FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

zz-bye

n/a

Abhilasha Bhola - Annie Wright

n/a

Adam Bernbaum - Central Valley Hig

As a high school student I spent four years debating, primarily participating in LD and Policy.  I'm receptive to critical argumentation in both forms of debate and am usually comfortable with speed.  I'm very flow oriented and do not usually find emotional appeals compelling.

Adriana Flores - SWHS

n/a

Adriana Flores - Woolley 2

n/a

Alex Ong - Federal Way

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 Huang - Kamiak

n/a

Alicia Jekel - PCCS

n/a

Amanda Sie - Newport

n/a

Amber Strehle - Snohomish

n/a

Amy Handlan - Gig Harbor

Amy Massey - Cascade

n/a

Amy Brindley-Wilson - Rogers

n/a

Amy McCormick - Tahoma High

Andrew Chadwell - Gig Harbor

Andrew Buchan - Jefferson

n/a

Anna Pisac - Snohomish

n/a

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.

Aram Ambartsumyan - Ferris

n/a

Ben Cushman - Capital HS

n/a

Bill Hollands - Hazen

n/a

Bill Nicolay - Snohomish

n/a

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.

Brent DeCracker - Cedar Park

n/a

Brian Coyle - Kingston

C. Steve Rowe - Interlake

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.

Carly Woo - Holy Names

n/a

Carrie Walker - Kamiak

n/a

Chalen Kelly - CKHS

n/a

Charles Schletzbaum - MHS

Co-Director: Milpitas High Speech and Debate PHYSICS TEACHER History Myers Park, Charlotte N.C. (85-88) 3 years Policy, LD and Congress. Double Ruby (back when it was harder to get) and TOC competitor in LD. Summer 87: American U Institute. 2 weeks LD and congress under Dale Mccall and Harold Keller, and 2 more weeks in a mid level Policy lab. St. Johns Xavierian, Shrewsbury, Mass 88~93 consultant, judge and chaperone Summer 89 American U Coaches institute (Debate) Milpitas High, Milpitas CA 09-present co-coach Part of what you should know about any of the events <a href="https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf">https://www.nflonline.org/uploads/AboutNFL/Competition_Events_Guide.pdf</a>   <h1><a name="It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you."></a>It is a mark of the competitors skill to adapt to the judge, not demand that they should adapt to you.</h1> All events, do not get into a definitional fight without being armed with a definition..... PUBLIC FORUM: While I was not able to compete in public forum (It did not exist yet), the squad I coach does primarily POFO. Its unlikely that any resolution will call for a real plan as POFO tends to be propositions of fact instead of value or policy. I am UNLIKELY to vote for a K, as I have seen a bizarre one once, and I don't even vote for K in policy. Moderate speed is fine, but to my knowledge, this format was meant to be more persuasive. USE EVIDENCE and make sure you have Tags and Cites. I want a neat flow (it will never happen, but I still want it) I WANT FRAMEWORK or I will adjudicate the round, since you didn't. Remember, Pofo was there to counteract speed in Circuit LD, and LD was created to counter speed, so fast is ok, but tier 3 policy spread is probably not. POLICY: I *TRY* to be Tabula Rasa (and fail a lot of the time) I trained when it was stock issues, mandatory funding plan spikes (My god, the amount of times I abused the grace commission in my funding plank), and who won the most nuclear wars in the round. I ran Glassification of toxic/nuclear wastes, and Chloramines on the H2O topic Legalize pot on the Ag topic CTBT on the Latin america topic. In 3 years I have never voted neg on K, mainly because I have never seen an impact (even when it was run in POFO as an Aff).(Ironic given my LD background) I will freely vote on T if it is run properly (but not always XT), and have no problem buying jurisdiction...... I HAVE finally gotten to judge Hypo-testing round (it was fun and hilarious). One of my students heard from a friend in Texas that they are now doing skits, feel free, BUT DON'T EXPECT ME TO VOTE FOR IT. I will vote on good perms both ways (see what I said above about XT) SPREAD: I was a tier B- speed person in the south. I can flow A level spread *IF* you enunciate. slow down momentarily on CITES and TAGS and blow through the card (BUT I WILL RE TAG YOUR SUBPOINTS if your card does not match the tag!!!!!!) If you have any slurred speech, have a high pitched voice, a deep southern or NY/Jersey drawl, or just are incapable of enunciating, I will quit flowing and make stuff up based on what I think I hear. I do not ask for ev unless there is an evidentiary challenge, so if you claim the card said something and I tagged it differently because YOU slurred too much on the card or mis-tagged it, that's your fault, not mine. LD- I LOVE PHILOSOPHY so if you want to confuse your opponent who doesn't know the difference between Kant, Maslow and Rawls, dazzle away :-). Clear VP and VC (or if you call it framework fine, but it is stupid to tell someone with a framework they don't have a VC and vice versa, its all sematics) are important but MORE IMPORTANT is WHY IS YOURS BETTER *OR* WHY DO YOU MEET THEIRS TOO and better (Permute) IF YOU TRY TO Tier A policy spread, or solo policy debate, you have probably already lost UNLESS your opponent is a novice. Not because I can't follow you, but because THIS EVENT IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT!!! However there are several people who can talk CLEARLY and FAST that can easily dominate LD, If you cannot be CLEAR and FAST play it safe and be CLEAR and SLOW..... Sub-pointing is still a good idea, do not just do broad overviews. plans and counterplans need not apply as LD is usually revolving around the word OUGHT!!!! Good luck claiming Implementation FIAT on a moral obligation. I might interrupt if you need to be louder, but its YOUR job to occasionally look at the judge to see signals to whether or not they are flowing, so I will not be signalling that, I will just be making up new tags for the cards I missed tags for by actually listening to the cards, and as the average debater mis-tags cards to say what they want them to, this is not advisable. I repeat, Speed = Bad in LD, and I will not entertain a counter-plan in LD If you want to argue Counterplans and Plans, get a partner and go to a policy tournament. GOOD LUCK and dangit, MAKE *ME* HAVE FUN hahahahahah

Chick Martin - EHS

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.

Chris Bentley - Brentwood

n/a

Christopher McCool - Mercer Island

Policy Paradigm: I evaluate a round based on who wins the framework debate in round. If neither team agrees on a framework I should evaluate, then there should be a debate about whose framework is better and why. Absent this debate I default to an offense defense paradigm. From there, in-round issues (discourse, cheating gripes, etc), gateway issues, then substance. That is, of course, unless there is a debate about the order of in which I should evaluate in the round. I am predisposed towards an Aff side bias but have been voting Neg the majority of rounds over the past 2 years. This has more to do with kids running bad camp affs and not putting in the required work. It's actually been about 2 years since I've seen a non-camp cut aff. I am not predisposed against any particular type of argument, inherency, disads, k's, etc.  I prefer specific links or at least a good story about how your particular disad/kritik/theory argument links to the affirmative. Of course, that doesn't mean I'll not look at a complete set of generics. I just think that you make it a bit more of an uphill battle for yourself if you do. I also love solid case debate. I think it's a lost art.  I hate sloppy and blippy theory throw-downs and get particularly annoyed by theory debates that are never actually contextualized to the round. If this happens I'm not likely to vote for your Condo Bad block, even if you win it. Theory debates don't exist in a vacuum away from the rest of the debate. This is another way to lose speaker points with me. I'd say I'm a 7 of 10 on speed, these days. Open CX is fine. "Extinction" is not a tagline, nor is it an argument. I will likely not like your Aff or Disad if your tags are one line. I flow cards but it is not my job to decipher your argument, warrants and analysis and I won't do it. "Extinction" and then "extend the extinction impact" get zero weight with me. Do not be a jerk in round. I won't drop you for it but I will tank your speaks, which in WA, means not breaking 95% of the time on speaker points.  I like strategy and tactics to be employed throughout the debate more than just standing up and throwing a bunch of arguments out there. This entails how you work together as a team, how your arguments work together, time allocation, prep time allocation, etc. This means I like K's that have some subtlety and finesse and good PIC/disad/solvency debates most.   LD Paradigm: See policy paradigm. Most LDers haven't reduced themselves to some of the things I dislike about policy debate, yet, but I've seen it creeping in a bit (like bad tag lines in plan based LD rounds). If you are borrowing policy theory for your round, you better know what you're talking about because it'll probably annoy me.   Absent a plan/policy based LD round, I look at the Aff/Neg flows in an offense/defense paradigm.

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!

Corey McCool - Annie Wright

n/a

Danielle Troup - Ferris

n/a

Dante Miguel - Kingston

I am a former debater and current student of philosophy, political science & economics. LD: Don't speed. Be courteous. Your arguments win the round, not you, and it seems that "I win because Hobbs..." is a far too personal statement. I am not here to bask in your glory. Use the same idea, just feel free to rephrase. "Hobbsian logic trumps 1 AFF because..." is a much better phrasing. However, whatever case you are running should be your own; I consider it plagiarism to share entire cases. I don't care who wrote it first, if I hear a regurgitation speech in finals, you're going last in round. You might score points on CX, but I won't count any of your case. Use real definitions, not made up ones-and hold on to them as your foundation. I'm familiar with most philosophical concepts, so you don't have to stick with only utility. In fact I'd prefer if you don't. Multi strategies utility only goes so far between aff and neg. But if you run Kantian ethics or others, I expect more to prove you know it, make it clear, and be careful of the caveats. Running alternative philosophy is about relevant moral debate, not confusing the other person. If they can prove that you didn't make it clear, you will have to clarify before winning any points. Clarity, clarity, clarity....if you can say "let me be clear" in a mock Obama tone and a straight face, you've won.   Congress: Parliamentary procedures are big...if you don't know them I suggest you brush up because you'll be losing points. I can't keep myself impartial if you aren't going to be taking that seriously. Small/infrequent mistakes are tolerable, but many are not. Call for full cycles of debate (1 aff and 1 neg is a cycle) before entertaining or making motions to table, vote, etc. Keep courteous. Use facts and science to prove your point. Don't reiterate the same thing someone else has said....again. Every person after the first is losing points at an exponentially increasing level every time they say the same thing. If you want to "mention" it to make a point that hasn't been made, that's different from making a 5 minute speech from <s>hell</s> "the underworld" that I have to listen to again. Again, if you didn't read the LD part, sharing the same speeches as other people at your school is a bad idea and you will all get marked last in round. You'll be ranked behind people not making a speech. Not being able to pronounce a word and squinting at it as you sound it out is indicative of not having written something. But if someone who is not prepared needs a speech, a "nudge" in the right direction is acceptable if you aren't speaking on the same topic. Chambers are long, humor is good.   PuFo: If I have to judge PuFo, you're all winners in my book. IE's: Be respectful and have fun with it :)

David Moore - Kentlake

n/a

David Kinkley - UHS

n/a

David Hancock - Puyallup

Dean Haynes - AVI

n/a

Derek Hanson - Kamiak

n/a

Derek Holliday - Eastside Catholic

n/a

Diana Young-Blanchard - Mt Si

Don Garnand - Kamiak

n/a

Donna Bowler - ARHS

n/a

Dwayne Allen - Cascade

n/a

Dylan Lasher - Kentlake

n/a

Dylan Thomas - Ingraham

Ed Bowman - EHS

Eileen DeMetrio - Hazen

n/a

Eileen Sheats - Federal Way

n/a

Eric Sungho Cho - BC ACADEMY

Generally, I believe that debaters, especially for Public Forum, should focus on clarity (because the style was created to be more relatable to the normal citizen) and well-warranted, logical arguments. That being said, debaters should feel free to use any really creative impacts or arguments as they like, as long as they can back it up and is somewhat believable. Impacts play a huge role for me when I vote.   Please do not spread, because PF isn’t policy, or else debaters will lose speaker points. Furthermore, disrespectful, overly-aggressive, and/or dishonest debaters will also be deducted significant speaker points.   Frameworks are not too important for novice PF debaters (for me), because I believe debaters should start with simply content-based arguments in the earlier parts of their debate career. However, for junior/open PF debaters, I expect a good clear framework or I will simply default to my personal preference for a framework.   In terms of evidence, I won’t be impressed if debaters simply reiterate quotations or empirical data. I’m more concerned of if the debaters actually understand “how”, for example, GDP will increase, rather than simply stating that GDP will increase because so-and-so said so. This makes for much more interesting, and higher-quality debate, rather than comparing evidence. I’m not really a fan of PF debaters discrediting an entire argument by attacking the source of evidence; even if debaters are attacking sources, they should still give the opposition the benefit of the doubt and deconstruct the flaws of the opponent’s arguments (but debaters can of course point out unreliable sources).   In the end, I will vote for the team who persuades me in believing that their side will create a better world or the least-worse world (so impacts are important for me). If the aff fails to provide any reason for change, and I feel the status quo is the most reasonable, then I will default to con because it is the aff’s job to create change and withhold the entirety of the resolution.   I do not like to disclose unless the tournament requires to, but I am willing to give constructive feedback for all debaters.

Frankie Orrico - Newport

Gina Su - PCCS

n/a

Glenda Braun - Trojans

n/a

Gwen McCartt - SWHS

n/a

Gwen McCartt - Woolley 2

n/a

Hailey Reneau - Central Valley Hig

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.

Haley Rue - MRLH

n/a

Heather Helman - GPS

n/a

Holly Forrest - UHS

n/a

Iris Spring - VHS

Isaiah Parker - Jefferson

n/a

Jackson Fischer - Mercer Island

Jaime Holguin - Gig Harbor

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000183 EndHTML:0000005304 StartFragment:0000002721 EndFragment:0000005268 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/coov/Downloads/Jaime%20judge%20paradigm.doc Two years of high school policy debate, will be my fourth year of judging. Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and Analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.   Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does need to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round.   Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me the judge to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW.   Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don't just tell me to reject the 1AC and that it somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get strong analysis of the warranted evidence of the neg to vote for a reject alt.   Counterplan: If you show how the CP is a better policy than the Aff, I will vote for it.   Theory: No matter what the theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the argument not the team.   For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don't make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before the round.

James Wiker - Kamiak

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.

Janelle Williams - W.F. West

n/a

Jason Woehler - Federal Way

n/a

Jay Howard - VHS

n/a

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.

Jed Bush - Federal Way

n/a

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>

Jeremy Knight - Mt Si

Jim Magdich - EHS

I am an Engineering Manager; communications is my primary focus, make your points succinctly.  Frame your case, construct your own argument point by point, and deconstruct your opponent’s argument; bonus points if you deconstruct their argument using THEIR value system.   Tell me EXACTLY why I should vote for you.  Make your points with reasoning, not speed of speaking.   Lastly, definitions matter, and definitions which are not agreed to but go unchallenged definitely matter.

Jim Anderson - Capital HS

n/a

Jim Dorsey - VHS

Joe Stevens - AVI

n/a

John Garing - Kingston

John Sterbick - MRLH

n/a

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.

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.

Josh Cole - Capital HS

n/a

Josue Anderson - BC ACADEMY

Experience I’m somewhat new to the Public Forum style (3 years now) however I’ve done my best to appreciate the nuances of the style compared to other styles practiced in Canada that I am more familiar with. I have 5 years of university-level British Parliamentary (worlds style) debate and while that does influence my preferences for persuasion in speaking and intellectualism of arguments, I strongly appreciate PF’s use of frameworks and impact-calculations. Decisions I do my best to allow the debaters to construct the rationalities for my decisions within the debate, persuasive frameworks that last the debate will influence my decisions although I focus most on whatever the debaters themselves choose to debate about, which areas had the most clash. I find a debate with a shortage of clash from both sides frustrating, while I would tend to reward the team with the most genuine attempts at engagement. I do my best to act as an ‘average person’ when deciding which team has holistically worked harder to be most persuasive. My experience as a coach expresses itself in how I evaluate the ‘effort’ of  events that occur within the debate.  Rounds of debate should be complex and involve various factors, likewise, I try to be as open minded as possible with elements developed within the actual debate. Unless the round was particularly bad and simplistic, it’s unlikely that a round will ‘boil down to one thing’ though it’s likely that varous elements will interconnect and become linked to specific ideas fought for in the debate. Style and speaker points I evaluate style holistically and do not consider it a separate element of a debate. The weight of the content is intrinsically valued by me based on the mannor that it is presented. Speaking styles only matter if they affect my ability to percieve content and I do not consider it outside of that realm when evaluating individual speakers.  A speaker who uses fancy words and neat hand gestures won’t earn bonus points but it’s likely that I may find their contributions/matter more persuasive, likewise, I won’t punish a debate with crass or unpolished speaking styes (or ESL) but it’s possible that it debilitates my ability to conceptualize the matter presented.  As a result of this perception of style, I do not ever give low point wins since I find them paradoxical. Debaters who are more persuasive get higher speaks, debaters who are more persuasive should likewise win the debate since they are more persuasive debaters and the activity should prioritize the rewarding of that holistic trait. Feedback I prefer giving oral feedback and I’m very happy to give as much of it as debaters want. I strongly encourage debaters to ask me whatever questions they’d like after a round, as I’m less inclined to give lengthy written feedback. My penmanship is laughably unreadable and I try to make up for it by giving dedicated comments. I like to contextualize my comments as much as possible with the actual debate that occurred, so I enjoy disclosing if the tournament allows for it, since it better allows debaters to appreciate the weight of the various items within feedback.

Julia Cosma - Walla Walla

Julie Denmark - Cedar Park

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,

Katharine Ross - Holy Names

Kaveh Dilmaghani - Tahoma High

Kelley Kirkpatrick - Mount Vernon

I was formerly a policy debater... but now find myself mostly coaching Lincoln Douglas debate!   I am open to any type of argument as long as it is clearly explained and well argued.   Speed isn't normally an issue... and I do verballly let debaters know when I am finding them unclear.

Kelli Meeker - ARHS

n/a

Kimberly Hartman - Mt Si

Kirill Volkov - Jefferson

n/a

Kristen East - Gig Harbor

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.

Leslie Ojeaburu - Jefferson

n/a

Linda Youngchild - Peninsula

Lisa Leibfried - Eastside Catholic

I am an assistant coach at Eastside Catholic (Sammamish, WA). I competed in LD for Sammamish High School (Bellevue, WA) 2010-2012 mostly on the WA circuit, and a couple national circuit tournaments. My Ballot/Paradigm - Please explain to me what you are winning, why, and why it means you should win the round. All arguments will be evaluated through whichever framework is winning at the end of the round. It’s your job to do weighing, layering and explaining of impacts to me under the framework(s) and give a very clear impact calculus. There are no particular arguments I do not like to hear. I will never vote for a side with a thesis argument I don’t understand so feel free to use stories and analogies to help me understand.  Speed/Clarity - Start slowly and build up speed so my ears can adjust. Slow down on tags and cards. Put space between a tag and a card. If you are too fast I will stop flowing. Please enunciate. Please signpost. Clarity must never be sacrificed for speed. Extensions – Every single extension must have a clear warrant and impact! Theory - This should only be used if there is extreme abuse. I’m not super well-versed in theory, so it might be in your best interest to avoid it. I would rather see substantive debates. If you are going to run theory, please don’t do it at lightening speed. Cross-ex – I listen to cross like any other speech. Being intentionally unclear or rude during cross-ex will lower your speaks. Critical arguments - This area is not my forte, meaning you will have to be extra clear and explain exactly how the argument functions in the round and what I should do with it. Speaks - I look for things like clarity, persuasion, and composure. Speaks will go down for: being offensive/disrespectful/rude, being a jerk in cross-ex, and ignoring me after I call out “clear” twice.  If there is anything you want more detail on or isn’t covered here, please ask me before round. Have fun J <a href="http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Leibfried%2C+Lisa">http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Leibfried%2C+Lisa</a>

Lisa Weber - Newport

Lisanne Bannister - Curtis

n/a

Lois Gorne - Federal Way

n/a

Luke Gordon - EHS

I have done policy debate for 4 years and have now coached for 3.  I will try and lay out exactly what I want to minimize judge intervention.  If you have any questions feel free to ask in round.    Overview  I am a tabs judge.  I believe debate is a game to be played and I should not interfere with it.  I default policy maker unless a framework argument is brought up to prove otherwise.  I believe that each side should hold up their burden and enjoy clash between warrants.    Aff:  I am ok with kritikal aff’s.  I ran one in high school.  As the aff you should know this does require a little more work to win, but hey, that is why we do it, right? Performance aff’s are a little different.  If they are on topic and relate they are easier to get my ballot.  These would be such things as reading poetry about the topic or such, but others that just want to discuss discourse in our daily lives without pertaining to debate are going to have and extremely hard time winning the ballot unless you can prove to me how it is in my jurisdiction to vote for such an aff.  Any other questions feel free to ask in round.  Your perm better be more than just “perm do both,” “perm do the plan then the cp,” or “perm do the plan and all non-mutually exclusive parts of the cp.”  That is not getting flowed unless you explain to me what the world of the perm looks like.   Neg: This I will break up a little bit more. K’s: I love the k.  I ran it in high school on both sides.  However, I regret to say I have not kept up on my philosophy reading so some of the newer k’s.  It may take me until the 2nc to understand but I love learning the new ones.  That being said, be able to defend your ideology.  I have a harder time buying into an ideology when the neg runs multiple worlds as k’s are supposed to be in round solvency.  Having multiple arguments are good but when it comes down to it if I have to believe whole heartedly in your kritik to reject the aff team you should believe whole heartedly in your kritik as well.  Oh, and one more thing: I love a good framework debate!!! T: I am ok with T.  I have a hard time voting on potential abuse.  Extend you standards and voters.  I fall more towards reasonability so prove to me why competing interps are better and I will vote on it.  CP: Make them logical and make them count.  I was the 2A in debate so condo is a tough argument for me but that being said I can be persuaded.  It just takes a little bit more effort.  PIC’s are ok.  Just make sure they make sense.   Anything I missed in here please ask in round for any clarifications

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.

Marisol Beck - Walla Walla

Mark Smith - Hazen

n/a

Mark Davis - ARHS

n/a

Matthew Witek - Rogers

n/a

Meghan McDonagh - Centennial

In LD debate I really like to see good argumentation that aligns with your value and criterion. Clash is important. Don't live in your own philosophical world. Explain why your value and criterion are better. I tend to judge mostly on the flow, so be afraid to lump and dump if you have to because of time constraints. In rebuttals be sure to give me voters and impacts. Have fun and be respectful of your fellow debater.

Michelle East - Gig Harbor

Mike Fitzgerald - Kamiak

n/a

Morgan Balaz-Munn - BC ACADEMY

Morgia Belcher - Gig Harbor B

n/a

Naemah Morris - IHHS

n/a

Nick Julian - Newport

n/a

Noah Adam - Tahoma High

Olimpia Diaz - AVI

n/a

Olivia Davis - Annie Wright

n/a

Paul Sealey - Federal Way

n/a

Paul Beattie - Mt Si

n/a

Peter Fowler - Kentlake

n/a

Piper Ragland - Kingston

Randy Bloom - EHS

Rian Chandra - Capital HS

n/a

Robert Gordon - EHS

Ruth Setzer - Cedar Park

n/a

Sam Tang - Federal Way

n/a

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 Snively - Kingston

Scott Kazmi - Snohomish

n/a

Scott Mercer - Tahoma High

Shannon Carroll - Snohomish

n/a

Sheri Ahlheim - Peninsula

Sonia Vora - Annie Wright

n/a

Stephanie Harris - Puyallup

Stephanie Permut - Mercer Island

I debated policy throughout high school at Mercer Island where I qualified to the TOC three years consecutively and only actually attended once. I do not debate in college; however, my closest friends/SO do (this does not speak to any technical proficiency on my part, but rather, to the fact that I have at least continued to pay attention to higher levels of debate since leaving the activity).  This is the first tournament I will judge this year (both in LD and policy). I spent most of the previous year befriending and research assisting a critical geographer whose research interests included Latin American social movement politics, development, and drug policy; I believe this experience may have afforded some familiarity with topic strategy/authors (both in LD and policy), but honestly who even knows.  I like when debaters operate under the assumption that they are eminently more knowledgeable about the ideas being debated than I am (you are). It’s possible to economically explain the concepts that underlie jargon (especially K jargon), and I’d really strongly encourage you to do that. I think a lot of judges in this activity have an unrealistically high clarity threshold (in terms of both explanation and audibility), and let individual debaters get away with name dropping to preserve their own intellectual credibility. Straightforward analysis that explicitly engages the content of your opponents’ arguments is obviously desirable.  In the debate space, I’m most familiar with critical literature; although I study cognitive science and have had very little formal academic exposure to it. IF YOU READ PROJECT TYPE ARGUMENTS/ARGUMENTS THAT INTERROGATE ACTIVITY NORMS, I WOULD ADVISE YOU TO PREF ME; I spend a lot of time thinking about structural exclusivity in debate and how it can be remedied.  That said my familiarity with these arguments should not be mistaken for an absolute preference. I read pretty middle of the road K-ish affs until my senior year of high school, and (hopefully) have the capacity to evaluate more traditionally structured positions/will vote for these if they are better debated. Do what you’re good at, I guess. “Offense/Defense” is kind of arbitrary, but I’ll do my best to abide by it when evaluating debates. Do good, do great! Be courteous. Racism/sexism/other instances of systemic violence exist—I promise there’s no strategic advantage to advocating otherwise because you’d be wrong.

Steve McCartt - SWHS

n/a

Steve McCartt - Woolley 2

n/a

Sumukh Bharadwaj - Capital HS

n/a

Susan Mohn - Interlake

Tim Hornbacher - Mount Vernon

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.

Todd Moore - Mount Vernon

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.

2014 Puget Sound High School Invitational