FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam Pierce - Kingston

n/a

Alex Barker - Bridge

Algeiba Cagabcab - Peninsula

Ali Al-Sadi - Edmonds Heights

n/a

Alysia Lohman - Puyallup

Amarou Yoder - Lindbergh

n/a

Amina Ali - Peninsula

Andrea Dunnavant - Lakes

n/a

Andrew Hoyt - Lakes

n/a

Andrew Buchan - Jefferson

n/a

Angela Jong - Lakes

n/a

Arnavi Chheda - Eastlake HS

Ashley Skinner - Tahoma High

n/a

Aundrea Boyd - Lakes

n/a

Barbara Kampe - Seattle Academy

n/a

Ben Cushman - Capital HS

n/a

Bonnie Seaborn - GKHS

n/a

Brandi Hunt - Bridge

Brandon Savare - Jefferson

n/a

Brent Jones - Emerald Ridge

n/a

Brent DeCracker - Cedar Park

n/a

Brian Coyle - Kingston

Brian Ellsworth - Tahoma High

n/a

Brittne Lunniss - Jefferson

n/a

Brooke Goodell - Puyallup

Cameron Griffith - Newport

Carrie Walker - Kamiak

n/a

Chris Jung - Eastside Catholic

Chris Bok - ARHS

n/a

Chris Bevier - Puyallup

Christine Proctor - Mt Si

Christopher McCool - Ballard

Connor Magee - Gig Harbor

Corey McCool - Annie Wright

n/a

Cori Uddenberg - Gig Harbor

Daniel Noyes - Evergreen

n/a

David Schumer - Jefferson

n/a

David Moore - Kentlake

n/a

David Worthen - Gig Harbor

David McMullen - NKHS

n/a

Dawn Appleby - Mt Si

Dawn Frearson - Mt Si

Dawna Lewis - Edmonds Heights

n/a

Debra Gerken - Kingston

Denise Comeau - NKHS

n/a

Diana Young-Blanchard - Mt Si

Diana Stalter - Seattle Academy

n/a

Donald Donn - Lakes

n/a

Donna Bowler - Trojans

n/a

Dyann Seidl - Trojans

n/a

Eli Mallon - Annie Wright

n/a

Emily Berreth - Kamiak

n/a

Emily Casal - Eastlake HS

Eric Palossari - Tahoma High

Erika Jensen - GKHS

n/a

Gabrielle Wright - Bonney Lake

n/a

Gad Levy - Garfield

n/a

Gage Irving - Gig Harbor

Garrett Heilman - Eastside Catholic

I debated for Green Valley from 2002-2005. I graduated from the University of Puget Sound where I debated parliamentary debate from 2005-2009. I have coached at Eastside Catholic since 2010. Too often I am left at the end of the round without a clear mechanism for adjudicating the round. This means that you need to do more than simply extend your standard, or for that matter attack your opponent’s standard. The best way to win my ballot is to give me comparative reasons to prefer your standard, and then weigh and impact those arguments. Weighing requires specific rationales that compare arguments, do not say, “timeframe” and move on. Similarly, I prefer arguments with specific impact stories. Without a clear standard in the round I will be forced to evaluate the impacts of arguments myself. This generally means I will look for offensive arguments that require me to do the least amount of work. Framework: Explain to me why and how your framework is relevant to the round. Pre-standard arguments are fine, but make sure you provide a rationale for labeling something pre-standard, and explicitly tell me in your first speech what the implications are. Theory: I’m a fan of using any tools at your disposal, but don’t run theory for the sake of running theory. Use theory to respond to preferably demonstrable in round abuse. If you choose to run theory please use the template for theory arguments; it just makes it clearer for everyone. Theory arguments are not a priori voting issues unless you explain why. Arguments in response to theory are generally reasons to reject the argument, not to punish the debater. Speed: I generally don’t have problems with speed, but there are some who force me to go beyond my comfort level. If that happens, I’ll yell clearer and I expect you to be clearer. If you are going to read quickly I prefer you slow down for tag lines and authors, and work into maximum speed, don’t start there. Critical arguments: I will not vote against an argument based on my personal preferences so run what you want to. If you choose to run a critical argument make sure the framework, and the argument(s) is clear. There’s nothing I hate more than debaters who run critical arguments to obfuscate the meaning of their case, and then crystallize down to some inane argument in their last speech. If you have questions feel free to ask. <a href="http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Heilman%2C+Garrett">http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Heilman%2C+Garrett</a>

Garrett Shiroma - AVI

n/a

Greg Peszek - Sammamish

Assistant Coach at Sammamish High School, Bellevue, WA Number of Years Judging: 7 I have judged debate for years and competed in varsity policy debate in high school. Speed is not an issue but that is not an excuse to be incoherent. Debate is theater, I expect speakers to act accordingly. I believe debate is first and foremost an educational experience (even moreso at the high school level) and we are all here to learn. Secondly debate is a competition like any other: those who subvert the system or cheat aren't looked at kindly in any other competitive activity and they should be treated the same here. Policy (short version): I am a tabula rasa judge in spirit: if it is well reasoned, well presented and well-argued I will vote for it. My standards for “well reasoned”, “well presented” and “well-argued” are immensely high and even higher for atypical, squirrely or hypercritical arguments. I like to minimize my involvement in the round and let the flows speak for themselves. In the absence of strong voters my fallback paradigm is stock issues with a policy emphasis: I vote reasonability on T over competing interps (threshold is abuse), allow multiple Neg advocacies and require Aff to provide a true prima facie case. LD (short version): I am a tabula rasa judge in spirit: if it is well reasoned, well presented and well-argued I will vote for it. My standards for “well reasoned”, “well presented” and “well-argued” are immensely high and even higher for atypical, squirrely or hypercritical arguments. I like to minimize my involvement in the round and let the flows speak for themselves. In the absence of strong voters my fallback paradigm is value/value criteria: I will apply the best upheld value in the round as a lens in which to vote on case. In the absence of strong value clash I’ve been known to hypotest multiple value worlds and weigh accordingly.  Policy (long, ranting version):  Traditionally I've kept with a “stock issues with a policy emphasis” as my standard paradigm but as the years go on I find myself trending to a more tabula rasa style. This transition is under extreme protest from myself as I’ve found myself questioning if policy debate has lost its way after witnessing round after round of what could only be described as mindless critical dribble, extreme missteps by Negatives in the rebuttals and affirmative case after affirmative case that lack prima facie burdens. That said I am not opposed to critical arguments, be it critical affirmatives or Ks, though I find it extremely difficult to get over my preconceived (and empirically proven) notion that debaters running critical arguments are running them on the flimsy belief that their own extremely limited knowledge is only large by comparison to their opponents zero knowledge of the subject. Sadly, more often than not they are correct which makes for a painful, uneducational round. With that in consideration one could assume that a very well understood, presented and reasoned critical argument would run directly opposed to my disposition and thereby increase its in-round persuasion. I am subconsciously much more persuaded by extremely well organized and presented arguments, especially those that are unique, off the cuff or genuinely interesting. I nearly exclusively resort to reasonability for everything, regardless of what they are. T is a powerful argument for Neg and I’ll vote Neg on it alone if reasonability is proven. Unreasonable arguments are boring: global nuclear war is boring, world peace is boring. Give me realistic, practical advantages or realistic practical DA and I will vote twice as hard as if another “the world will end with the Aff plan” DA was run. Tag teaming speeches is completely out. I am OK with prompting (non-speaking partner saying “make sure to bring up voters on T”, for example) but this year has been incredibly frustrating with one team member “parroting” their non-speaking partner. Consider too that if you are at the point where you need to be prompted you are no longer delivering a 30 or 29.5 speech. I am more lenient with tagging in cross but cross is free prep time for the next speaker and I expect the time to be used wisely. Running out of prep time because you were too busy wasting cross time before your speech does not sit kindly with me.

Griffin Bell - Tahoma High

Hannah Pizelo - Newport

n/a

Ian Northrip - Rogers

n/a

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 Wiegel - Eastside Catholic

n/a

Jana Julian - Newport

Jane Rearden - Newport

n/a

Janice Jackson-Haley - Nathan Hale

n/a

Jared Burt - Emerald Ridge

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 - Sammamish

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 Sammamish High School in Seattle, 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: 1.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. <o:p></o:p>   2.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. <o:p></o:p>   3.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.<o:p></o:p>

Jessica Buchan - Renton HS

n/a

Jessica Hernandez - Puyallup

Jill Lopez - Jefferson

n/a

Jim Melton - Nathan Hale

n/a

Jim VanDerMeer - Bridge

Jim Anderson - Capital HS

n/a

Joel Underwood - Seattle Academy

n/a

John Turner - Jefferson

n/a

John Gao - AVI

n/a

John Doty - AVI

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.

John Mercer - Tahoma High

Jose Garcia - Newport

Josh Petersen - Tahoma High

Julia Seidman - Mercer Island

Julie Jones - Emerald Ridge

n/a

Justin Choi - Federal Way

n/a

Karen Rossman - Eastside Catholic

n/a

Karen Seaborn - GKHS

n/a

Kathy Timmons - Gig Harbor

Katie Jung - Gig Harbor

Kenna Uddenberg - Gig Harbor

Kenny Chien - Newport

Kerry Bergus - Gig Harbor

Kevin Mandt - Emerald Ridge

n/a

Kimberly Hartman - Mt Si

Kristie Worthy - Annie Wright

n/a

Kristyn Cook - ARHS

n/a

Lance McMillan - Peninsula

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.

Laura Jung - Eastside Catholic

n/a

Lauren Hillard - Gig Harbor

Leslie Willette - Bishop Blanchet

n/a

Levi Freeman - Gig Harbor

Linda Youngchild - Peninsula

Liz Jackson - Jefferson

n/a

Lois Gorne - Federal Way

n/a

Lori Blewett - Capital HS

n/a

Luke Dolge - Gig Harbor

Mac Beyer - Puyallup

Maddy Foreman - Puyallup

Mark Cole - Tahoma High

Mark Davis - ARHS

n/a

Martha Spieker - Gig Harbor

Matt Becker - Gig Harbor

Matthew Witek - Rogers

n/a

Megan Vujica - GPS

n/a

Melanie Coyne - Gig Harbor

Melissa Reddish - Kamiak

n/a

Mia Gross - TBHS

n/a

Mikayla Douglas - Puyallup

Mikayla Hall - Gig Harbor

Mike Clarke - Kingston

n/a

Mike Wright - Lindbergh

n/a

Morgia Belcher - Gig Harbor

Mr. Wilson - Kentlake

n/a

Nancy Pappas - AVI

n/a

Nathan Lemanski - AMHS

Nickolena Milne-Cooper - Gig Harbor

Paul Eng - Nathan Hale

n/a

Paul Xu - Newport

Piper Ragland - Kingston

Rachel Garnett - Puyallup

Ray Dunnavant - Lakes

n/a

Rebar Niemi - Bridge

Ruby Blum - Holy Names

Sam Tang - Federal Way

n/a

Samuel Pizelo - Newport

Sandy Chapman - Mt Si

Sara Hopkins - AMHS

Sarah Yu - Jefferson

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.

Scott Ellerby - NKHS

n/a

Sean Harris-Campf - Holy Names

Shaun Wood - ARHS

n/a

Sheri Ahlheim - Peninsula

Shore Sterling - Puyallup

Stephanie Pierce - Kingston

n/a

Stephen Thornsberry - Eastlake HS

n/a

Steven Rowe - Ballard

Head Coach at Ballard High, Washington. Years Competing in Policy: 4 Years Coaching: 3 Coach or compete on the National Circuit: Yes How do I decide Policy Debates: I believe that debate is more of a sport than an activity. Debate should be left with the debater and the judge should only be there to sign the ballot and adjudicate the round. What I like to see is debaters who go in depth and use comparative analysis to guide their argumentation. A team that uses logic and does not rely on blocks will receive higher speaker points from me. I emphasize the importance of impact calculus and debaters doing work in the debate. If no work is done and I am left with “two ships passing in the night” I will make my decision where the least amount of work is needed. This WILL reflect poorly on competitors' speaker points. On this note, a dropped argument is not necessarily a true argument until a debater asserts and argues that it is. However and whatever you argue is fair game, just be clear and be able to defend what you argue. Speed: If I cannot understand you I believe that is your own fault. You should be able to adapt to your judge and notice that I am not flowing. I am good with speed, but some debaters are not clear. To overcome this issue a smart team will slow down on tags and cites. T/Theory: I find great strategic value in running these arguments. I will vote for them when I am told that they matter in the round. Take that as you will. Counterplans: If they are better than the aff I will vote for them. Disadvantages: If they are unique, they link, and have an impact then they are solid arguments. Kritiks: I rarely went for these in high school, but ran a K every round. I find them very strategic, but find that many high schoolers struggle to articulate why they are important and how they function in the round. If you choose to read a K in front of me you ought to make it clear and easy to understand and how the round or ballot matter. The more I have coached the more I have voted and appreciated specific Ks.

2010 Tahoma High School -- Golden Bear Classic