FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Cragg - NKHS

n/a

Alex Ong - Federal Way

n/a

Alicia Vradenburg - Mt Si

Andrea Dunnavant - Lakes

n/a

Andrew Buchan - Jefferson

n/a

Andy Stuckey - TAFA

n/a

Ashley Skinner - Tahoma High

n/a

Aundrea Boyd - Lakes

n/a

Austin Vaarvik - Gig Harbor

Autumn McCartan - Rogers

n/a

Ben Nichols - Newport

Ben Cushman - Capital HS

n/a

Brandon Wilson - Kentlake

n/a

Brendon Keene - MRLH

n/a

Brent DeCracker - Cedar Park

n/a

Brian Coyle - Kingston

Brittne Lunniss - Jefferson

n/a

Carol Kayler - Tahoma High

Carolyn Luengen - MRLH

n/a

Chalen Kelly - CKHS

n/a

Chelsea Ramsay - ARHS

n/a

Chris Kuhel - Tahoma High

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.

Connor Magee - Gig Harbor

Corey McCool - Annie Wright

n/a

Cori Uddenberg - Gig Harbor

Cori Johnson - Puyallup

Corine Thompson - Tahoma High

Crystal Dalton - ARHS

n/a

Dan Teimouri - Eastside Catholic

Dan McPartlan - Puyallup

Daniel Brokaw - Peninsula

Danielle Jennings - Ingraham

I debated for 4 years at Idaho State University and I currently coach at Ingraham High in Seattle. I love debate and I want to watch you do whatever you do best. I was a K debater and will most certainly be pegged that way, but I do not have any specific ideology. I truly try to be as tab as possible. This doesn't however, mean that I appreciate the "throwing poop and seeing what sticks" strategy. I appreciate specificity and claim-warrant-impact debate. Tagline extensions don't cut it for me. I reward smart debaters, and value quality over quantity, regardless of the substance of the debate. I think CX is more important to a debate than most high schoolers give it credit. I love CX and want you to take advantage of it. I am open to whatever you do best. You dictate the debate

David Richter - Capital HS

n/a

David Moore - Kentlake

n/a

Dawn Appleby - Mt Si

Dawna Lewis - Edmonds Heights

n/a

Debra Gerken - Kingston

Debra Meehan - Tahoma High

Denise Comeau - NKHS

n/a

Diana Stalter - Seattle Academy

n/a

Diana Young-Blanchard - Mt Si

Dominic Salazar - Puyallup

Donna Bowler - ARHS

n/a

Doug McPherson - Anacortes HS

n/a

Dyann Seidl - Trojans

n/a

Elizabeth Koenig - Interlake

Ellen Reiche - Gig Harbor

Eric Palossari - Tahoma High

Eric Menninga - Ingraham

Erica Trotter - Gig Harbor

Erick Miller - Kingston

Erin Gibson - Anacortes HS

n/a

Esther Kim - Kamiak

n/a

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>

Garrick Graham - Federal Way

n/a

Gavin Lees - Tahoma High

Griffin Bell - Tahoma High

Ian Northrip - Rogers

n/a

Isaiah Parker - Jefferson

n/a

Jackie Matthews - MRLH

n/a

Jacob Ball - Kamiak

n/a

Jacob Landsberg - Kamiak

n/a

Jana Julian - Newport

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.

Jay Howard - Lakes

n/a

Jedd Bingham - Federal Way

n/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>

Jennifer Bulman - Lakes

n/a

Jenny Owen - Lincoln

Previous debate and practical experience: High school policy debate (1977-1981); legal career; past seven years judging all forms of debate, individual events & Student Congress in Pacific NW for 15-20 tournaments/year as well as 2-3 ToC Tournaments/year; and, six years of coaching a large, comprehensive speech and debate team. I value and thank debaters for pre-round research and preparation, but I view the actual round as the place where even more is required, namely: Engagement, clash, aggressive advocacy/defense of positions, respectful behavior and proportionality. Use of canned arguments, kritiks and counterplans without specific links into the actual debate fail even if they are entertaining, well planned and/or superior to the alternative. I prefer the substance of the debate over the form. Taglines make flowing easier, but do not warrant claims nor constitute extensions of arguments per se. I try to flow all of the debate but not robotically. I aim to judge competitors on their round at hand, not on all the arguments that could have/should have been made, but were not. I do not view the ballot as my chance to cure all that is wrong in the world though I wish it were that easy. I offer a caveat: Rude or malicious conduct are ill-advised. I will default to the rules of that form of debate (to which I will refer if they are called into question) as the base for my decision within the context of debate before me.

Jessica Buchan - Renton HS

n/a

Jill Lopez - Jefferson

n/a

Jim Anderson - Capital HS

n/a

Joel Underwood - Seattle Academy

n/a

John Turner - Jefferson

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 Doty - AVI

n/a

John Brislin - Kingston

John Mercer - Tahoma High

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.

Julie Jones - Emerald Ridge

n/a

Kaitlyn Bruno - Puyallup

Karen Seaborn - GKHS

n/a

Karen Roper - Interlake

Kathy Raymond - Kingston

Kelli Helzerman - Mt Si

Kimberly Hartman - Mt Si

Kramer Hudgens - Bridge

<blockquote> </blockquote> <blockquote>I prefer to work off the flow, in a substantive way. I don't think mass argumentation that is quickly and poorly developed holds as much weight as focused argumentation. Focus the round for me and then tell me why specific issues are important not just that you are winning more issues. I'm fine with speed and theoretical argumentation, although I feel that theory requires more backing and a clear presentation of violation before it is valid. Clarity is key</blockquote>

Krissie Zeutenhorst - Renton HS

n/a

Krista Wright - TAFA

n/a

Kristyn Cook - ARHS

n/a

Lainie Tomlin - Sammamish

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.

Laurie Wiegenstein - Kingston

n/a

Leanne Hawkins - Trojans

n/a

Levi Freeman - Gig Harbor

Linda Youngchild - Peninsula

Lisa Weber - Newport

Lizzie Tao - Ballard

Lois Gorne - Federal Way

n/a

Lorraine Hirakawa - Emerald Ridge

n/a

MacKenna Krohn - Puyallup

Marcel Rodriguez - Lincoln

n/a

Mark Davis - ARHS

n/a

Mary Zaches - AVI

n/a

Matthew Witek - Rogers

n/a

Matthew Iverson - AVI

n/a

Megan Gimmestad - Puyallup

Melanie Coyne - Gig Harbor

Merita Trohimovich - Gig Harbor

Meykia Smith - Renton HS

n/a

Mia Gross - TBHS

n/a

Michelle Hontz - Jefferson

n/a

Michelle Henderson - Gig Harbor

Morgia Belcher - Gig Harbor

Mr. Dighde - Interlake

Mr. Weier - Kentlake

n/a

Mrs. Mckeague - Kentlake

n/a

Natali Shumlak - Ingraham

Nick Wiggins - Puyallup

Nickolena Milne-Cooper - Gig Harbor

Olivia Wiebe - Kamiak

n/a

Piper Ragland - Kingston

Randy Powell - NKHS

n/a

Rebar Niemi - Bridge

Redal Lewis - Renton HS

n/a

Renea Zosel - Tahoma High

Robert White - Ingraham

Robyn Grad - Seattle Academy

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 Tomlin - Sammamish

Shane Wilson - Kentlake

n/a

Shaun Leibfried - Sammamish

Sheri Ahlheim - Peninsula

Shirley Lim - Interlake

Stacy Brening - Sammamish

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.

Steven Silverman - Mt Si

Susan Thompson - Tahoma High

Tammy Mullarky - Ingraham

Taylor Reynolds - Puyallup

Teri Rupp - Tahoma High

Terry Tucker - Capital HS

n/a

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.

Tim McManemy - TBHS

n/a

Trisha Bhaumik - Eastlake HS

Victoria Hallberg - GKHS

n/a

Vivian Zhu - Kamiak

n/a

Zoe Burstyn - Seattle Academy

n/a

2011 Tahoma High School Golden Bear Classic