Judge Philosophies
Abigail Bucklin - ERHS
n/a
Amy McCormick - Tahoma High
Bill Hollands - Hazen
n/a
Chariedel Davatos - Hazen
n/a
Daanish Khazi - Jefferson
n/a
Isaiah Parker - Jefferson
n/a
John Mercer - Tahoma High
Julie Johnson - Tahoma High
Kaelyn East - Gig Harbor
<p>My name is Kaelyn and I did LD for 3 years in high school and have been judging and coaching for past 5 years. </p> <p> </p> <p>I will look at the round based first by the framework (value and criterion) that is set by the affirmative. The affirmative should be using this value and criterion as a way to prove that the resolution is true and support this with evidence. The negative must then either provide a counter framework to prove why the resolution is not true, or prove why the resolution is not true under the affirmative's framework. If the affirmative cannot prove the resolution to be true or the negative provides more persuasive evidence against the resolution then I will negate. I am open to other ways to weigh the round if both debaters agree on this during the round.</p> <p> </p> <p>Other aspects to keep in mind:</p> <p> </p> <p>I am basically going to be deciding who wins the round by looking at the key framework in the round (whichever is established as the most supported framework in the round) and looking at my flow to see which side has the most arguments on the flow that support that framework. </p> <p> </p> <p>I am in general looking to see the big picture at the end of the debate, I do not want to decide the round based on details of definitions or small semantics. I prefer have bigger impacts linked back to the framework. </p> <p>Delivery: I am fine with speed but like tags and important information to be read slower. I will say clear if I can't understand the speed. </p> <p>I do have a basic understanding of some policy arguments like topicality, theory, DAs, Ks. However, I do not find it to be the most persuasive way to win a round. I generally find most such arguments to be distracting from the focus and not well supported. They are not the most persuasive way to win a round in my opinion, but I will look at them if they are clearly explained and well supported. </p> <p>Overall, I am looking for clarity,</p>
Lois Gorne - Federal Way
n/a
Mark Smith - Hazen
n/a
Mary-Kaye Soderlind - Jefferson
n/a
Nicole hagestad - Federal Way
n/a
Paul Sealey - Federal Way
n/a