FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Adrick Moore - Lake City

n/a

Aidan Burgeson - CDA

n/a

Alex Hoffmann - Mt Spokane

n/a

Alexis Kostun - CDA

n/a

Ann Nesbitt - TEC

n/a

AnnMarie Stephens - TEC

n/a

Arienne Baker - Lake City

n/a

Ashley Alexandrovich - CDA

n/a

Beverly Corradini - TEC

n/a

Bill Wagstaff - Mead

Bill Bailey - NC HS

n/a

Brad Read - LC Tigers

n/a

Brian Higgins - Wenatchee

n/a

Carter Bastian - Mt Spokane

n/a

Cindy Roth - Charter

n/a

Danielle Dunbrosky - U-High

n/a

Dave Carlson - Wenatchee

n/a

David Smith - U-High

n/a

Denise Lambert - LC Tigers

n/a

Dillon Johnson - CDA

n/a

Ellen Ohara - LC Tigers

n/a

Evan Carlsson - Mead

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.

Holly Thorpe - Wenatchee

n/a

Jackson Eubanks - Lake City

n/a

Jenn Dempsey - Central Valley Hig

~~Background: I competed in debate all four years of high school - primarily in LD, but also competed in Public Forum and Congress. Since graduating I have judged primarily in Eastern Washington.   To me, the most educational aspects of debate include exposure to multiple subject areas and the ability to clearly articulate well-reasoned arguments. I like v/vc debate and want your case to clearly link to those. Real world evidence and practical application goes a long way for me, but I also appreciate the philosophical side of LD. Although I can handle speed, I expect that you can utilize tone, speed, and inflection to provide clarity. I care far more about quality of evidence and reasoning than sheer volume of cards. Also, please give impacts rather than merely pointing out drops and give me clear and compelling voters.   A certain level of civility and professionalism are preferred. If you are especially hostile in round I will drop your speaks.

Jenna Bauer - CDA

n/a

Jessica Brock - CDA

n/a

JoAnn Flaherty - LC Tigers

n/a

Joe Engel - Gonzaga Prep

n/a

Jonanthan Moore - LC Tigers

n/a

Jordon Newton - Lake City

n/a

Kris Morehouse - LC Tigers

n/a

Kyle Sessions - Central Valley Hig

~~I debated LD for 4 years at Central Valley High School in Spokane Valley, WA.  I competed in a more “traditional style” fairly successfully on the local scene and also played my hand in the “progressive style” around the country my senior year. I attended NSD in 2012 and competed at College Prep, St. Marks, UPS (4x), Whitman (4x), Berkeley, Alta and several other major tournaments.  As of now, I debate Worlds Parli at Carroll College in Montana. I don’t coach or judge high school on a regular basis-so I might need a few rounds to get back into the groove. Speed 7/10 (10 being quality TOC speed) If I need you to slow down or speak up I will yell clear or loud. Depending on how many times I have to say it, speaks will reflect. I flow on pen and paper and use multiple sheets for different positions and offs. I typically do not miss things, unless your not sign posting, in which case that’s on you. I am TAB and hate judge intervention, so I will vote wherever I am told to vote provided the best justifications in round. I do have some preferences and defaults: I tend to err AFF on presumption and I don’t like skep. AFF gets plans unless you win that they shouldn’t. At the end of the round I will weigh all substance through the criterion/standard, and in the manner that the debaters tell me I should. It is typical that debaters assume the nature of a priori arguments, and I don’t. I would prefer if you want to run Ks or T you let me know why they have to come first.  About theory. Make sure you tell me how the violation happened, and then why the voter is violated as well. Then why the voter(s) grants you the win, either for some in round or out of round reason. Meta-theory and the like is fine, but if you want to me evaluate the debate between multiple shells you should do the weighing for me.  I default reasonability (mostly because I was a lone wolf and didn’t have 1,300 shells prepared with sexy, bullet proof interps.) I give RVI to both sides unless one side says “only ___ gets RVI” and then has justifications. Theory is usually drop the debater unless you tell me it’s only drop the arg, because if it doesn’t lose one person the round, then why did you waste our time with it? Presentation and Speaker Points- 27 is average.  1) If you are rude or aggressive during CX, you will lose points. Similarly if  you use it for argumentative purposes you are awarded points.  2) Standing is probably going to result in a better speech, but I don’t require  it.  3) Power tags and blippy framework interps will lose you points, and  similarly for not slowing on tags and authors.  4) Flex prep is okay.  5) Don’t use overly aggressive or vulgar language.

Kyle Jackson - CDA

n/a

Laryssa Lynch - Mt Spokane

n/a

Laura Read - LC Tigers

n/a

Lori Patrick - LBHS

n/a

Madison Garner - Mt Spokane

n/a

Margot Cioccio - TEC

n/a

Marissa Florio - U-High

n/a

Marty McCormick - Charter

n/a

Matt Campbell - Ferris

n/a

Michelle Reese - Wenatchee

n/a

Mike Page - TEC

n/a

Millayna Klingback - Mt Spokane

n/a

Mimi Price - CDA

n/a

Mitsu Gunsolas - U-High

n/a

Nathan Medeiros - Wenatchee

n/a

Nichole Clegern - Central Valley Hig

Nick Kuisti - Lake City

n/a

Paige Spraker - Gonzaga Prep

n/a

Peter Cossette - Gonzaga Prep

n/a

Phletha Wynn - U-High

n/a

Rachel Rice - CDA

n/a

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>

Sadie Comer - Lake City

n/a

Sam Normington - U-High

n/a

Sarah Sandford - Lake City

n/a

Scott Odell - Charter

n/a

Shaun Stein - Charter

n/a

Steve Otten - Gonzaga Prep

n/a

Steve Pointer - Saint George

n/a

Susanne Alexander - LBHS

n/a

Suzanne Harris - Charter

n/a

Taylor Stewart - CDA

n/a

Torr Bonney - Charter

n/a

2013 CDA Challenge