FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Coblentz - AVI

n/a

Readey - AVI

n/a

Judge 1 - Kingston

Alden Sawicky - Gig Harbor

n/a

Alexa Kingsley - Lindbergh

n/a

Ali Raphael - Mt Si

n/a

Amy Michael - TBHS

n/a

Amy McCormick - Tahoma High

Andrea Dunnavant - Lakes

n/a

Andrew Chadwell - Gig Harbor

Andrew Buchan - Jefferson

n/a

Ashely Riedinger - ARHS

n/a

Austin Vaarvik - Gig Harbor

Ben Cushman - Capital HS

n/a

Ben Mattson - Gig Harbor

Bev Kazmi - Snohomish

n/a

Bill Messing - Bridge

Bill Hollands - Hazen

n/a

Bill Nicolay - Snohomish

n/a

Brent DeCracker - Cedar Park

n/a

Brian Coyle - Kingston

Cameron McMillan - Peninsula

Carmen Gale - Kingston

Caroline Wright - Puyallup

Cesar Bernal - NKHS

n/a

Chalen Kelly - CKHS

n/a

Chris Kassler - CKHS

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.

Corey McCool - Annie Wright

n/a

Dan Adams - Capital HS

n/a

Dan Teimouri - Newport

Tabula Rosa, will judge on most any issue so long as it is presented fairly and persuasivley. Come from an LD background, but comfortable with speed and policy arguments. Prefer that debaters empahsize the standard/framework debate.

Daniel Brokaw - Peninsula

David Cline - Redmond

David Hancock - Puyallup

Diana Stalter - Seattle Academy

n/a

Donna Bowler - ARHS

n/a

Donna Moneymaker - Trojans

n/a

Dylan Lasher - Kentlake

n/a

Eileen Sheats - Federal Way

n/a

Frankie Orrico - Newport

Frazier Williams - Annie Wright

n/a

Freya Jamison - Capital HS

n/a

Garrett Shiroma - AVI

n/a

Georgia Pearsons - VHS

n/a

Glenda Braun - Trojans

n/a

Guoguang Zhang - BHS

n/a

Hayden Lasher - Kentlake

n/a

Isaiah Parker - Jefferson

n/a

Jamie Chevalier - VHS

n/a

Jamis Barcott - Interlake

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.

Jason Woehler - Federal Way

n/a

Jay Howard - VHS

n/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>

Jennifer Halvorson - Oly

n/a

Jennifer Brennan - Gig Harbor

n/a

Jennifer Williams - Kamiak

n/a

Jeremy Knight - Mt Si

Jim Anderson - Capital HS

n/a

Jim Scott - Capital HS

n/a

Jim Dorsey - VHS

Joel Underwood - Seattle Academy

n/a

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 Sterbick - MRLH

n/a

John Julian Sr - Shorewood

n/a

John Doty - AVI

n/a

John Brislin - Kingston

Jon Guttormsen - Curtis

n/a

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.

Joseph Hyink - PCCS

n/a

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.

Justin Choi - Federal Way

n/a

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,

Karan Singh - AVI

n/a

Katherine Horelick - Lindbergh

n/a

Katie Bergus - Gig Harbor

Years Coaching LD: 4 years WNDI lab leader Years Competing in LD: 3 Coach or Compete in LD in the Northwest? Yes Coach or Compete on the LD National Circuit? Yes Involved in Other Events? CEDA policy - 3 years, NPDA parli - 4 years   How I decide LD Debates: I look to the framework established for the debate and weigh impacts through the winning framework. If you want to debate the value and criterion, do it and make sure that you explain how your offense filters through this structure. If you want to read a plan or if you want to read a CP and some disads, do it and make sure you have tangible impacts in a net benefits framework. If you want to have a procedural debate, do it but don't think that you reading a theory argument means that you automatically win the debate--you still have to win your arg.    Unique Views on LD Arguments: Although I find the switch to more include more policy-style args in LD to be educational, due to the nature of LD resolutions, I think that adopting policy args isn't always incredibly intuitive. For you, this means that I will be incrementally more susceptible to arguments like "the 1ac doesn't pass a plan, so we don't cause the change that would be necessary to trigger the link the disad," etc. Rest assured: I'll still vote for you if you win your argument.   Presentational Preferences? Speed is not a problem for me.    Other Info: I think that you should debate the args that you are most comfortable with. I prefer progressive debate but I do not think that you should sacrifice your strengths to appeal to my interests. Feel free to ask specific questions before the debate.

Katy Smoot - Sammamish

n/a

Kaulana Smith - Annie Wright

n/a

Kaveh Dilmaghani - Tahoma High

Kayla Neal - Kentlake

n/a

Kayle Klinefelter - Snohomish

n/a

Kelli Meeker - ARHS

n/a

Kenn Amy - Puyallup

n/a

Kevin Coryell - Snohomish

n/a

Kirill Volkov - Jefferson

n/a

Lasica Crane - Kingston

I am the head coach at Kingston High School and have been involved with the program since 2007. In judging LD: I hate speed when it affects your ability to speak clearly. I want to hear what you are claiming and I like to be able to understand and assess what your arguments are. I love philosophy so I don't mind hearing interesting philosophical arguments. I don't hate theory, although I would rather hear you discuss the actual resolution unless there is a compelling reason to run a theory shell. I'm pretty flexible really. Speed is my main annoyance. I like some clash. I pay attention to how you speak. Avoid using filler words.

Laurie Maltman - Bridge

Lexi Benjamin - Kingston

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

Linda Kraus - CKHS

n/a

Linda Youngchild - Peninsula

Lisa Weber - Newport

Lisanne Bannister - Curtis

n/a

Lizzy Lee - ARHS

n/a

Lois Gorne - Federal Way

n/a

Lori Blewett - Capital HS

n/a

Lori Marshall - Eastside Catholic

n/a

Lydia Petroske - Mt Si

n/a

Lynda Miller - Oly

n/a

Maddy Foreman - Puyallup

Mady Lyon - Puyallup

Mark Davis - ARHS

n/a

Mary-Kaye Soderlind - Jefferson

n/a

Matthew Wu - Newport

n/a

Meykia Smith - Renton HS

n/a

Michael King - Renton HS

n/a

Mike Halperin - Seattle Academy

n/a

Mike Reilly - BHS

n/a

Morgia Belcher - Gig Harbor

Mrs. Lowney - NKHS

n/a

Mrs. Peyton Jones - Jefferson

n/a

Muthu Ganesh - Oly

n/a

Nathan Lemanski - AMHS

Neil Kazmi - Snohomish

n/a

Nic Ragland - Kingston

Nick Mauer - ARHS

n/a

Nick Samuelson - Puyallup

n/a

Olimpia Diaz - AVI

n/a

Peter Lukevich - Bishop Blanchet

n/a

Peter Fowler - Kentlake

n/a

Piper Ragland - Kingston

Rainboe Sims-Jones - Capital HS

n/a

Rian Chandra - Capital HS

n/a

Richard Lund - Redmond

Ruben Aguilar - Kentlake

n/a

Sandy Howard - Hazen

n/a

Sara Hopkins - AMHS

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

Scott Kazmi - Snohomish

n/a

Scott Mercer - Tahoma High

Shannon Luckman - Puyallup

Shelly Darst - Anacortes HS

n/a

Sheri Ahlheim - Peninsula

Sieg Johnson - MRLH

n/a

Siri Bliesner - Redmond

Skip Hawley - NKHS

n/a

Stan Sidor - Jefferson

n/a

Stephanie Harris - Puyallup

Stephen Thornsberry - Redmond

The following is roughly taken from the NFL LD judging guidelines. <ol> <li>Communication should emphasize clarity. Accordingly, I will only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that is clear and understandable. Throughout the debate, the competitors should display civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.</li> <li>Remember that the resolution is one of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be rather than what is. This value is prized for being the highest goal that can be achieved within the context of the resolution.</li> <li>The better debater is the one who proves their side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.</li> <li>Logos and ethos are equally considered. It should be noted that ethos is quite often ignored in LD. I don't ignore ethos and will often vote for the debater who expresses better confidence in delivery.</li> <li>There must be clash concerning the framework and contentions. Cross-examination should clarify, challenge, or advance arguments.</li> <li>Any case reliant on much theory will need to carefully define key terms. Common terms like "self" and "other" will need to be defined if they are used in a manner that is not part of common usage.</li> </ol>

Susan Mohn - Interlake

Terry Jess - BHS

n/a

Theresa VanHollebeke Holt - Bishop Blanchet

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 Wiley - Kingston

I majored in philosophy & math in college. I have 5 years experience judging LD/PuFo & Congress. When it comes to a judging paradigm, I follow my heart.

Trea Reilly - BHS

n/a

Valerie Davis - Oly

n/a

Zach Tschida - Gig Harbor

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!

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.

2013 Auburn Riverside Invitational