeffrey.w.gans@gmail.com">jeffrey.w.gans@gmail.com</a>

Jeffrey Richards - Eastside Catholic

Number of years judging  <ul> <li>High School: 10</li> <li>College: 7</li> </ul> Qualifications  <ul> <li>Author, Debating By Doing (National Textbook Company, 1995)</li> <li>Author, Moving From Policy to Value Debate: A CEDA Handbook (National Textbook Co., 1992)</li> <li>Author, Why So, Negative?, article on Negative strategy in policy debate, The Rostrum, February 2009</li> <li>Author, The Line Between Policy and Value Debate: Notes from the National Circuit, The Rostrum, April 2009</li> <li>Assistant Debate Coach, Sammamish High School, Bellevue, WA (current)</li> <li>CEDA Debater, Northwest Nazarene University, Nampa, ID (1986 - 1990)</li> <li>NFL Policy Debater, Dimond High School, Anchorage, AK (1984 - 1986)</li> </ul> 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 and currently at Eastside Catholic 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 and 3rd at the Washington State Debate championships in 2012. 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:   <ol> <li>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.</li> <li>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.</li> <li>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.</li> </ol>

Joe Allen - Centennial

John Maltman - Bridge

I am a 2nd year Parent Judge – I am very traditional, in that I look for a good contention based battle. My  pet peeves are, 1) I hate to give time signals – if I do I’m paying more attention to the clock than to your case – I should be listening and flowing, not counting down with hand signals. 2) Stupid use of speed – I can handle a little bit of speed if you are clear, but please slow down for your tags… I will  give you a “clear” chance – but I really favor a reasonable paced smooth logical presentation -If I can’t understand it I can’t flow it, and I can’t judge it .  and 3) Process, check to make sure your judge and opponent are ready before each speech ….…. I’m not really big on theory and will rarely vote on it. Your job is to make it easy for me to vote for you. This means being organized with your thoughts and presentation – don’t make me jump all over my flow.  Give me good roadmaps and signposts, make sure you extend dropped points, give me clear voters at the end.

John Julian Sr - Newport

Overall - The team who makes my job easiest, the side who walks me through their logic and makes complete, warranted, and comprehensible arguments is the team most likely to win my ballot.  The harder I have to work to fill in details on your behalf, the less likely it is that you will win. a priori ->  DECORUM is the supreme a priori voter.  Treat one another as colleagues.  Respect is your code word.  Rudeness is not equal with aggression - you can be the latter without being the former.  Being a jerk does not show strength... it shows you're a jerk. Event Specific: CX - I am a stock issues judge.  I will accept Kritiks as long as Aff Case properly bites it and the logic is solidly established.  I enjoy a good Counterplan.  Speed at your own risk... clarity is preferred.  If I'm not writing, you're going too fast. LD - I am an old school values debate judge.  I expect a proper framework (Value is the ideal your case upholds, Criterion is the weighing mechanism for the round).  If you choose to take a non-traditional V/C or framework option, explain it to me well enough that I can actually do something with it.  Speed is a very bad idea in LD - Consider me a Comm judge with a flow pad.  Jargon doesn't impress me in LD.  Logic, rhetoric, deep philosophy, and passion do. PF - Public Forum is intended to appeal to a wide audience.  It is patterned after a TV show.  I don't flow when I watch TV... don't expect a rigorous flow in PF from me.  Convince me of your overall point of view is valid.  Do so by making logical, well constructed arguments.  You can leverage common knowledge if it is truly common.  Pathos > logos in this event. Underview - Decorum, then logic, then rhetoric, then appeal to my preferences.  Do this, and you're golden.  Both sides doing this is Nirvana.  I haven't been in a state of Nirvana in 15 years.  Make the effort anyway.

John Nelson - 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 Vraspir - Renaissance

n/a

Joseph Hykan - Whitman

TL:DR (skip it if you’re reading the whole thing) I think you can mostly do what you want in front of me.  I try to be objective, and I think I’m willing/capable of evaluating most all of the different strategies people like to go for.  I am not the fastest flow, the fastest debaters should slow slightly in front of me, I will attempt to issue verbal slows or clears as needed, but it’s difficult to do in round.  I place a very high value on depth and on argument interaction.  You must return to the big picture at some point, compare competing claims, discuss the importance of the arguments you’re winning, and weigh impacts.  I find I’m most likely to sit or to make a decision that one team is upset about when the work isn’t done in the block/PMR to put the pieces of my decision together for me.    I’m probably more amenable to voting on theory and to give heavy weight to defense than is the norm.  There are many critical affs that I like, but I do want a clear explanation of what the aff advocates/defends, and why that is a reason to vote for them.  While I really don’t like voting on cheap shots I do find it hard to just waive them away, so you need to cover your bases against all the little things.  I aspire to be an objective and hyper-detailed evaluator of the flow, and a judge that everyone feels comfortable doing their thing in front of, but I do have preferences/flaws/peculiarities and that’s what’s in the long version.  Updates New for Nationals -Regarding cheap shots (this is a significant change):  There are at least three rounds this year where I have voted on arguments I think were “cheap shots”.  Arguments with little warrant/analysis that are not very good, but when conceded change the outcome of debates (i.e. perfcon is a voter, you must give us a perm text).  I think so far this year I have been more willing to vote on these arguments than is the norm.  I think this practice is not in line with what I value in debate, and I want to handle these arguments differently at nationals. I’m going to be willing to dismiss arguments that don’t meet a minimum threshold of warrant/logic, especially if they were only very brief blips in the LOC/MG that were blown up later in the debate.  I can’t specify an exact threshold, and I still want to limit intervention, so it still is important that you cover your bases against these arguments.    - If I’m asking you for the order, I probably don’t actually care. I’m trying to politely tell you to stop taking prep.  -I think you should make the choice to either cede a debate round to have a conversation/forum/whatever, or you should contest the ballot.  I do not think it’s fair to ask your opponents to not engage in a competitive round, while still asking for a coin flip or otherwise hanging on to a chance of picking up the ballot. Experience I debated for four years in high school in Colorado, mostly LD.  From 2009-2013 I debated at Lewis & Clark in NPDA/NPTE. General philosophy I want you to have fun, and debate the way you like to debate.  I’ll evaluate the arguments made in the round within the framework offered, and hopefully resolve conflicting claims with comparisons and reasons to prefer that are articulated by the debaters. I want to limit my intervention in the debate, and I am not interested in imposing my own views about the truth of arguments or about what debate should look like.  However, I do have opinions about debate and about particular arguments, and I think it’s only fair to advise you of them.  Do not interpret any of the following as, “I won’t/will vote for x argument”, I still don’t plan to intervene; this is just an effort to share information and make this philosophy useful. Answers to common questions -Clarity/Speed.  I reserve the right to issue a verbal slow if you get too quick for me.  Honestly, if you are one of the fastest debaters on the circuit, you should probably go slightly below your top speed in front of me.  Especially if you are moving quickly between claims and leaving me little pen time. I also reserve the right to ‘clear’ you, although clear doesn’t necessarily mean you need to slow down.  If you were too fast or too unclear for me I will not spot you the argument, I will only evaluate what I have flowed.  -Regarding the K.  I like the K.  I tend to prefer, but not require, framework’s that include a clear interpretation, rather than a laundry list of method good/policy bad arguments that fail to tell me how to evaluate the round.  I think critiques are better when teams are clear and specific, and do not rely on author names or buzzwords.  I really don’t like when teams intentionally obfuscate what they are critiquing, or how the other team can respond.  I do not like Kritiks that are non-falsifiable, psychoanalysis K’s tend to be some of the worst perpetrators.  I believe that the most effective way to answer a K is by directly indicting the logic of the argument itself, and not relying on a bunch of generic perms/alt arguments, or framework.  Similarly I believe that the best K teams defend their arguments in the block, instead of trying to shift and run away from MG offense.  (obviously a strategic shift/collapse is good, but refusing to answer arguments that truly are sticky is not) I’ve said this in post-round almost every time I have watched a critique this year, so I’ll put it here too.  I do not think that Generic perm net benefits like the double bind, or juxtaposition, or generic alt arguments like “the alt is totalitarian” tend to be effective.  Good MOs have no trouble with them, and for these arguments to have real teeth you probably need to be winning other more central arguments against the critique.  I think you’ll be most likely to win my ballot by reading offense to the core of the critique, and contexualizing any of your more generic arguments as much as possible to the specifics of the kritik and the aff.    -K aff’s are fine too.  I’d prefer that they be germane to the topic (and in the right direction), but I’ll listen to your framework your and K of T should you choose to run them.  Clarity is particularly important on framework here.  What is your advocacy, and why does that advocacy mean that you ought to win the debate?  Clear interpretations that provide some level of brightline for me to assess who wins the round would be helpful too.     -Performance/”project” arguments.  (Sorry if these terms homogenize arguments in a way that isn’t ideal, but I need a way to refer to them).  These arguments are good, and important.  I want to support folks who want to run them.  That said I’m still working out exactly what I value in these debates, and how I feel about them.  Some bullet points of things I would prefer you do. -Be clear on what exactly your advocacy is.  -Explain clearly how the debate should be evaluated -I think setting up this debate in a way that allow opponents to engage on the method level is desirable -I won’t enforce this on my own in any way.  But I think there’s a strong case to be made that if your advocacy is totally unrelated to the topic that you should disclose it to your opponents in prep time.  I think forcing your opponent to prep for your performance and a policy aff generates a huge advantage for you, and renders parlis limited prep incoherent.  -Be clear about what your performance does and why that’s sufficient.  If you create real change tell me how and why that change is good.  If you simply expose problematic structures tell me that that’s sufficient. Answering Performance/”project” arguments.  I won’t say that there isn’t a framework shell that I would vote for, but you’ll have to be nuanced for that to get you anywhere.  I’m most likely to give high speaker points to folks who engage on the method level.  I will not be very interested in hearing you complain that this style of debate is inherently unfair. -Conditionality.  No strong feeling here.  But I will note that I believe many parli teams defend condo poorly.  I think ‘we’ll kick down to one argument in the block’ and ‘hard debate is good debate’, are especially bad arguments. -CP theory.  No big predispositions here. I think the more specific the interp/counterinterp, the better you’ll generally do on a position.  Generally speaking I’m open to hearing CP theory, but I think some allowances have to be made for the fact that parli has no back side rebuttal, and that the aff has a second-line monopoly on mg theory.  That doesn’t mean I won’t pull the trigger, but it means PMR second lines aren’t automatically golden, and that their quality has to be compared to that of the MO arguments and justified by the quality/depth of the mg shell.  -Text Comp: I’ll listen to it, but I think it’s just a lazy way of making Pic’s bad and other arguments, and not a coherent interpretation of what a competitive counterplan is.  Veto/cheato bad and delay bad: They aren’t autowins, but you’re in a very good spot. States: I think states is a far more abusive argument than people tend to believe.  PIC’s bad: I think this can be a very persuasive argument if the interp is specific to rounds in which the affirmative must pass the entirety of an existing bill.  -Regarding Spec.  I do not think these arguments tend to be any good.  They’re almost always normal means/solvency debates, which are not procedural/voting issues.  However I’m also not a fan of the trend of swearing at people for making these arguments and refusing to answer them.  Just read your answers. -Topicality.  These are fine debates, and I think people should go for them more often because they seem to frequently be answered poorly. I default to competing interpretations, and I think potential abuse is plenty.  I do not like arbitrary interpretations e.g. Military force means boots on the ground.  No it doesn’t.  Topicality is about the meaning of words in the resolution.  I think ground/education and fairness are poor standards as well, unless made in the context of the meaning of words in the resolution.  I think the Israel debate is fair and educational, but it’s obviously not the topical debate in every round.  The, uh… Trichotomoy? (is this still necessary?) I do not want to hear “value” or “fact” debates.  If you want to have to have these debates you probably should not pref me. -Speaker points. I plan on giving speaker points on the following scale; I think it will make me on the lower end of the spectrum, but I’m trying to limit that effect.             -26 Poor             -27 Below average             -27.5 average             -28 Above average             -29 Excellent             -30 Near perfect.     Bullet point things to know *New: I don’t like strategies where one team deliberately holds back on making their argument until the member speech (e.g. plan text in the PMC then sit down, than a new Nietzche shell in the mg).  I think these arguments are anti-educational, unfair, and really indicate a team is unwilling to have a real debate. I won’t intervene against these arguments, but I’ll be extremely compelled by responses indicating these strategies are unfair/uneducational/pointless.  -I find a lack of depth is a consistent problem in the debates I watch, including debates with very good teams.  If I am to consider an argument coherent, I need a clear claim, and a warrant, and an impact.  You must explain coherently the impact a claim has on the debate, or I will be forced to do that work myself.  A good example would be if an MG says on politics "Link Turn: Republicans like plan".  Unless the LOC link argument was "Republicans don't like plan" the mg needs to do more work contextualizing the importance of plan's popularity with republicans and explaining why that is in fact a link turn.   -Please slow down for theory interps, and repeat them. -Please also slow down for top level of politics disads, details really matter there too.  -Speakers must take and substantively answer a question if asked in the PM or LOC, and I will almost certainly vote on the procedural if you don’t (if there’s flex/cx the procedural ground is worse).  Generally speaking I like when people take and legitimately answer a few questions, but that’s tough to enforce. -You must give your opponent a copy of any and all advocacies.  And they shouldn’t have to wait for your partner to write it out, just have it ready before your speech starts. -I will protect against new arguments, but points of order are fine.  When calling points of order don’t be rude, excessive, or repeatedly wrong. -I am likely to give more weight to defense than I think is the norm.  If you’re really far behind on the link and internal level of a disad I’m not likely to just grant you ‘some risk’ and move on (absent you also being pretty far ahead on magnitude first impact calc). -I don’t consider arguments dropped if they are intuitively answered by other arguments in the round, although there is obviously some limit to what you can get away with.  Example: If someone drops a link turn on a china relations advantage, but extends the PMC link arguments as reasons why China loves plan, I think it is fairly clear that the aff has not conceded the debate about how china perceives plan.  The PMR can’t newly answer the link turn, but it’s ok to compare the strength/warrants/responsiveness of the turn and the link argument.     -The way we use the term dehum in this activity makes it largely meaningless, be specific about it if you want it to be important. -I have a pretty strong inclination to buy death > dehum, life is the internal link to value to life. -Etiquette: I love good natured banter, and I think tactful and respectful clowning/posturing is awesome.  I understand debate is a game, and one we want to win badly, but do not be a jerk.  Do not bully your opponents.  Do not be nasty, or personal.  If you’re debating a team that is much less experienced/capable than you, feel free to win handily, but do not excessively humiliate them or beat up on them.  -Permutations are tests of competition, not advocacies.  If your opponent reads an illegitimate perm than your advocacy is competitive, but that is not a reason to vote for you..

Josh Plumridge - Holy Names

Topicality You can of course win a t arg without collapsing down to only t in the 2nr, but it would greatly help if you didn't go for four things in the last speech. I kind of love T when it's run with care, with love - when it's not just an excuse to spread the 2ac, when the standards/impacts debate is fleshed out, when it's made clear why the aff interpretation of the res sets a bad precedent for debate.  Kritiks  It seems the most common ks this year are critiques of colonialism/empire and ks whose intellectual roots are found in psychoanalysis or something a little more obscure. Please don't run the latter unless you know what you're talking about. It cheapens the activity and the subject matter.  Counter plans  I like them a lot. Especially clever PICs. I really hope the cp debate doesn't devolve into walls of blippy theory. I actually like theory a lot, but only if it's advanced coherently, rather than in some silly glib manner.  Stylistic notes I like speed as long as you're clear. Duh. Please don't be cocky or disrespectful to the other team. It has never helped someone win. You will probably not win on "a dropped arg is a true arg" unless you heavily impact that drop.  I'm not going to say I'm a policy maker or tabula rasa. Both are literally false for almost every judge on the circuit. The more you create your own voting hierarchy and offer compelling impact analysis, the less likely it is that I'll have to intervene. Finally, I obviously prefer offense versus defense, but I also believe in curtailing the hegemony of risk analysis in debate. Sometimes the 2ac reads an impact takeout instead of a turn, and it's a 100% takeout.

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,

Karl Nordstrom - Wood River

n/a

Katie Kirkpatrick - EHS

communications judge

Kevin Davison - Bear Creek

For Lincoln Douglas I'm a traditional LD judge: I vote off the Value and Value Criterion primarily, moving to contention level arguments supported by reasoning and evidence.  I am not tabla rasa, so RA's will have to pass a reasonable amount of scrutiny, but can be won off of if deemed reasonable.  Keep out of definitional debates.  I don't like spreading, and will vote against it in favor of a well reasoned argument as listed above.  If both competitors spread, I will default to the weighing mechanism listed above For Public Forum I feel it should go without saying that Public Forum should have no paradigms.  But in case that is not sufficient, I vote off a simple cost-benefit analysis, with neither side gaining presumption.  I look primarily to the contentions between well warranted and articulating a reasonable position.  I favor a warranted argument over a non-warranted argument.  I will accept review of evidence, visuals, etc.  Debaters may try to provide an alternative weighing mechanism, but it must set a reasonable standard.  Please keep it to the spirit of the type of debate.

Kevin Kuswa - Whitman

HI all, I look forward to judging.  I value explanation and reasoning with an emphasis on argumentation as a form of education instead of trickery.  Ultimately, though, you should do what you want to do and I will follow your lead.  I have no inherent problems with very traditional legislative debate, very unorthodox performativity debate, or anything between the two.  Theory debate is always more appealing with examples and comparisons and I generally favor arguments with multiple warrants regardless of what genre those arguments occupy.  if you have reasons and analysis behind your arguments, you are in the right vicinity.  My background is in policy debate, but I am enjoying Parli debate and I do like the variety of topics and styles available.  The two most important concepts you should keep in mind for me are specificity and clash.  Please treat your opponents with generosity, respect, and kindness.   • Background of the critic (including formats coached/competed in, years of coaching/competing, # of rounds judged this year , etc . about 60 rounds judged this year, competed in policy. ) • Approach of the critic to decision - making (for example, adherence to the trichotomy, stock - issues, policymaker, tabula rasa, etc.) • no Relative importance of presentation/communication skill s to the critic in decision - somewhat--argument comes first making • Relative importance of on - case argumentation to the critic in decision - making • depends on the neg. Preferences on procedural arguments, counterplans, and kritiks • well-explained Preferences on calling Points of Order. no

Kimberly Hartman - Mt Si

Kramer Hudgens - Bridge

<blockquote> </blockquote> <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>

Kris Mullen - Highland High

Paradigm-- Experience--policy debate in high school; judged and assisted debate team throughout last season and summer. Speed--I am comfortable at any speed, but if I don't understand your tags, you will lose me--watch for me to drop my pen during flow. Argumentation:  I will vote for K's if they are persuasive and real.  In general, I prefer unique arguments with real world impacts--I weigh impact probability over magnitude.  I tend to discriminate against teams employ time-wasting arguments as a ploy rather than arguments they believe in.  I will vote on topicality if it makes sense or if you have a unique and clever argument for it.  C-X debate is about clash and I expect teams to link their arguments to the plan (for  neg) or to the neg's arguments (for aff).  In other words, after the 4 constructives, I want to feel like I'm watching a debate rather than 4 separate speeches; tell me how a the plan causes a disadvantage--don't just read shells and expect me to link them for you.  I vote for the best arguments be they analytical or sourced.

Kristi Wood - EHS

Kyle Hendrix - Whitman

Laban Lin - BC ACADEMY

Framework: I'll accept any fair framework, but the debate must be confined to said framework. If the negative does not reject the framework and offer a more suitable alternative, but argues outside of that framework, I will reject those arguments. Clash: This is particularly important to me. If you drop the opposing analysis instead of responding to it by the end of the round, I will assume you have conceded that point and its implications. Burdens: Although Pro always has the burden of showing me why I should support a policy, Con will not win by any significant margin if their entire case only refutes the Pro's arguments. For Con to score well, they need to show me why a policy is harmful, not why it isn't necessarily a great idea. Arguments: As a BP debater, I am comfortable with extension-style arguments. Feel free to present atypical arguments, but of course, doing so for the sake of it will not win you any points. Present the best arguments you have, and I will take it in stride.

Lauren Maher - Ferris

n/a

Lauren Hauk - Whitman

My name is Lauren Hauck and I debate for Whitman College.  I have been competing in college debate for 2 years.  I value thoughtful analysis, a connection to the resolution, and a clearly articulated argument. Listed below are some of my likes and dislikes during a debate round. The most important thing is that the round is a safe space for opposing views. Feel free to attack an argument but you may not attack your opponent; you must be respectful.    Things I Like <ul> <li>Respect: I understand that this is a competition, however that is not an excuse to be insensitive or rude. I will not stand for any type of derogatory language nor will you get away with under-your-breath comments about how your opponent is stupid, etc.</li> <li>Topicality: If you’re planning on running an argument that is questionably topical, your analysis and explanation better be pristine.</li> <li>Kritiks are great</li> <li>Clear, articulate rebuttals: People seem to disregard the value of a good rebuttal, but an excellent debater knows how to utilize a rebuttal and take home a quality win.</li> <li>Evidence and Argument Extensions: Back this up with analytics. Good debaters read cards; great debaters prove why they’re important. </li> <li>A well-placed joke will definitely amuse me as long as it is in good taste.</li> </ul>   Things I Don’t Like <ul> <li>Don’t be rude to your opponents, especially during Cross Ex. I understand that debate is a stressful and competitive environment but that is not an excuse to be unprofessional.</li> <li>Unnecessary Speed: Clarity is much more important.</li> <li>Inaccurate Impact Calculus: If the world is about to end, you better be able to tell me who, what, when, how, and why. I prefer a clearly articulated, and plausible impact.</li> </ul>

Lee Cornell - Renaissance

n/a

Liam Donnelly - Puyallup

<a href="http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Liam+Donnelly">Liam Donnelly</a> This philosophy is organized in order of importance, and underlined like a card would be, where you probably only need to read the underlined sections unless you're oddly interested (exception: this sentence). 13-14 season: I am a first year college debater at the university of puget sound and debated 4 years in HS (ndca elims my senior year) overall: You can do whatever. I flow, and my flow matters a lot in my decision. I also hold your arguments to a particularly high threshold in terms of your explanations of their warrants and implications. I think that I am in the tech>truth camp, but not by much. You need to explain and implicate your arguments well for them to have any effect on my decision, and having those explanations and implications be well-grounded in your research materials is fairly important, especially in closer debates where my decision process usually involves reading evidence and comparing it to the way your arguments are explained. More important, though, is the chart of engagement that occurs in the debate (the flow)--as evaluating "engagement" is, in my opinion, the most objective way of evaluating debate. Put another way, tech frames the way i approach the "truth" of the debate (I think "truth" in this context is code for "credibility given the research and communicative clarity presented in the round"). I am unlikely to make a decision that is completely based in the evidence read in the round--the way you explain it is more important--but your evidence still makes a difference.  General leanings (basically just a longer explanation of the above paragraph): 1. Win an arg, any arg, and a reason it wins you the debate and you will win the debate. I don't understand judges that say that arguments shouldn't be allowed in debate, or that they have a higher threshold for certain arguments--if you can't explain why a bad argument is bad, then me doing that work for you corrupts the educational value of this activity. I love that this activity is set by the debaters, and not by a judge, and will abide by that in making a decision. I think that debate is characterized by competing principles of logic. That is, i think that the reasoning behind my decision should be based in "truth" given the micro logic as determined by the "tech" of the debate. 2. I will flow you and I will flow you well. This is not negotiable. I will use my flow to make the decision and evidence doesn't matter to much to me. Often ev questions are important, depending on what arg it is, but I always start by evaluating ways that the arguments were framed by the debaters, the warrants that were extended by debaters, and the comparisons that were made in the round. I will flow as much of the evidence as I can understand, too, which is a reason why sometimes going slow and being clear is important. 3. I have to understand something to vote on it. I have to understand why it is true, I have to understand why it means anything to me. The threshold of "understanding" is kind of arbitrary, but blippyness should be avoided. Essentially, you need to have a warrant for your argument, and I probably have a higher threshold for warrants than most judges do. 4. I think there can be zero risk, but usually only when an argument is dropped, not answered using a complete argument, or when an argument conceded elsewhere in the debate implicates it. I don't really utilize micro-logic in my decision making--as a matter of fact, I try to avoid using it--as debate is a communicative activity.  5. Before eval'ing the substance, I usually evaluate theoretical issues and framing issues. For the purposes of the decision, I think that these shape the way substance is decided. In a K debate, for example, the negative winning that methodology should be evaluated first means that i evaluate the offense connected to the method of the k alt v the offense off of the method connected to the affirmative, 1AC, etc. These are evaluated just as I evaluate substance--there are offensive and defensive reasons why a paradigm or practice is good or bad, and I weigh them.  6. I will only use evidence in my decision under two circumstances: (1) there is evidence comparison done by both teams on the same issue or (2) how an arg fits into the debate is not discussed, which means i need to find the truthful way that the argument fits into the debate (for example, if a solvency deficit to the aff is never impacted, i'll probably read through the 1AC to decide which advantages it takes out). I will likely call for ev in other instances, because I like to read, because I like to steal cites, because i often wonder things about arguments (especially inane ones).  Instead of talking about my leanings in debate, i think that it's more appropriate to talk about common ways I end up evaluating different debates that may differ from other judges: - CP theory debates: a lot of the time, I think theory debates are won by the impacts of different standards, and the team that is spending the most time impacting those standards will probably win the debate. It doesn't really matter, but i'm pretty aff-leaning on virtually every theoretical question. If your CP doesn't use the usfg, I don't think it's theoretically legitimate, and if it's not both textually and functionally competitive, i'm likely to think perm do the cp is legit. You still have to win it, though. Condo is probably bad if it's multiple worlds, and reject the argument not the team is really dumb against all theory. - CP's in general: not enough teams impact solvency arguments, on both sides. If your solvency deficit doesn't have an impact, i'm unlikely to vote on it. Hypothetical: 1nc reads the states CP. 2ac says states are too bureaucratic. 2nc extends CP, doesn't answer "states too bureaucratic." 1ar and 2ar extend that the states are too bureaucratic, but never explain why states being too bureaucratic inhibits the CP's ability to solve. In this scenario I wouldn't look to the solvency deficit at all because i'm unsure how it matters. To carry the hypothetical, if the 1ar and 2ar extend the argument and give a reason why states being too bureaucratic implicates the CP's solvency, the 2nr gets to answer that reason, but not the premise that states are too bureaucratic (see #8 above). - I'm a fine judge for K's on both sides, but specificity is a must (for both sides). Shenanigans will probably win a lot of neg rounds in front of me, so root cause, floating pik's, etc are all things you should answer. Framing the debate is a must. As a rhetoric major, I am a fan of rhetoric-based K's run well, and abhor bad explanations of why a word is problematic or why rhetoric matters, as well as bad explanations of butler, taboo args, offensive args on these K's, etc. - Framework debates usually have too much offense and not enough defense and comparisons of offense. If you want to win on framework, you should play some defense against the other team's claims, and do impact calc. I am pretty good for both sides of the framework debate, and judge the debate much like any other debate, as a comparison for reasons why a particular model of debate should be "chosen." Judge choice is really dumb, and I have yet to hear a real reason why it's a good model of debate. Oftentimes, substantive and theoretical answers to theory aren't given the interaction they need to have in the debate. - DA's: You need to explain the interactions between different argument, especially in DA/case debates. This is often true in the case of "da turns case" arguments, where it often goes unspoken as to how one "turns case" argument is offensive, whether UQ needs to be won to win it offensively, whether is can function as link D, what internal links it actually takes out, and whether you have to win the link to the DA for it to interact (or if you win that the status quo has X happening and X turns the case, that means that the status quo solves the aff). - I don't reject "not intrinsic" args on face like some judges do. It's probably true that DA's like politics and trade-off are not questions of whether or not the plan is good--ie not intrinsic to plan action. Not enough neg teams challenge the premise that a DA has to be intrinsic, though. If you win an impact and a link, i'll reject the DA. - Case debates: It's goes without saying, but they're good. In a lot of debates, the 2ac and 1ar often don't spend nearly enough time on each argument. A lot of the time that doesn't matter because not enough neg's catch this and go for case d, but in rounds where they do, I am usually better for them simply because it never seems like the aff fleshes out a lot of their aff. After listening to most 2ac's and 1ar's, i generally am left with the conception that at least one of the neg's arguments was poorly answered to the extent that, if the neg spends a little time explaining it, they will probably win it. tldr, don't do embedded clash on case if you can't do it right. - T: If you don't know what reasonability actually means, please don't go for it. I'm a fine judge for T debates, so long as your standards are impacted well and compared. - Not enough teams talk about what fiat means. Too many teams assert durable fiat as the being a good way to view the debate, when it's really not a very real world or literature-based argument. This doesn't mean i'm a "rollback" hack, but i don't think that asserting "durable fiat solves that" to answer a solvency deficit is a good place to be in front of me if the other team is giving theoretical reasons why durable fiat is a bad model of debate. Speaks: Speaker Points are determined by Explanation/Warrants, tech, strategy, and, above all, evidence that you've done work. (i.e. it has to be clear that you know your stuff if you want above average pts.)  3 things that warrant speaks less then a 26.0: a lack of clarity (usually if i can't flow half your speech you're getting a 25), cheating of any sort (clipping, falsifying, etc is a 0), rudeness and saying offensive stuff (being generally snobbish and rude will probably be a point off or so, saying offensive things or acting in a way that i feel would negatively affect your opponents debating gets you a 20) liampirate@gmail.com if you have questions. I like to write things about debate, talk about debate, etc, so feel free to hmu

Lisa Weber - Newport

Lori Wheat - Rocky HS

n/a

Margaret Rockey - Whitman

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.

Marten King - Whitman

<h3>Saved Philosophy:</h3>   The purpose of this judge philosophy is to give you insight into who I was as a debater and how I tend to think about the game that I obsessed over for 4 years. I do not find philosophies that declare themselves to be “neutral” to be particularly useful. Rather, I believe it is more valuable that I make my preferences clear to you so that you can debate to the best of your ability.   Debate background:   I debated for four years at Whitman College. For the most part, I did parliamentary debate, although I also went to 2-3 policy tournaments per year. I graduated in 2014.   General comments:   First and foremost, you should roll with the strategy that you are most comfortable with. While I have certain preferences, I am willing to vote on almost any argument. That being said, you should use the knowledge of my preferences to your advantage. Rather than changing your go-to strategy entirely in front of me, it is probably best to simply pay attention to the frustrations that I have with particular parts of various strategies.   Regardless of what you run, please place an emphasis on clarity and depth of warrants. I am very troubled by the recent trend in favor of blippy LOC arguments. Please have clear taglines that explain each distinct argument in a position, be that a subpoint of uniqueness or a link. A good rule is that you should be able to read the taglines of your position to a person outside of debate and they should be able to understand what the position is saying. I am confident in my ability to flow, and I will give the PMR leeway to respond to arguments that were impossible for me to follow in the LOC.   Please read the above paragraph again. I really mean it.   I am fine with speed. I think that speed is a positive for the activity and, absent issues concerning disabilities, it is perhaps the most accessible tool in the activity; becoming fast requires nothing more than a closet and time. However, I do think that there is a limit (around 300-330 wpm) to how fast you can go in parli because the need for pen time is much greater than in policy.   Etiquette:   Feel free to be as passionate and as intense as you want in front of me. That being said, be respectful. I have seen far too much bullying in debate in my time. It is totally unnecessary and inappropriate. Do not, for instance, scoff at every argument your opponent makes. It is fine to have strategic non-verbals, but do not be rude.   Try to be as inclusive as possible. If you are debating someone who is clearly less experienced than you and they ask you to slow down or explain things again, I will reward you with speaker points if you do.   The K   I believe that the concepts and ideas explored in Kritik debates are very important. I also recognize that the K has immense strategic value. During my senior year, my partner and I ran a K along with a DA almost every round because of the flexibility that the K-DA-Case strategy provided. I am perfectly willing to vote on a Kritik, and I believe that MGs responses to Ks are generally lackluster. That being said, I find a lot of things about K debate frustrating.   I do not like the use of overly obtuse language. Too many debaters try to be intentionally confusing reading the K. If I do not understand the K out of the LOC, I will not want to vote for it. As a great judge once told me, you want to make everyone in the room want to vote for you. Don’t do that by hiding the meaning of your argument. Have a clear thesis section. Have crystal clear links that can then be explained as DAs to the perm. Perhaps read the K a little slower than other parts of the debate.   I find much of the impact debate on the K to be underdeveloped. I rarely, if ever, will find no value to life claims persuasive. I find the extinction and turns case arguments on the K to be very tenuous. For the aff, this means that you should defense to the Neg’s impact claims. For the Neg, this means that if the aff reads solid D to those over the top claims, you might want to go for a structural violence impact coupled with case indicts (for example).   While I understand the trend away from framework, I am somewhat puzzled by it as well. I do not think that the Ks function in a debate is “self-explanatory.” In fact, it is not immediately obvious why the mindset/decision making process/etc. of the aff is a reason why the plan is a bad idea. While I do not think framework is necessary, I do think it is important for the negative to explain their conception of debate and how the K functions within that conception. How does the alt function? Does it ACTUALLY get rid of all bio-power, or is that question irrelevant? This being said, spending a lot of time saying the aff “isn’t real” and therefore its impacts don’t matter is not compelling to me.   Politics   I ran politics a LOT. I like politics. I also think that there are many problems with the politics debate.   Please do not lie. Do not claim that a bill has bi-partisan support when it passed the house without a single democratic vote.  Please also have an explanation for how the link is connected to your specific piece of legislation – I.E., why would the GOP being mad about Obama’s executive orders relating to immigration make them unwilling to do something totally unrelated?   If a politics DA is bad, then it should be easy to beat. I find thumpers to be one of the best answers to a politics DA. The link is not simply “stupid,” but rather demonstrably false – the GOP has been angered many many times, but the farm bill still passes.   Not Defending the Topic   I am not very fond of this strategy. I believe in the educational value of topic-area research and of switching sides. I am not compelled by answers to framework that claim that policy debate is totally vapid. I also find fairness and competition to be important, as I think the competitive aspect of debate is what incentivizes people to research and participate at an in depth level.   That being said, I recognize the importance of the discussions that have been generated by folks who decide not to defend the topic. If you wish to do this, I will of course evaluate the debate in as fair a manner as I can. Do know, however, that I will be pre-disposed towards certain arguments that your opponents might make. You will need to be nuanced in responding to these arguments.   CPs   I believe that counterplans are, by their very function, conditional. I believe that it is fair for me to kick the counterplan for you, but I believe that the NEG has to introduce this theoretical concept.   I believe that conditionality is a logical and educational model for debate, and I think that this is uniquely true in parli where the lack of backside rebuttals makes PMR sandbagging on DA’s to CPs particularly unfair. That being said, I find people’s answers to conditionality bad to be horrible. I think that given the bad answers that MOs generally have, it is strategic to read conditionally bad in front of me if your PMR is good at going for it.   I believe that counterplans should be both textually and functionally competitive. While textual competition is an arbitrary standard, so is all other counterplan theory. I find text comp to be a predictable limit that allows the negative to read educational PICS while preventing them from reading abusive strategies.   In general, I find counterplan theory difficult to assess. The lack of backside rebuttals leaves the debate woefully underdeveloped. It also makes the MOs life very difficult as they are unable to both read standards and weigh them in an efficient way. I have not decided how much room I will give the PMR to extrapolate on their standards, but it will not be as much as some judges give.   Please don’t say “perm do both – they can both happen at the same time!” and leave it at that. If a perm does not shield the link to the DA or resolve some of the negative’s offense in some way, it does not matter.   Theory   Theory – excluding counter plan theory – was the one area of debate that I did not invest a particularly large amount of time in. I rarely if ever ran T by the end of my senior year.   As a result, I do not have a lot of fully formed preconceptions when it comes to T. While I default to competing interpretations, I am somewhat compelled by the model of debate encapsulated by reasonability that states that the aff’s interpretation is ok if it gives the negative sufficient ground, not if it gives the negative perfect ground. My guess is that I will have a generally high threshold for voting on T. It is difficult to provide a brightline when evaluating T through the lense of sufficiency, however, and I will continue to struggle with the CI/Reasonability debate.   I do not like spec arguments.   Please read your interp slowly and twice. If the interp is missed, nothing else makes sense.   Parli-specific things   I will protect against new arguments even if you don’t point of order.   I will assess the intuitive interaction between every argument, including those that are dropped. I think that this is especially fair given the lack of backside rebuttals.   Please write down a text of any advocacy and share them with your opponent.

Matt Vraspir - Renaissance

Matt Gander - Whitman

Matt Gander Judging Philosophy  I will listen to any argument you want to read with an open mind attempt to reconcile its conclusions with the arguments presented by the other team. I will reward arguments that engage the substance of the resolution and demonstrate thorough research. The most important part of debate is having fun, so you should do whatever makes that happen for you.  As a general disclaimer, I have not done debate research since March. My news reading has been confined to the Huffington Post IPhone app and random news articles on Facebook. In college I studied History, Political Science, with a minor in Art History. I am currently a Masters candidate in the UO Conflict and Dispute resolution. I am most confortable with debates surrounding international relations, the American judicial system, the EU and political philosophy. I know a lot of random stuff from debate, but you should understand that a large part of my scientific knowledge base has been formed/corrupted by John McCabe. You can get into deep science/tech debates, but don’t expect me to be able to resolve them on their technical merits. Sorry. That being said, there were very few debates in college that I thought were beyond my ability to generally comprehend. I think you should be able to explain anything, but understand that going too far in one direction leaves you vulnerable to my ignorance. Feel free to ask before the debate.  I stole this from Zach Tschida because I think is perfectly phrased and get to the heart of how you will win my ballot.  As a rule, I appreciate debates and debaters that exhibit: 1. Nuance. I enjoy nuanced strategies, nuanced execution, and nuanced comparison between arguments (both in terms of line-by-line on each position and between different arguments). Ultimately, I am more persuaded by arguments that present a nuance that complicates the way the other team has portrayed the world. 2. A clear distillation of complex thoughts. As a rule, I believe that a speaker’s ability to convey and explain an argument is indicative of their understanding of that argument. Consequently, I think that a successful debater should be able to simplify potentially convoluted ideas in a manner that resonates with the audience. 3. Humor and civility. It is refreshing to see a debate that reminds me that this is a collegial activity in which all participants dedicate a significant amount of time and effort. I understand that it is difficult to balance civility and humor and I hope you will err on the side of humor. Please be nice. I understand if there are some teams/debates where that isn’t going to happen, but I think debate should be a place where everybody feels welcome to express their opinion. I would much rather you engage the other team productively than see you rub their face in the dirt. Debate is fun largely because you make friends, being overly adversarial is not conducive to making friends. I assure you that being mean will only hurt you chances of winning in the long run.  Speed I think speed is appropriate and beneficial to many debates, but it also detracts from many debates. Use your own judgment, but I would much rather hear 6 great answers to a position than 10 underdeveloped ones. I also don’t think you should use speed as a form of exclusion. Feel free to spread out any team ranked in the top 60, but I will be very upset if you use speed to confuse a team that you are probably going to beat anyway. I think this also holds true for strategic decisions, if you want to read 6-7 off against a decent team; I have no principled opposition to that. However, I doubt 6-7 off is conducive in a preset debate against two new debaters. Given the way I debated, I have very little room to tell you that you shouldn’t good too fast, but I can say from experience that it is not right for all debates.  T I think the affirmative team should attempt to be topical. Predictability, fairness and education are all good values to strive for, but I don’t think they need to be enforced as strictly as many other judges on the circuit. I think topicality is like apple pie and hand grenades close is good enough for me. I think debate theory is an important theoretical framework to understand the general responsibilities of each team, but I am not compelled by the argument that one side should lose because their arguments don’t conform to your ideal version of a debate. I will default to a framework of reasonability, but I am more than confortable voting down people that go beyond my interpretation of what constitutes a reasonable interpretation of what somebody can/should do in debate.  Framework  I really enjoyed debating the criticism and think it is an argument that should be in every team’s toolbox. I generally found that critical debates were most interesting when they attempted to interact with the topic and the arguments presented by the other team. However, I will be very reluctant to ignore the arguments presented by the other team purely on the basis that they are presented within a problematic framework. I think it is important to engage arguments on their own terms and attempt to create the best synthesis between competing truth claims because it is very difficult to win that your opponents arguments are entirely false.  Critical Debate  My reading of critical literature is spotty and you should not rely on me to understand the literature base surrounding your argument. I think good critiques in parliamentary debate attempt to directly engage the advocacy of the affirmative. I will be very reluctant to use your framework arguments as a stand-alone reason to reject the affirmative. Links are important, but there is no reason you can’t substantively engage the knowledge presented by the affirmative. I also think there are many debates and topics that conform poorly to critical debates. I prefer critical affirmatives to critical negative strategies. CP I think CP’s are good. I don’t think they have to be run unconditionally and I am unlikely to vote for PIC’s/Condo bad. I am more interested in theory arguments that speak specifically to the strategy presented in relation to the topic and the debate at hand. I don’t know how I feel about multiple conditional CP’s or strategies that overburden the MG, but like most theory arguments this will be an uphill battle. I think textual competition is irrelevant.  DA/Case Debate I have a warm spot in my heart for a good DA and case debate. I think parliamentary debate is primed for these types of debates, if they become small in the second half of the debate and reflect good research. I think Will Van Tureen was giving the most innovative LOC’s last year because every time I watched him he threw down hard on the specifics of the advantage and buttressed these arguments with a smart DA. I tend to think politics debates are silly, but it will be much more compelling for me coupled with good case arguments. These types of debates reward speakers that consolidate and compare impacts. Read whatever you want. I like link and internal link debates the most.  I tend to believe that new cross applications in the rebuttals are new arguments. There are some arguments that may be phrased in a manner that applies across specific pieces of paper. Contextualizing those within the entire debate is not problematic, but ideally the MG is doing that work. I want you to call points of order, but I will be very non-verbally expressive if I think you are calling too many. Also if you are calling POI’s to rattle your opponent, I will take it out on your speaker points.  Have fun and feel free to ask any questions.

Matt Filpi - Whitman

Matthew Wittrock - Highland High

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.

Meghan McDonagh - Centennial

Meritt Salathe - Whitman

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.

Michelle Flores - Ferris

n/a

Missy Nelson - Highland High

Mitsu Gunsolus - Whitman

Mrs. Carter - Gonzaga Prep

n/a

Nancy Forstheofel - Walla Walla

Nichole Clegern - Central Valley Hig

Nick Budak - Whitman

Nick Mauer - Whitman

Nizar Ajanovic - Sprague

Noah Stern - Whitman

PFD Judge1 - CapitalID

n/a

Paige Carruth - Bear Creek

n/a

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>

Paige Joki - Ferris

n/a

Pam Fleming - EHS

communications judge

Pamela Hammon - Rocky HS

n/a

Patrick Johnson - Westview

Real world arguments win- theoretical/improbable impacts do not Comparative impacts critical for a win Topicality is legit, again, only for real world probability CLASH! and signpost where your arguments clash with opponents AND why your impact is more significant No tagteam when prohibited Speed is not your friend when I'm judging, if you have firmly established your contentions and have time, then spreading ok w/o speed

Paul Montreuil - Centennial

3 Years debating at Idaho State 1 Year at UNI 4 Years judging college debate 8 Years judging high school debate My favorite debaters (in no particular order)- Michael Klinger, Jessica Yeats, Stephen Weil, Sunil Pai and Kade Olsen My favorite judges (in no particular order)- Steve Pointer, Mike Hester, Adam Symonds and Aimi Hamraie My favorite strategy for pretty much any argument is impact turning. You should probably do what you do best though. I’m very strict about clarity and the highlighting of evidence. If you have an off case arg or advantage that takes less than a minute to read you should probably save it for another critic. Topicality- Explanations of aff and neg ground under your interpretation goes a long way. I’m persuaded more than most by reasonability arguments. DA’s- Defense is underrated. Please highlight enough of your ev to make an actual argument. Remember what I said about impact turning. CP’s- I lean affirmative on most theory questions. K’s- The key to winning these debates, regardless of side, is to talk about the aff. Don’t assume I’ve read the same literature you have so keep the jargon to a minimum. In most K debates I’ve seen there isn’t enough discussion of the alternative for my liking. Framework- I’m one of the sick few that enjoy these arguments. A clear framework for evaluating impacts is a necessity for any argument. Whether you’re down with traditional or non-traditional frameworks you should make these arguments in front of me. I’m not sure I can be offended and I respect boldness. I’m confused by the widespread belief that people somehow have a right to not be offended. Oh and paperless teams- don't give the other team a document with cards you aren't going to read. If you realize you have to skip some cards to cover tell them exactly how many cards you are skipping then take prep (your own) to delete them from their document before the next cx starts. Good luck to all. Any questions please ask. I promise to work hard and I respect you for participating in this intense competition.

Paul Meehan - Eastside Catholic

Ray Carter - Blackfoot High

n/a

Ray Carter - Highland High

Richard Zuercher - Renaissance

Background: CX competitor for Centennial High School (Boise, ID) for 4 years CX competitor for the College of Idaho for 2 years Parli competitor for the College of Idaho for 1 year Asst Coach for the College of Idaho 3 years (Parli, IEs, IPDA) Head Coach for Renaissance High School for 4 years (CX, LD, PF, IEs) Philosophy: I am usually open to most arguments made in the debate and will leave the debaters the responsibility to both justify their own arguments and attack those of their opponents.  Having said that, I evaluate arguments based both on how those arguments appear on the flow AND how those arguments persuade my thinking in the debate round.  For instance, a neg team may drop a conditionality bad argument on the flow, but it may not be a voting issue because there was no demonstrable impact in the round.  Just because the issue is dropped does not make the issue magically convincing - that work must still be done by the debaters.  CX Issues: T is a voting issue unless proven otherwise in the round. SPEC arguments are not a-priori arguments unless proven otherwise in the round. CPs are legit unless proven otherwise in the round.  I think Dispo is the most legit way to run a CP, but not necessarily the case.  There are a variety of reasons to run CPs in a variety of ways.  I don't tend to vote on theory issues unless there is actual in-round abuse.  Ks are legit for aff and neg unless proven otherwise.  I tent to vote on Ks when they are consistent with the neg strategy.  Reading a Statism K while simultaneously running an agent CP seems to defeat the purpose of the criticism and damages your cred.  It doesn't mean that I won't vote for it, it just means that you have to do some extra work justifying your contradiction.  Impact Calc:  I lean on probability before magnitude unless proven otherwise in the round.    LD Issues: I am open to a variety of argumentation and strategy.  I am most used to a value criterion debate, but I would love to see different strategies and theory. Ks are legit unless proven otherwise in the round. Plans are OK unless proven otherwise in the round.   PF Issues: I am open to a variety of argumentation and strategy. I am most used to a straight-up fact round debate, but I would love to see different strategies and theory. Ks and other various arguments are legit unless proven otherwise in the round.   Any other questions, just ask.

Rob Sorensen - Bear Creek

I’m a traditional judge – I consider the value/criteria debate to be most important.  Your contentions should flow naturally from your VC and should be clearly and intentionally related. I’m quite skeptical of theory and kritiks, so if you want to run these, you will need also to argue convincingly as to why I should vote on these sorts of things.  I expect debaters to actually engage the resolution, rather than trying to redefine or avoid the commonsense intention of the resolution.  Don’t try to spread.  I value clarity, fluency, and eloquence and have limited tolerance for speed.  I will not vote for a debater whose case I cannot easily follow and flow.<o:p></o:p>

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

Roberta Rice - Central Valley Hig

Ryan Hand - Mead

Experience: 4 year policy debater at Centennial High School, Boise, ID 1 and 1/2 years of policy debate at Idaho State University Currently debate at Gonzaga University 2-week lab assistant for Lincoln Garrett and Judd Kimball at the GDI Cliff notes version:   <ul> <li>I assisted a lab at the GDI this summer, I'm pretty comfortable with both the literature and arguments that exist on the topic. Last year I judged 75+ topics at tournaments from Whitman to the TOC, I judge a fair amount of debates and try to keep up with the new developments that are happening on the topic</li> <li>I like speed, people who are much, much smarter have told me that speed is not your WPM but your arguments communicated effectively. I flow on my computer and do my very best to get the tag and author of all of the cards you read, I also try to flow warrants of the cards--keep this in mind when extending evidence. I find it less compelling for you to say "extend the Brown 10 evidence" and more compelling when debaters explain the warrants of their evidence and then reference the author, that makes it easier for me to know what you're referring to if I didn't get the name</li> <li>Ideal 2NRs (assuming execution and quality of evidence): A topic critique, DA/CP, topicality, a DA and case, and lastly, a shitty uber-generic critique</li> <li>Affirmatives don't need a 'plan'. They do need an advocacy statement or an interpretation of what it means to "affirm" the resolution. I'm an optimistic person, and I think refusing affirmation is both unfair and does injustice to the potential of debate to create change.</li> <li>Flashing is prep, I time everything and your prep ends when the flash drive is ejected (use email chains when possible, they're faster)</li> <li>Be nice to each other please</li> <li>Framing and impact comparison is the most important aspect of debate, do them and be rewarded.</li> <li>Tech over truth. This may be a reflection of my frustration of what I think the speech doc has done to debate, but I think that being technical and organized is one of the most important skills that debate has to offer.</li> <li>Depth over breadth. I'm less interested in your ability to shallowly engage on a bunch of arguments, and more interested in you showing me that you have a thorough understanding of arguments that you are going for.</li> </ul> Aff: <ul> <li> <ul> <li>A few things I think:I do NOT think the aff MUST have a plan text, I think the aff SHOULD have an advocacy statement, although if an aff doesn't have a plan text or advocacy statement, I will be more easily persuaded by framework arguments from the negative team. The best affirmatives are at least germane to the topic, and are ready to defend their "link" to the topic.</li> <li>No one wants to hear you read your theory blocks at your highest speed</li> <li>I believe that the 2AR can go for impact turns to framework arguments, even in a world where the negative has kicked their framework argument; although this will be an uphill battle, I will vote on it.</li> <li>Politics Disad--I am a sucker for intrinsicness arguments here, and also will reward you if you know things and make arguments on the uniqueness and link level that don't necessarily need cards--i know what's going on in politics, and if you can give a warranted arguments about why what the negative is saying is untrue--I don't think you always need a card.</li> <li>Uniqueness does not control the direction of the link, this is a statement of fact, not opinion.</li> <li>I think that contradictory truth claims are bad, conditions and consult CPs are cheating, and you should go for those arguments when I'm in the back of the room.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> Neg:   <ul> <li> <ul> <li>A negative team that reads 7 off case positions will certainly get lower speaker points than one that reads 4 off case positions</li> <li>I love a good CP/case strategy, i think it rewards good research and strategy. There is a lack of understanding of counterplan theory in debate, and I think that if pressed, the negative ought to be ready to defend the theoretical basis for their counterplan existing in debate.</li> <li>Disads--yes, do them. I think you need to explain your internal link chain, you just do. Debate is an educational activity, and you reading your pre-written extensions of your disad does not show me that you have critically thought about the potential consequences of the aff.</li> <li>There is such thing as no risk of a link.</li> <li>Critiques---the more topic specific, the better. I don't like the generics as much, but I find arguments that fundamentally challenge the assumptions of the affirmative interesting. You need to explain and understand the link arguments, after all, what is your argument if the aff doesn't link? If you want to go for the critique in the 2NR, you need to do a few things--1) explain how the alternative either solves the aff or the impacts of the 1nc 2) Extend impacts, i know it seems obvious, but it's lacking and finally 3) do impact comparison--HINT: if you're not starting your 2NC/2NRs when going for the critique with these words, "the critique outweighs and turns the aff--then explain why" you're probably losing</li> <li>Topicality: I think this is the absolutely best place in debate for debaters to be technical and efficient. You should not group parts of the T debate, you should be highly technical. I default to competing interpretations on questions of framework and topicality, but I do not believe that unwarranted extensions of vague impact claims like "limits" and "education" are enough to get the job done. I've often thought that debates that I watch regarding topicality are often very good on the top level, that is comparing evidence and addressing things like how either team's interpretation impact the standards debate, but they are very bad on the question of the impacts of things like overlimiting and either side not having ground. I do not want to hear your buzzwords in the 2NR like "the aff underlimits, that makes it impossible to debate we win" I would much rather hear you talk about the counterinterpretation and a) what it would justify and why that would be uniquely bad for the negative and b) what the impact to that kind of interpretation of debate is. Put more succinctly, talk about the "terminal" impacts of T as you would a disad (stolen from Paige Spraker). I consistently give the highest speaker points to well executed 2NRs that are great on that question, and if you do that in front of me, you will be rewarded with my pleasure and high points.</li> <li>I call for cards and read them, this often is because both teams are insufficient at evidence comparison and just assert that their evidence is better without warrants or comparisons. If you make detailed evidence comparison in last rebuttals so I don't have to call for cards, I'll be a happy camper.</li> <li>Presumption arguments are tight.</li> </ul> </li> </ul> I'm good with speed, but watch my face. I will tell you to slow down or clear if I can't flow. Tag team is fine, but don't dominate your partners CX. Inflection and speaking style-you NEED to say "next" or "and" between cards, my flows go to hell if people don't do that. I love debaters that are funny. I have started to try to be more expressive when i'm watching debates, because i think that there is a real problem with people not looking at their judge in debate and burying their face on the computer and speech doc. If you do this, I will roll my eyes and sigh until you know what you're doing. Have fun! you can email me if my post-round doesn't compute. <a href="mailto:ryan.hand11@gmail.com" target="_blank">ryan.hand11@gmail.com</a>

Sally Conner - Central Valley Hig

I have judged debate events for about 15 years, most frequently congress, with occasional LD and PF. I enjoy rounds that stay away from excessive jargon and debaters focus on clear communication. I think that the value is important in a LD round, and I think that evidence is important in a round, but that it is an even more important skill to focus on deciding what evidence is important to include in a round, and to explain the relevance of this information. I do not enjoy speed.

Sara Baldwin - Wood River

n/a

Sarah Foster - Westview

This is your round. Do what you want to do in all debates. I will believe anything that you want me to but you have to make me believe it. Sign post well. I NEED to know where you are going so that I don't fall asleep.

Sarah Sherry - Puyallup

Coach since 1996 - started team at Clover Park High School (3 years) (Coach at Puyallup High School since 2000) Competed in high school and college - Policy, LD, Interp Charter Board member of The Women's Debate Institute General - (scale of 1-10) 1=low, 10 high Speed - 7ish - 8 if it's really clear 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 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". 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.

Sarajane Powell - Tahoma High

Satinder Haer - Ferris

n/a

Sean Mulloy - Whitman

I am in my seventh year of debate. I debated three years in high school at Chandler Prep Academy in Arizona and am currently in my fourth year of debate in college debating for Whitman College. General Overview: I am a middle of the road judge, who if willing to listen and vote on anything so long as it is well articulated, defended, and impacted. I have more experience with traditional policy strategies (DA, CP, etc.) in my debate career most recently, but focus more in my academic studies on more critical literature/understandings of the world. Please run whatever arguments you are most comfortable and competent debating. I get frustrated when people run arguments they cannot explain and do not have an adequate understanding of the literature of those arguments. Style: I am fine with speed and generally have a proclivity for technical, efficient, line-by-line debating. I will consider arguments not answered dropped, but it is up to the other team to articulate why that dropped argument matters. For instance, placing blippy voting issues in random places will have little impact on how I vote unless they are given adequate analysis and weight in the round. DAs: Love them - topic specific DAs are the best. That said, I enjoy a good politics DA throw down. Nuanced and specific link stories will be rewarded. Impact analysis is crucial - how does the DA interact with the impacts of the case? CPs: Advantage CPs, smart PICs, and case specific mechanism CPs are great. I have a slight leaning towards the neg on issues of conditionality, unless it is egregious or very well debated. I am very skeptical about the legitimacy of consult CPs and other questionably legitimate/cheating CPs and probably am much more enticed by theoretical objections to these. Ks: Debating for Whitman, people often assume I am hostile to critical argumentation - this is not true. I am very fond of critical approaches that challenge the underlying assumptions and practices of mainstream policy making. Please be sure to clearly explain the argument and how it engages with affirmative - specific links based on the plan are best, recycled generics are fine but require a higher bar of analysis on your part to make them specific. Have a clear interpretation of how debate as an activity should function and what is my role as a judge. Please, please engage directly with the sorts of truth claims that aff is making and explain how I as a judge should view them (are the irrelevant? based on flawed epistemology? are the masking a larger issue at hand? etc). Make sure to utilize your alternative in a way that gives me a clear picture of how it functions and how it remedies the links you isolate. For affs answering Ks: I thoroughly enjoy impact turn debates on the K when possible. Performance/Non-Traditional: I am very open to non-traditional styles of debate, but have little experience debating or judging them. Please articulate how the debate space should function and please directly clash with the arguments that are made against your interpretation. T: Same as above, I view it as a DA. Generally think T debates get boring, but I will obviously vote for them. I usually default to competing interpretations unless reasonability is straight dropped.

Seth Vick - CapitalID

<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "> Tabula Rasa (default to policy maker if you don't put me in another paradigm)</div> <div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "> Speed is fine, slowing down on tags is helpful for flowing</div> <div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "> Theory is fine, I default to competing interpretations unless you argue otherwise</div> <div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "> Kritiks are fine, just be prepared to do the work</div> <div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "> As my paradigm shows, I'm pretty much prepared to handle whatever you want to throw at me. I debated for Capital High School 05-07, and have judged constantly since then. I'm big on impact analysis, if you want me to vote for you then the best way to accomplish that is to give me the whole story about why aff advantages outweigh negative impacts or vice versa. Slow down on tag lines and citations to make sure that I get the complete idea, I don't mind if you buzz through the card as long as you're understandable. Other than that, it's your round.</div>

Steve Isley - Southridge WA

Susan Mohn - Interlake

Susan Worst - Wood River

n/a

Tim Pollard - Gig Harbor

Hi. I’m Tim Pollard. I debated two years of LD at Gig Harbor to moderate success. This is my third season coaching the Gig LD Squad. You may or may not want me to judge you. Here’s why: I think debate is a game where your goal is to get me to write your name in the space on the ballot that says “The better debating was done by ______”.  I will vote on any argument that contains a reason why that argument means you win. Arguments have a claim, a warrant, and a link to the ballot (impact).  This is interpreted by my understanding of your explanation of the argument. If I don’t understand the argument/how it functions, I won’t vote on it. If you have specific questions about your style/argument/anything else, please feel free to ask the round, or just come find me at the tournament. I’d love to talk to you. That’s the short version.  More information that you may or may not care about follows. I’m fine with speed and will say clear as many times as necessary.  Two things of note:  First, if I say “clear”, that means I am unable to flow you.  You might want to back up a few seconds to make sure I get all your stuff.  Second, I’m not the best flower in the world.  PLEASE enunciate author names, standard/advocacy/interp texts and short analytical arguments.  In a similar vein, I flow on a laptop, so I would appreciate if you paused slightly when switching between sheets of paper. I don’t think my ideas about how debate should work should affect your performance in the round.  The round is yours to dictate.  I’ll do whatever you want to evaluate it.  The caveat is that you have to be specific on what that is. This means you should be VERY CAREFUL when saying things like “this argument is excluded because truth testing” or “Use competing interpretations to evaluate the theory debate.” If you don’t explain what you mean by your term, I will be forced to use my understanding of what it means.  THIS WILL POSSIBLY MAKE YOU VERY SAD.  There is a good chance that my views on styles of arguments and what they imply are very different from what you think is obvious.  If your strategy relies on a specific instance of what “competing interpretations”/”perm”/ect implies, that claim should most definitely be in your speech. In contrast to actually deciding who wins/loses, I use speaker points as a subjective evaluation of your debating.  Did I enjoy judging you?  Do I want to see your style/strategic decisions/wonderful hair again?  If so, you’ll get good speaks.  I probably give more 30s than most judges, but also give an unusually high number of 24s.  I’m going to try to keep track of speaks more carefully this year, and will attempt to average 27.5-28.  Since this is all very vague, here’s some tips: How do I get a 30? Do something I haven’t seen before. Be clever. Be polite. Completely wreck in CX. Plz note that aggressive/intimidating != winning Make me laugh. Take risky decisions. Defend bizarre interps. Heavy Framework analysis. Collapse effectively.  OVERVIEWS.  COMPARITIVE WEIGHING. PLEASE>>> Run a confusing/dense position and politely explain it concisely and helpfully in CX. What hurts my speaks? Horribly misunderstand your opponent’s position. Being a dick. Poor organization. Claiming implications of arguments of their label, instead of their function.

Tom Shellum - Whitman

Vanessa Prull - Walla Walla

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.

Will Stark - Ferris

n/a

Wyatt Griffith - Wood River

n/a

Yue (Joy) He - Whitman

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 Maghirang - Puyallup

Background: In the process of helping revive the University of Washington Policy Debate program 3 years debating policy at Puyallup High School 4th in the Washington State tournament two years in a row, along with breaking at the Whitman tournament all three years Overview: I’ll default to policy-making if no framework is presented, but with that being said, I’ve run my fair-share of performance AFFs and the K so I’m prepared to listen to anything. You could say I’m tabula-rasa, but of course everyone has certain ideas about thing. Realize that no matter what position you decide to run, I want it to be clearly developed and in-depth, not just buzzwords and blippy cards. Do what you do best! Things to know: - I can flow your speed as long as you’re clear and I appreciate if you’re organized. - I’ve only judged one tournament on the topic so far, so don’t expect me to know your AFF that’s about some contrived acronym like SGURY. Make reference to what you mean at least once, so I know what you’re talking about. - My facial expressions are usually a good clue to see if I understand what you’re saying. - Tag team is cool just don’t overwhelm the person who’s supposed to be cross-exing - Prep stops when you take the USB drive out of the computer. Let me know if you are having issues. - I enjoy short, concise overviews before your speech. - Most cases I reject the arg, not the team, unless there is a VERY compelling reason. - Be nice. I like nice people. Specific Positions: AFF: - If performance, explain why you’re performance is important and how it relates (or why it doesn’t) to the topic. - Use your evidence from the 1AC, it’s there for a reason. - 2AR should tell me where I should vote and why, and then go on to explain further why they win and respond to the NEG's arguments. NEG: - Very similar to the AFF - 2NR should tell me where I should vote and why, and then go on to explain further why they win - I enjoy impact analysis. - Narrow yourselves down to a few positions by the end of the debate, don’t spread yourselves thin and go for too many positions in the end. - Condo’s cool within reason. 5 CPs, and 3 Ks is probably abusive.   Topicality: - Fun fact: I was awarded “Topicality Whiz” at the Whitman Debate camp. - THIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT I WILL AUTOMATICALLY VOTE ON T, if fact, I probably have a pretty high standard here. - Explain why your standards are better than theirs and how they improve debate. AFF, respond in the same way. - Make sure you explain why I am voting for fairness and the real-world impact it brings, not just “T is a voter for Education and Fairness” - I can be convinced to look at T from both competing interpretations and reasonability, though I’ll probably default to reasonability if there’s no argument for competing interps. DAs: - Impact comparison - Links are necessary - Yeah, they’re cool. CPs: - Explain the Net Benefit! - I’d prefer it if discussions of textual vs. functional competition weren’t brought up - However, theory against Consult, Process, and Conditions CPs is very welcome Kritiks: - Clearly explain all parts of your K, but especially explain how the K links to the AFF, and how your alt solves. - Don’t group perms, each should be answered specifically. Watch out for the “Perm: do the plan then the alt in all other instances.” - I like overviews explaining the K, but more than 1-3 minutes and it’s getting excessive. All in all, I’ll evaluate the round to the best of my ability! I know that I can be a bit unclear or confusing, so if you have any paradigm questions, or questions about my decision, please ask before and/or after round. You’re welcome to email me at Zmaghirang52@gmail.com as well!

Zachary Borman - Rocky HS

n/a

Zoe Pollard - Gig Harbor

Hi there, I'm Zoee Pollard and I debated for Gig Harbor for 3 years. I enjoy framework heavy debate but will vote on any argument as long as it is warranted and  clearly explained and extended. Voters are always a good idea. Creativity is a nice breath of fresh air from your boring standard stock cases.  You're the debater, as long as you are speaking intelligibly, there shouldn’t be a problem with what you run. I'm a bit rusty on speed so please try to be clear and try to stay under 300.  Specific arguments: Please run things that you understand and can make others understand. If you can, be funny but please don't be rude. If you're crazy unclear I will stop flowing. And that's what I got.

Zoe Ambrose - CapitalID

n/a

2013 WHITMAN Wilcox HS Tournament