Judge Philosophies
Alexis Springer - NKHS
n/a
Amy McCormick - Tahoma High
Austin Vaarvik - Gig Harbor
Austin Ballard - Gig Harbor
Ben Cushman - Capital HS
n/a
Brian Coyle - Kingston
Carrie Walker - Kamiak
n/a
Cesar Bernal - NKHS
n/a
Chris Coovert - Gig Harbor
<p>Chris Coovert,<br /> Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA<br /> Coached LD: 17 years<br /> Coached CX: 12 years<br /> Competed in LD: 4 years<br /> Competed in NPDA: 2 years<br /> <br /> <br /> <strong>LD Paradigm</strong>: 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><br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> As far as specific arguments go.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> 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.<br /> 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.<br /> 4. You need to keep site of the big picture. Impact individual arguments back to framework.<br /> <br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <strong>CX Paradigm</strong><br /> 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.<br /> <br /> In general:<br /> 1. I will evaluate the round by comparing impacts unless you convince me to do otherwise.<br /> 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.<br /> 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.<br /> 4. I tend to vote on abuse stories on T more than competing interpretations.<br /> 5. I really hate theory debates. Please try to avoid them unless the other team leaves you no choice.<br /> 6. The way to win my ballot is to employ a logical, coherent strategy and provide solid comparison of your position to your opponents.<br /> <br /> 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.</p>
Darcie Stella - VHS
David Moore - Kentlake
n/a
David Richter - Capital HS
n/a
Dawna Lewis - Edmonds Heights
n/a
Dylan Mccarthy - Gig Harbor
Glenda Braun - Trojans
n/a
Jacob Landsberg - Kamiak
n/a
Jaime Holguin - Gig Harbor
<p>Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000183 EndHTML:0000005304 StartFragment:0000002721 EndFragment:0000005268 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/coov/Downloads/Jaime%20judge%20paradigm.doc</p> <p>Two years of high school policy debate, will be my fourth year of judging.</p> <p>Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and Analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.</p> <p> </p> <p>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.</p> <p> </p> <p>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.</p> <p> </p> <p>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.</p> <p> </p> <p>Counterplan: If you show how the CP is a better policy than the Aff, I will vote for it.</p> <p> </p> <p>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.</p> <p> </p> <p>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.</p> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Jeff McCormick - Kingston
Jim Anderson - Capital HS
n/a
Jim Scott - Capital HS
n/a
Katelyn Carter - VHS
Kathleen Stidham - Capital HS
n/a
Kaveh Dilmaghani - Tahoma High
Lasica Crane - Kingston
<p>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. <br /> </p>
Linda Youngchild - Peninsula
Luke Dolge - HP
n/a
Matthew Witek - Rogers
n/a
Maxwell Merchant - VHS
<p> </p> <p>I view myself as a tab's judge in so far as I expect the debaters to frame the debate for me. In other words tell me where to vote and why to vote there. I do not come into the round with a belief in stock issues; if you are going to run an issue as a stock issue, I expect excellent framework to back up this assumption. In judging a round, I prefer that both teams run framework arguments to help frame the debate: a lack of framework leaves the round open to judge bias and intervention. Kritiks, kritikal affs, and theory are all fine and encouraged. I will never vote you down based on the type of argument you are running as long as it is run well. Speaker points are awarded based on clarity, but more importantly on who provides the best in-round analysis.</p>
Mike Fitzgerald - Kamiak
n/a
Natasha Paranjaype - Gig Harbor
Piper Ragland - Kingston
Ryan Thon - Gig Harbor
Sarajane Powell - Tahoma High
Scott Mercer - Tahoma High
Sheri Ahlheim - Peninsula
Steven Denlinger - VHS
<p><strong>As an LD Judge, I bring the following expectations to the round:</strong></p> <p><strong>1. Speed: Since this is only my second year of judging, speed is still a challenge for me. Slow down on the Tags. You can read the evidence as fast as you wish, but make sure you slow down and number your Tags/Contentions if you wish me to flow. I will never complain that you are going too slowly. :-)<br /> 2. Signposting: This is important. Make sure you signpost clearly so that I can clearly follow your argument.<br /> 3. Links: The link between each Contention and its Value needs to be crystal clear.<br /> 4. Topicality and Theory: Don’t use either as a time suck. You need to show me the abuse clearly.<br /> 5. Kritiks: I am still uncomfortable with Kritiks. If you decide to run one, make sure that it has a clear structure. In addition, in your crystalization, you need to show explicit links either to the opponent's advocacy or the resolution. Don’t run a Kritik if it is just as confusing to you as it is to me.<br /> 6. Extensions: Don’t just extend the tag and date. You need to also explain why that card is important, and what it does in the round.<br /> 7. Crystalization: This is the crucial part of the round. You should be able to distill the entire debate into simple, clear voters. Write the ballot for me.<br /> 8. Tab: I am as TAB as possible, but it is easier for me to see your argument if it is set within a classic LD argument with a V/VC structure. I am a human being, so I am not completely objective, but I try to be. You should know, however, that your Speaker Points will suffer if you run a morally repugnant argument during the round. If your opponent points this out, it will become a voter. <br /> 9. Final Note: Politeness and sportsmanship will always win you speaker points. This is an educational event and an intellectual sport, and I want to enjoy judging your round.</strong></p>
Steven Helman - Kamiak
n/a
Theresa Turner - Kentlake
n/a
Trish Dolge - HP
n/a
Vivian Zhu - Kamiak
n/a