FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Amy Michael - TBHS

n/a

Andrew Chadwell - Gig Harbor

Andrew Rose - Gig Harbor

Austin Vaarvik - Gig Harbor

Brian Coyle - Kingston

Carmen Gale - Kingston

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.

Jack McGougan - VHS

I debated policy for four years at St. George’s in Spokane, WA where I was competitive on the national circuit and now I’m a freshman debater at the University of Puget Sound. I’ll keep this brief since, if you’re reading this, you are probably trying to prep. To get high speaker points: -use cross-x effectively, don’t waste time -start evidence comparison early -read good ev -have foresight, strategy going into the round (specific>generic when it comes to strategies but I’m from a small school, so I understand) -don’t steal prep (looking at you paperless debaters) -sound good, be clear, I think I should have an okay idea of what your ev is saying when you read it (to be clear, my flow is okay, it’s not a big deal if you’re very fast) Things you might need to know… Regarding theory/T: -unfamiliar with the nuances or cases of the topic -I default to offense-defense -I don’t like to vote on cheap shots. However, if there is a developed warrant for rejecting the team, I don’t care if it’s a bad arg, I’ll vote on it (probably not though if it’s like agent CPs bad on a CP they didn’t go for)   Regarding the K: -love substantive framework debates on the K. That’s just to say that 2As should confront the ontology, epistemology, methodology, w/e of the K and relate that to questions of political action, the possibility of things like the case, etc. This is opposed to a theoretical fwk debate about limits, ground, t spec edu, which is A. boring/unpersuasive and B. too easy for the neg to win because they’ll always have better ev on that. Regarding CPs: -I do think CPs should be textually and functionally competitive and 2As shouldn’t fear going for theory and the perm in front of me when debating these CPs. Negatives, if you have a CP with an interesting, topic-specific way to explain how the CP competes, that’s cool too. DA -there such thing as zero risk, or at least such marginal risk as to make it irrelevant to a decision calculus -UQ determines direction of link -usually err neg on theory regarding the politics DA I love debate. Be respectful, be passionate, be yourself, debate smart.

Jane McCoy - Eastside Catholic

Please don't shake my hand because it is flu season. I do not like a lot of speed. I like a good criterion and value clash between the two sides. I like real world examples. I will vote on clear voters emphasized especially in the last two speeches.

Jason Woehler - Federal Way

n/a

Katherine Horelick - Lindbergh

n/a

Katie Bergus - Gig Harbor

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

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.

Lois Gorne - Federal Way

n/a

Sam Cushing - VHS

n/a

2013 Viking Invitational