FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Carver - AVI

n/a

Alex Kim - BC ACADEMY

Debate Philosophy Approach to Debate: Holistically speaking, I believe the purpose for debate is to ultimately reach a conclusion. Whether resolutions pertain to future actions, present actions, or past actions, I believe debates are to discuss the merits of such actions. Accordingly, I believe the role of debaters are to act as tools to aid the judge or judges into reaching a logical conclusion about the resolution. The best approach to assist the judge/judges is to be clear, concise,  and deliberate. Framework/Structure:  The purpose of frameworks is to clearly structure the case of both sides. Therefore, frameworks and case structures should be very clear and even blunt. By the end of presenting the framework judges should be able to understand exactly how your side of the debate plans to argue. Arguments and Evidence: In general I have 2 criteria for a successful argument. 1. The actual purpose of the argument and 2. The logical analysis proving the argument. First and foremost, I weigh the impacts and significance of arguments. Arguments should be focused into proving a single burden on your side of the case and should always be relevant to the spirit of the debate (what the debate is actually about). Secondly, I value the actual logical analysis of the argument. Arguments should have clear concise logical explanations even if there is evidence supporting the argument. In general, I value the strength of an argument based on the merit of the argument and analysis of the argument. Evidence used to support an argument is extremely good, however evidence alone is not an argument. Pieces of evidence must not simply be regurgitated, instead must be analyzed and incorporated in the logical mechanism of your argument. Style/Rhetoric: In so far as you are clear, concise, and deliberate you are fine. Evaluation: In general I evaluate debates on a few key points that have the most significance in the round and resolution. I examine the answers as well as the responses of both sides for these points and weigh their arguments. Essentially, whichever side is able to provide a more realistic or desirable (through analysis and evidence) outcome from the resolution wins the debate in my opinion. At the end of each round I am more than happy to give both individual and team feedback. However, I prefer not to disclose results unless directed.

Alice Hsu - Interlake

Alice Lundt - Tahoma High

Alisa Liu - Interlake

Amanda Bideman - Eastlake HS

n/a

Amy McCormick - Tahoma High

Amy Qin - Interlake

Anastasiya Sernetskaya - Kamiak

n/a

Ann Ewel - Overlake

n/a

Ashlynn Johnson - Snohomish

n/a

Brent DeCracker - Cedar Park

n/a

Brenton Bennett - Ingraham

Brian Huynh - AVI

n/a

Carla Bauman - Seattle Academy

n/a

Corey McCartney - Woodinville

n/a

Daniela Hodeg - Kamiak

n/a

David Jung - BC ACADEMY

n/a

David Newman - EWHS

n/a

Elizabeth Young - Garfield

Emily Feder - Seattle Academy

n/a

Emily Hall - Interlake

Emma Williams - Kamiak

n/a

Grace Barnes - Tahoma High

Harry Youngnam Kim - BC ACADEMY

Heather Helman - GPHS

n/a

Heather Beaver - THS

Ian Griswold - Seattle Academy

n/a

Jabari Barton - Tahoma High

Hallo, I did LD for the last 4 years so I am capable of understanding progressive arguments. What I really want you to do is to explain things very, very well to me because even if you completely win the argument and I don't understand it, then I can't evaluate it. So that burden is on you. My face often tells you what I think about the argument (nodding, smiling, quesetioning look etc.) so it is beneficial to look at me every now and again. If you win the framework (especially the standard) then you have a significantly higher chance of winning the round. Make clear extensions and please for the love of god impact back to whatever standard we are looking to in the round. As for speed, I can handle fairly fast speed but once it goes over the top then it will be significantly more difficult for me to get the arguments down. So it's probably beneficial for you to not go top speed in front of me. Lastly, have fun and stuff ^_^

Janelle Williams - Chehalis

n/a

Jason Young - Garfield

Experience/Background: I debated policy for 4 years in high school (Centerville High School, OH), I did not debate in college. I started a policy team at Garfield High School, WA in 2014, and have been coaching them since then. As a debater I pursued a mix of policy and critical arguments, so I'm familiar and comfortable with a wide range of arguments. I am currently in a PhD program that is very much oriented toward critical theory, so my knowledge base for kritiks is reasonably extensive. I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual male that was educated and socialized within a Western context, which has likely produced certain subtle biases in terms of my epistemological view of the world. Judging Framework: I believe that a debate should be about the debaters, not about me. I will therefore do my best to decide the round based on arguments made by the debaters, rather than based on my own beliefs. Be clear about how you think I should be judging, and there shouldn't be any big surprises. Biases: Unless I am convinced to do something different, I will generally do/believe the following: -I will flow the round, and will give weight to arguments that are not answered by the opposing team. -I will protect the negative team from new arguments in the 2AR. This means that if I cannot connect an argument in the 2AR back to the 1AR, then I will likely give that argument less, or no, weight. -In general, I do not believe that completely new arguments should be made in the rebuttals. I also think that it is difficult for the negative to introduce completely new off-case positions in the 2NC and then develop them completely. This isn't to say that the 2NC shouldn't be allowed to introduce new off-case positions... I just think that the negative has to do a lot of work to convincingly develop such arguments to the point where I will vote for them. -I will vote for one team or the other. -I am pretty skeptical of the open source movement that seems to have devoured the activity. While I see some benefits to open source wikis, etc., I am not certain that coaches and competitors have fully considered some of the ways in which open knowledge supports certain facets of neoliberal logic, and ultimately widens inequalities (despite rhetoric to the contrary). As the coach of a new team, I find it ironic that I most often and most loudly hear open source ethics being pushed by individuals from large, well-established, and well-resourced teams. While I suppose it is nice for our team to know what arguments other teams are running, we literally do not have the research power to prep for them or the network to get necessary evidence from others... particularly when compared with the large schools. All of this is to say that I don't find 'non-disclosure' or 'you should lose because you don't participate in the wiki' theory arguments to be particularly persuasive. Speaking: Be clear! One pet peeve, especially at local tournaments in Washington: I really dislike it when debaters are only clear on tags. I'm listening to all of your evidence, not just the tag... so make sure I can hear everything! If I can't hear the evidence, then your tag was just an analytical assertion. Finally, please feel free to ask me questions before the round! I'm happy to answer specific questions about my paradigm.

Jennifer Schiffler - Interlake

Jessica Jiang - Interlake

Joel Underwood - Seattle Academy

n/a

John Doty - AVI

n/a

Joseph Hyink - PCCS

n/a

Julie Johnson - Tahoma High

Jyoti Bawa - Eastlake HS

Karen Rossman - Redmond

Kevin Ma - BC ACADEMY

n/a

Kimberly Hartman - Mt Si

Kristen Barta - Ingraham

Laurie Stusser-McNeil - Seattle Academy

n/a

Linan Tong - Interlake

Linda Gong - Interlake

Lisa Weber - Newport

Maggie Yeh - Newport

n/a

Margeaux Lippman Hoskins - Ingraham

Don't ask me what my "paradigm" is - few things annoy me more than that question. It makes it seem like what the judge *wants* is somehow more important than what the debaters should get out of the round. That's not how I roll. Make your arguments, give them warrants, explain them well.  If you have specific questions, I'll be more than happy to answer. Two caveats: 1) Racist, homophobic, sexist language (and their ilk) = automatic 20 on your speaks. 2) Don't be a jerk.

Maureen Newman - EWHS

n/a

McKenna Mains - Ingraham

Merrily Foreman - Redmond

Michelle Glasser - Seattle Academy

n/a

Mike Finkle - Seattle Academy

n/a

Mike Fitzgerald - Kamiak

n/a

Natalia Munoz - Kamiak

n/a

Nicolas Wong - Eastlake HS

n/a

Olimpia Diaz - AVI

n/a

Paul Rossman - Redmond

Rebecca Medrano - Newport

n/a

Rebecca Petrone - Ingraham

Regina King - THS

Robin Shapiro - Seattle Academy

n/a

Ruth Etzioni - Seattle Academy

n/a

Scott Hess - THS

I expect students to have a well-documented case.  Tell me your sources.  I want strong authority, recent data, and compelling reasoning.  Presenting your own case, however, is only part of the game.  Rebuttal of your opponents' case should show strong preparation and arguments supported by equally strong evidence.  Finally, good arguments don't occur without clear speaking skills.  All speeches must be understandable, flowable, and articulate with good road mapping and impacts.

Seetal Sandhu - Kamiak

n/a

Shirley Lim - Newport

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>

2014 3rd Annual Grizzlies Forensics Invitational