FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

- Vashon

n/a

Alayna Becker - Ferris

n/a

Alex Zendeh - Whitman

Alex Abel - Timberline

Allison Humble - Whitman

Althea Seloover - S. Eugene

n/a

Amy McCormick - Tahoma High

n/a

Andie Chapin - Ferris

n/a

Andre Cossette - Gonzaga Prep

I've been judging Policy, LD, and now Public Forum for 30 years or more.  I hate Kritiks that are used just to win rounds, unless they're Kritiks criticizing the state of debate these days.  They have to be read slowly for me to understand them, though: philosophy read at 400 words per minute just goes over my head (I have enough trouble understanding philosophy read at 100 words per minute).  As I advance in age, my ability to process information at a rapid rate diminishes, so if you can boil the round down to a few simple principles, then I become a thinking judge instead of a judge who merely connects points on the flow.  I like to hear evidence being read, so sometimes I'll slow down debaters when they read their cards so I can understand the warrants and not just mindlessly write down the taglines.  I have a decent knowledge of theory because debate theory rarely changes over the years (sometimes the names of the arguments change but the logic stays the same), so if you use words like "conditionality" and "permutation" and "reciprocity", I'd know what you were talking about.  And, I usually don't disclose (except for Novices who might benefit from some education), and I don't like shaking hands with the debaters after the round.

Andrew Orr - Centennial

Andrew Myers - Mead

Andy Ridgeway - Highland

<div> </div> <div>  </div> <div class="WikiCustomNav WikiElement wiki">  </div> <div class="alignCenter">  </div>  <div id="rightcolumn"> <table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" id="container"> <tbody> <tr> <td class="width8"> <img alt="" class="corner" height="8" src="http://www.wikispaces.com/_/x8428xqq/i/bTL.gif" width="8" /></td> <td class="field" colspan="2" style="border-top-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-top-width: 1px; border-top-style: solid;"> <img alt="" class="cornerImg" height="1" src="http://www.wikispaces.com/_/4k0z606x/i/c.gif" width="1" /></td> <td class="width8"> <img alt="" class="corner" height="8" src="http://www.wikispaces.com/_/73z846vv/i/bTR.gif" width="8" /></td> </tr> <tr> <td class="field" style="border-left-color: rgb(170, 170, 170); border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid;">  </td> <td class="field" style="width: 100%;" valign="top"> <div class="contentBox"> <div class="innerContentBox"> <div class="MenuBar WikiControls"> <a href="http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Ridgeway%2C+Andrew">Ridgeway, Andrew</a> <div> <div class="ButtonPosition"> <div class="Buttons"> <a class="Button ButtonLeft disabled tipme" href="http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Ridgeway%2C+Andrew#" original-title="you do not have permission to edit this page"> </a></div> </div> <div class="MoreMenu">  </div> </div> </div> <textarea cols="1" id="autosaveContent" rows="1" style="display: none;"></textarea> <div id="autosavePrompt" style="display: none;">  </div> <div class="commentContainer"> <div class="wiki wikiPage" id="content_view">  I want to see you do whatever it is you do best, but I do have a handful of things that I constantly seem to find myself saying to high school debaters: <ul> <li> I prefer to listen to a handful of well developed arguments than to dozens of poorly explained arguments.</li> <li> I'd rather listen to a debater who is smart than listen to a debater who is fast.</li> <li> "Extinction" is not a tag.</li> <li> Just because you can say something doesn't mean you should.</li> <li> If you can't explain your kritik to your parents, you haven't researched it enough and you probably shouldn't run it in front of me.</li> <li> I don't understand your acronyms.</li> <li> Some things just aren't funny. Know where to draw the line.</li> <li> Don't interrupt your partner.</li> <li> If you know you'll never go for a particular argument in the 2NR, don't include it in the 1NC.</li> <li> Don't be rude or condescending towards your opponents.</li> <li> Cross-examination is a speech. It should proceed according to a strategy.</li> <li> Don't impact turn things that are obviously terrible.</li> <li> Don't forget to ask me about the SCuFI.</li> </ul> </div> </div> </div> </div> </td> </tr> </tbody> </table> </div>

Angela Pinto - Eastside Catholic

Angela Stephens - Highland

I consider myself a Policy Maker, but I like undertones of communication. _ I do not mind speed, infact i like it, But read tags slowly and enuciate your authors and dates _ I care a great deal about links, if there is no cause and effect relationship I will not vote for it _ i like original arguments, I am very tired of nuclear war. I have been hearing it since I was in high school _ I prefer pithy cross examination _ Don't drop arguments, don't waste time (especially if you use speed) - I like organized flows and be clear when you sign post

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.

Ashley Berman - CapitalID

Ashley Skinner - Tahoma High

n/a

Ben Croft - Highland

Bill Wagstaff - Mead

Bob Gomulkiewiz - Bear Creek

Brandon Weedon - CapitalID

Brendan Silk - Bridge

Brian Oak - Highland

Cameron Nilles - Sam Barlow

I believe that the debaters ultimately frame the debate round. I am open to all types of arguments and styles of debate. Tell me explicitly how you want the round to be framed and weighed and then in the closing speeches debate that issue well. Speed is fine, be clear on the tags.<o:p></o:p> Topicality: It is a procedural and I will evaluate it first, unless otherwise told not to. Typically I believe there is some sort of T argument to be had in most debates, done well I can definitely pull the trigger on T. I also recognize its strategic advantages beyond just winning, so RVIs are not that compelling of arguments for me.<o:p></o:p> K: I am less likely to vote on the K because many times the debate degenerates into the K team having a non-specific link, and a poor alternative. I will default into a policy framework but if there is good argumentation not to then I can evaluate that.<o:p></o:p> DA/CP: This is a very effective way for the negative to gain leverage in the debate, use them well.<o:p></o:p> <span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family: "ï¼ï¼³ æ˜Žæœ";mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: JA;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">Theory: Most debates fall back onto reading shells and pre-written answers, if this is what you are going for make sure it is argued well, I am opening to hearing all theory arguments.

Camilla Boylan - Mtn. View (ID)

n/a

Carla Gudenkauf - Eastside Catholic

n/a

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.

Christopher McCool - Ballard

Chuck Hamaker-Teals - Southridge WA

I am the coach for Southridge High School in eastern Washington.  I competed in high school debate in the 90s.  I've been coaching for 18 years.  Each topic has lots of ground, find it and bring the arguments into the round.  Be polite and kind.  Rude debaters almost never win.  I can flow relatively quickly but will punish debaters’ speaks if they are unclear or unprepared.  I try to vote on the flow, although I don't like Topicality run without forethought.  I am not a fan of the kritik but I will vote for one.  I don't mind theory arguments, I just need to be clearly told how the impact relates to what is happening in the round.   I vote on issues where I can clearly see the impact in the round.  I like clear, fast, well organized debates with lots of good arguments and lots of impacts.  When I sit on out round panels, my decisions are very similar to those of current college debaters, not communication judges.   Arguments about sources are tiresome and I am more persuaded by rationale or meta-analysis.

Collin Mertens - Southridge WA

Connie Jordan - Mtn. View (ID)

n/a

Cori Johnson - Puyallup

Craig Handy - Mtn Home

n/a

Dane McGrady - Timberline

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

Dave Johnson - Mtn Home

n/a

David Tobin - Walla Walla

David Curry - Sprague

David Moore - Kentlake

n/a

David Smith - U-High

n/a

Dawna Lewis - Edmonds Heights

n/a

Devon Axelson - Highland

Dona Dunovant - Walla Walla

Donette Pickett - U-High

n/a

Ferhan Parsa - Newport

Garrett Lamb - Timberline

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>

Gavin Sykes-McLaughlin - Crescent Valley

n/a

Geraldine Maniere - Wood River

n/a

Grant Montoya - Central Valley Hig

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.

Hannah Dunlop - Boise High

I am open to all types of arguments; I believe every aspect of the debate can be up for debate. I have about 7 year’s policy experience in both High School and College. That said I try to follow the offence defense paradigm and be as objective as possible but sometimes concessions force me to be more interventionist then I would like, which is why I really like explicit frameworks, which could be framework, impact calculus, or just context, for direction in evaluating the round and why I should vote aff or neg.   I only evaluate what was said in the round and prefer in depth explanation to blip debate. I definitely prefer quality to quantity in both arguments and evidence. If you extend a well warranted analytic with analysis it will get you farther than extending 4 cards with no explanation. The more you engage the other team’s arguments the more likely you will be to get my ballot.   Speed is always fine although I really appreciate clarity. I find when you focus on speed you lose both clarity and efficiency. So don’t be overly concerned with speed. The more variation in your inflection the more enjoyable and enthralling you are to listen to and thus the better your speaker points. Although speaking skills will only get you so far, foremost you must resolve substantive issues first.   Framework is the best and most explicit way for me to evaluate the round. Be clear about your framework. I don't think that a policy option is necessary nor do I fundamentally believe in critical education. But I do believe that education is the point of debate and that some sort of reciprocity is necessary. That said I am always a sucker for a “fairness is a fallacy” argument, it is just so true.   In regards to theory I really try to be a blank slate but am probably more sympathetic to the aff. Blippy block like theory debates do not sit well with me. You have to try and clash with the other team even if that is just taking a couple seconds to explain were your arguments fit in or apply to your opponents.   Topicality to me is more about competing interpretations. T is never a reverse voting issue, unless of course there is some sort of critical turn. I tend to think that the aff must in some way affirm the resolution thus I am sympathetic to a well argued loss of core negative ground standard.   I think a good da can be devastating. Although that requires link explanation and good impact calc for me to evaluate your da like you want me to.   I am open to all cps but like most people prefer a specific PIC, I don’t particularly like consultation counterplans but will vote on them.   Kritik explanation should be specific to the affirmative even if your evidence is not. I definitely need in depth link, impact and most importantly alternative explanation. If I don’t know what your alt does or your impact is especially in context of the affirmative I most likely won’t vote on your kritik.   Good luck and try to enjoy yourself because that always makes for the best rounds. My job is to be supportive and helpful, so always feel free to ask questions both before and after the round.

Heidi Brigham - Walla Walla

Hemanth Srinivas - Sammamish

Background: <o:p></o:p> <ul> <li> Current head coach of Sammamish High School in Bellevue, WA<o:p></o:p></li> <li> Years Coaching: 7<o:p></o:p></li> <li> Years Judging: 8<o:p></o:p></li> <li> Years Debating: 4 (high school policy)</li> </ul>   I have been coaching and judging in the state of Washington extensively for the past 8 years and I am currently one of the coaches at Sammamish High School in Bellevue, WA. I’ve coached competitors locally in WA tournaments, at large national circuit tournaments including NFL Nationals and I’ve enjoyed judging many (likely in the hundreds) policy and LD rounds over that time.   Overall Philosophy: Debate is a competitive, educational activity that requires students to present, understand, strategize and refute various lines of reasoning, with an emphasis on clash and the exclusion of your opponent’s arguments. A judge is an impartial observer of the arguments being presented and should render a decision based on what is presented with as minimal intervention as possible. The less clash, the more judge intervention becomes necessary which could lead to more arbitrary decisions based on a judge’s preference and interpretations. As such, each debater should clearly argue the frameworks presented and how various arguments function underneath them.   Paradigm: In a nutshell, I am a tabula rasa judge and I work hard not to intervene in the round - I will go wherever the debaters take me and render my decision based on what is presented. Speed is usually not an issue, but that is not an excuse to clearly enunciate your words and be articulate. If you slur your words together, or chop off the ends of words to speak just a little faster, I will yell clear once or twice, but continue to do it and you risk me not understanding the point you are making which could cost you the ballot. Regardless of the nature of the argument you present, you must be persuasive and thorough. Fleeting, unwarranted, blatantly false (while I’m a blank slate for the arguments presented, I reserve the right to ignore obvious and patently wrong claims, interpretations, or facts) arguments will not be considered in the decision. The voters and story you pull through in your rebuttals need to be consistent, well explained, and should demonstrate an ability to crystallize the most important issues in the round. <o:p></o:p>   The Ballot:<o:p></o:p> To gain my ballot, clearly tell me which arguments you are winning and/or are most important, why you won those points and why that means you win the round. Every argument cannot be the most important in the round, and if you do choose to present 6 voters, provide analysis as to which ones I should look to first. Similarly, merely claiming “my opponent dropped points X, Y, Z and therefore I win” holds little weight with me – provide reasons why you win, not reasons why your opponent lost. The more direction and guidance you provide, the less I will need to intervene and come to my own conclusions. The ballot is not derived solely from the flow: the winner of the round isn’t simply the one with the most ink on paper and the one with the most extensions. I value quality of argumentation over quantity and I value crystallization in the rebuttals -a demonstration that you understand not only a specific argument and are able to summarize it, but also how all the arguments in a round interact and what that means for the position you are advocating.   Specific Arguments (both for LD and Policy): <o:p></o:p> Topicality – I default to reasonability, but I can be convinced to look at competing interpretations if necessary. I am not usually swayed by potential abuse – prove in-round abuse or some other tangible abuse scenario for me to really vote on this first (if that’s your standard). 5 rapid fire standards with little justification doesn’t convince me very much about the validity of your argument. Given the jurisdictional nature of T, I have a higher threshold for Negatives to really convince that the Affirmative is out of bounds and I should vote them down. <o:p></o:p>   Kritiks – I’m happy to hear this type argumentation and will certainly vote on it if warranted. I’m familiar with most major K’s out there, but I hold a high bar for the person presenting the argument to explain and crystalize their position. Don’t simply read me 8 pages of Zizek without analysis. If so, that shows you know how to read fast, but doesn’t show me anything about your understanding of him and the position you advocate. I expect good crystallization of these philosophical concepts in the rebuttals. <o:p></o:p>   Framework / Theory / Paradigm Shifts – Both are fine and expected if clearly warranted. Winning a framework goes a long way to winning the ballot, but it’s important to spell out how conflicting frameworks play against each other. If you shift my paradigm, that’s totally fine, but stay consistent in your argumentation after you shift it. Don’t adapt the strategy of throwing everything including the kitchen sink at the wall and seeing what sticks. The order of evaluation is theory and other jurisdictional arguments first (like Topicality), then framework / observations, then value / criterion / Ks followed by case /plan / contentions. <o:p></o:p>   Presumption –In policy, presumption flows Neg. I won’t vote for an Aff plan unless there’s a prima facie case and the Aff has proven the need for change. Therefore in the absence of all offense in a round, I will vote Neg and preserve the status quo. Also, in the absence of clear voters and a way of adjudicating the round, I default to a policymaker paradigm. In LD, there is no presumption, and in the absence of offense or clear voters, I default back to a fairly traditional stock issues judge (essentially answer whose contentions when measured through the value criterion, best uphold a value). <o:p></o:p>   RVIs – Similar to above, I’m happy to hear an RVI when warranted, but simply because you beat back a theory position does not lend itself directly to a RVI. Demonstrate an instance of actual abuse occurring in-round, or clearly explain the standard upon which you are resting the RVI, and if warranted enough, then I will vote on it. <o:p></o:p>   To be clear, I will let you tell me what to vote on and how to vote on it, but in the absence of all of this, I default to the roles described above. <o:p></o:p>   Other Things to Consider:<o:p></o:p> Delivery – While I find the delivery of your position important, it is not as important as the arguments themselves. I first and foremost will look to the arguments presented and will render a decision based on them, not on the presentation. I believe debate at its core is an exercise in argumentation (if you want to be critiqued primarily on delivery, go do IEs). That being said, if you’re incomprehensible or disorganized in how you state your position, you’ll not only likely lose the round, you’ll also get low speaker points. On the flip side, I give high marks to people who can not only make good arguments but sound good doing so.   <o:p></o:p> (Policy Specific) Tag Team – Keep it to a minimum in CX – I want to see each person be able to hold their own. No parroting of speeches; in other words, simply having one person stand up and repeat what his/her partner says isn’t convincing and reflects poorly on the team. Use extra downtime if necessary to figure out the contents of the speech.   <o:p></o:p> Speaker Points – There’s no set formula I use to give speaker points, but it’s rare that I give 30s. A 30 to me means you were pretty much perfect and one of the very best I’ve ever seen. Generally a 29+ means you did an outstanding job and I expect you to go deep in the tournament. My average is usually 27. Plus points for being clever, funny, respectful, and minus points for being rude, condescending or demeaning to your opponent.   <o:p></o:p> Evidence – If you want me to see a piece of evidence after the round, make a point to state that in your speech. I will call for evidence as I see fit. Sometimes it is necessary, especially if the debate is centered around a couple key arguments, other times it is not.    If you’ve read this far, congratulations! Hopefully this was helpful. If you still have questions, feel free to ask me before the round starts. When allowed, I try to disclose and provide some feedback to both sides, but when sometimes when a round is very close, I’ll need extra time to work through the issues. If that’s the case, come find me later and I’ll be happy to go over my decision with you. I look forward to judging your round!<o:p></o:p>

Holly Miller - Highland

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.

Jane Reardon - Newport

Jared Gales - Mtn Home

n/a

Jason Woehler - Federal Way

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.

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>

Jenna Knutson - Mtn Home

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.

Jerry Hodson - Westview

Jess Inskeep - Timberline

Jessica Morris - Highland

Jim Dorsey - Vashon

n/a

Joe Cooke - Walla Walla

Joel Underwood - Seattle Academy

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 Nelson - Newport

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.

Jordon Newton - Saint George

First, a little background on my experience in the debate community. I debated at Saint George's for 4 years in high school, and am in my second year debating at Gonzaga University. As for some general things, I think debate is supposed to be a fun activity for everyone involved. Please try to be respectful of those participating of the activity, and do not be rude or offensive in front of me, that's an easy way to tank your speaks. For paperless debate, I stop prep when the debater is done preparing their speech. I think that framing of how I should evaluate the arguments in the debate is critical in the 2nr/2ar. In close debates, the team who does a better job framing why I should evaluate their impacts first will shape how I look at the debate going into the decision, and you should try to use your framing argument as a lens to how I view the majority of the debate. That being said, don't take this as an excuse to decrease technical coverage, because that will only hurt you in the long run. About some views I have on specific arguments: Kritiks/Non-traditional affs: As a judge, I've found myself much more willing to vote for teams defending non-policy frameworks than I thought I would have been. Don't hesitate to read your normal arguments in front of me. Just be warned, I might not be an expert in the literature you are reading, and you should have a strong explanation of how what the argument is/how it functions for kritiks that are further from the political realm. While I'm willing to evaluate any framework, I think there is something to be said for a strong defense of political action. I'm unlikely to vote on 'kritiks shouldn't be allowed' in debate type arguments. Especially in terms of kritiks and kritik impacts, I think that impact framing is the most important thing in terms of how I'll evaluate both sides arguments, and a defense of why your impacts matter is critical. I find myself less willing to vote on generic, broad sweeping turns case/serial policy failure arguments unless the team advancing those positions provides a warrant for why it applies to the other teams scenarios. Specificity of link arguments are critical for any criticism. Counterplans: I love a good advantage counterplan, or case specific counterplan. I'm generally fine with other agent counterplans as well. I tend to err aff on counterplan theory related to counterplans that do the entirety of the aff, and counterplans that are not textually competitive. These are not unwinnable, but I am very convinced by theory arguments against arguments like consult, delay, and process counterplans. As for conditionality, I believe that conditionality is probably good, but am uncomfortable with the idea of three conditional worlds. Contextualizing how I should evaluate counterplan vs aff internal link structures can only help your chances of winning the debate. DA's: Impact comparison is the most significant portion of the debate for me. Turns the impact arguments are very compelling in debates where there is little else to distinguish impacts, but you need to be more articulate than just x turns y, you need to explain what about your impact uniquely accesses your opponents, especially if access your opponents impact args are going in both directions. I personally dislike the uniqueness controls the direction of the link framing on DA's, especially in close debates, but can be convinced to evaluate in that direction if you provide a strong warrant to do so. The more specific your DA/Link arguments, the better. T/Theory: I love a good T debate. However, if you are not clearly impacting your education/limits claim, I find it very difficult to evaluate at times how I should vote. I do not think that limits are good for limits sake, the debaters need to articulate why the aff uniquely is bad or causes bad cases to be read. For theory, I mentioned most of my theory preferences above, but I'll make a note here about my evaluation: these debates are very messy, and think that clearly articulating a small number of offensive arguments and explaining those in depth gets you a lot further than reading a generic block at me. I believe most arguments are a reason to reject the argument and not the team, external of conditionality, and think it woiuld be difficult to win an argument they don't go for is a reason the other team should lose. In terms of 2nr choice, unless the 2nr says conditionality means I can kick the counterplan/alt for you if you lose them, I will not kick those arguments for you. And even if you do, if the 2ar provides a compelling reason why I shouldn't, its a debate to be evaluated. Overall, just do what you do best, and try to have fun in the debate.

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.

Kallee McGrady - Timberline

Kati Searles - Renaissance

Katie Christianson - Walla Walla

Katie Lien - Southridge WA

Kelli Helzerman - Mt Si

Kendra Doty - Boise High

Years Coached Policy Debate: 1 Years Competed in Policy Debate: 6 <a name="_GoBack"></a>Coach or compete in the Northwest? Yes Coach or compete on the National Circuit? Yes  How I decide Policy debates: I debated at Centennial High in Idaho for four years and am now debating at Idaho State. The main thing I want to see in a debate is that the participants are enjoying themselves. Debate is something that should be fun, so do what you want.     Macro-issues:    -Communication—I come from a community in which the only voter is how you present yourself, which is pretty shitty. So I don’t find how you speak a voter. However, seeing as this an activity which revolves fully around rhetoric, please be clear and don’t use racial slurs. Also, if you’re going to speak in another language either make sure it’s one I know or explain to me why you’re doing it.    -Ethics—This is big. Be nice; Soyez sympa. I understand that there needs to be a certain amount of assertion in both speeches and cross-ex but that doesn’t mean that you need to make personal attacks or be hostile. Also, let you’re partner/opponent ask/answer questions, don’t be domineering.     -Impact calc—Good way to go for me, otherwise the last two speeches might as well be the constructives. Tell me why you win.    Micro-issues:    -T/Framework—I think that these debates can be awesome. I lean more towards framework when I say that, but I also like a good T debate. Go for the line by line. I think that for these debates, the passing ships analogy is all too fitting for many of these debates and that just makes me sad. So a “they say/ we say”  strategy is best in front of me. That being said, you can go for macro if you address the arguments that the other team makes and how it fits in with your overarching arguments -Theory—Please don’t go for the cheap shot, unless it’s all you’ve got. Again look to the passing ships part of the T/Framework stuff. But if it works, it works. Also, if it’s a legitimate argument, go for it.    -Counterplan—Please let me know why it’s net beneficial for me to vote for the counterplan. That’s about it.    -DA—that’s pretty self-explanatory. Do your thing, but make sure you have a decent internal link scenario. And if you read railroads, you gotta make the sound. #DrewCarlson.    -K—I genuinely believe that we should probably evaluate the ontological assumptions behind the decisions we make but you need to articulate that, or tell me that’s not the way to go. Articulate the link as well as the impact, especially if it’s abstract in comparison to the impacts of the 1AC. Otherwise I wont know what matters. The alt is pretty important as well, I’d like to know how me voting will change the world.     -Performance—Love it. Tell me why it matters.    There may be some bias in the arguments that I prefer, but that does NOT mean that you should change you’re strategy to please me. I will vote on whatever you tell me to vote on. I’m not locked in to certain things and debate is a place where you should convince me to vote on something. If you have any questions, let me know. <pnormal" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: medium; "> </pnormal">

Kevin Davison - Bear Creek

For Lincoln Douglas I'm a traditional LD judge: I vote off the Value and Value Criterion primarily, moving to contention level arguments supported by reasoning and evidence.  I am not tabla rasa, so RA's will have to pass a reasonable amount of scrutiny, but can be won off of if deemed reasonable.  Keep out of definitional debates.  I don't like spreading, and will vote against it in favor of a well reasoned argument as listed above.  If both competitors spread, I will default to the weighing mechanism listed above For Public Forum I feel it should go without saying that Public Forum should have no paradigms.  But in case that is not sufficient, I vote off a simple cost-benefit analysis, with neither side gaining presumption.  I look primarily to the contentions between well warranted and articulating a reasonable position.  I favor a warranted argument over a non-warranted argument.  I will accept review of evidence, visuals, etc.  Debaters may try to provide an alternative weighing mechanism, but it must set a reasonable standard.  Please keep it to the spirit of the type of debate.

Kevin Ma - Holy Names

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>

Lacey Gerback - Highland

Lindsay VanLuvance - Boise High

Lisa Weber - Newport

Lisa Rearden - Newport

Lois Gorne - Federal Way

n/a

Lori Barck - Renaissance

Lori Cossette - Gonzaga Prep

Maddie Handhardt - Renaissance

Marissa Morison - Highland

Matt Gander - S. Eugene

n/a

Matt Cardenas - Ferris

n/a

Matt Ockinga - Wenatchee

n/a

Matthew Lacy - Sam Barlow

Meghan McDonagh - Centennial

Michael Curry - Sprague

For all forms of debate: BE NICE! Be nice to me. Be nice to your opponent. Be nice to your partner. There is no money on the table, so don't act like there is. Speech and Debate is one of the most important things you do as a human being. So help make this wonderful activity accessible to all! Public Forum I expect cases to reflect the speaking expectations of event. 4 minutes of information presented in 4 minutes of time. I see my role as evaluating what you feel is important and would be worth speaking about, listening, and learning about. That being said, I do need clear signposting. The cleaner my flow, the more legitimate decision I can make. I expect to see impacts accessed in the round. If I have my way, all I have to do is look at the flow and weigh Aff world versus Neg world. I would like to make my decision solely off of the arguments first. If necessary, I may have to fill in some gaps . . . but I'd like to avoid this. If the debate is very messy on the flow, or lacks impacts, then and only then would I look to speaking style as a way to render a decision. Parliamentary Debate In a parli round I see my role as a non-intervening policy maker who is accustomed to, but doesn't necessarily require, stock issues as a part of the presentation. It's weird I know, but I don't think any one judge fits squarely into any one paradigm. More importantly, I would like to base my decision on the best arguments in the round. My need for some stock issues is more an acknowledgement that there should be some common expectation amongst the debaters about what to run. I do tend to policy make more often then stock issue, but I do presume Neg to an extent. Still, a bad Neg case will always lose to a better Aff, even if the Aff doesn't fulfill all its burdens. Unlike many of my Oregonian peers, I am very much in favor of teaching policy and theory arguments in parli debate. For me, especially considering that Neg's prep time is almost useless, providing the Neg with offensive opportunities is necessary. I do expect off case arguments to be run correctly. The #1 reason why I rarely vote (for example) on T is because elementary facets of the shell are missing, lack of impacts, or a general misunderstanding of what the argument even is. If you have me for a judge, don't run off case just for its own sake. I have a high threshold for pulling the trigger on a procedural, or a K. So be wise in these arguments' applications. My opinion on speed is the same for Parli as it is for Public Forum in one area. I expect both first constructives to be delivered at a reasonable speed. If I have a clean flow at the beginning, then I can place responses properly once the pace picks up. I still don't want spreading, but I get it that the Aff needs to move at a quick pace in order to cover the flow prior to and after the Neg block. I expect arguments that are complete. Good link stories. Weighable impacts. Voting issues in the rebuttals. No tag teaming when questions are presented. Also, THERE IS NO RULE IN OREGON ABOUT ONLY HAVING 3 QUESTIONS!!! If you say "I'll take the first of three questions," I will weigh that against you. Take the questions if the opponent has been asking good questions. I won't blame you if you don't because the questions haven't been probing. Ideally, I want to weigh the round on impacts. I like comparing Aff and Neg worlds. If necessary, I may have to fill in some gaps in order to render a verdict . . . but I'd like to avoid this. If the debate is very messy on the flow, or lacks impacts, then and only then would I look to speaking style as a way to render a decision. LDV Debate In an LD round I see my role as a non-intervening judge who wants to leave the direction of the round open as much as possible to what the debaters bring to the table. LDV is wide open for me in many regards. In Oregon, I value the V/C debate and would love all communication at a reasonable speed. Yet, we travel to some circuit tournaments on the West Coast, so of course I enjoy seeing the diversity of policy and framework arguments. So here's what would make my decision more legitimate. In regards to the case, run what you believe is worth speaking about, listening about, and learning about. Chances are really good that you know some stuff I don't. You are really focusing on this topic, and I have to teach classes, grade assignments, and raise my two sons. So you have the information advantage. You are going to have to educate me and sell me on whatever you are running. One point that is very important: I'm a smart guy. I'll get it only if you are proficient at delivering it. If I "didn't understand" your position, it's probably because you failed to adequately explain it. I do need clear signposting. I do need the constructives to be at medium speed. I find most people who spread are bad at it for a number of reasons. But the impact is devastating: I will have a messy flow. If you can give me a clear beginning, then you can pick up the pace in the rebuttals, and I can flow it better. I like to compare Aff and Neg worlds. I like to do this weighing with impacts. I would like to be able to base my decision off of the flow. If necessary, I may have to fill in some gaps in order to render a verdict . . . but I'd like to avoid this. If the debate is very messy on the flow, or lacks impacts, then and only then would I look to speaking style as a way to render a decision.

Michael Hazel - Boise High

Mick Holt - Eastside Catholic

n/a

Mike Stovern - Mead

I will follow my flow fairly closely, and I consider drops concessions, but please don't tell me that what your opponent dropped is a voter. Instead, tell me about the impact of that concession. Primarily, I will make my decisions based upon the quality of your voting issues when they are filtered through your value/criterion. Please give me voters that show impact and demonstrate an effective use of how your criterion upholds your value. Show me what the world is like under the side of the resolution that you are defending. I am willing to vote on anything as long as you can support it, or your opponent doesn’t discredit it.   Your criterion should serve as a weighing mechanism and a means to uphold your value. All contentions should uphold your value unless you have a contention with the purpose of showing how the opposing side is immoral/impossible. Rebuttals should have no new evidence.   Remember to roadmap and signpost. Feel free to speak quickly, but slow down on tag lines and be clear. Be polite; you are attacking a position not a person.

Morgan Munn - BC ACADEMY

Experience: I’ve been judging and coaching public forum for about 2.5 years now, but I come from a Canadian high school and university British Parliamentary debate background, and from that background I’ve come to value analysis and engagement alongside the more public forum-specific aspects of impact and frameworks. (Frameworks are helpful to making many rounds more focused but don’t have a debate about the framework please.) Decisions: In my decision, I appreciate when the debaters have done most of the decision-making for me within the round. This includes making clear, well-analysed and well-impacted arguments and thoroughly engaging (clashing) with each other’s content – use what each other have said to convince me who won. This means thoroughly explaining your arguments and counterarguments, telling me why they are important/significant, and responding to what your opponents have said, respectively. Note that good engagement tends to not be line-for-line refutation and line-for-line reconstruction but rather considering how the different ideas within the round interact with each other. I find rounds that lack engagement to be super frustrating because I don’t want to do the engagement myself by weighing arguments that have never or scarcely interacted against each other. A further note on analysis – I find it disappointing when debaters simply read off pieces of evidence and consider that to be the body of an argument in and of itself. Evidence should be incorporated into your logical explanation of the analysis and it is often useful to explain why that evidence enhances your argument. Style and speaker points: I tend not to evaluate style as separate from the content of the debate because I find that style fits into a more holistic evaluation of the round. Generally, being a clear speaker is the best bet; however that being said, a particularly persuasive speaker is likely to have a style that enhances their content while a speaker that is unclear will reduce the persuasion of their content if its not understandable. For example, I’ll never take off speaker points for having an accent, but if you talk too quickly, too quietly, or too mumbly, for example, then it is likely to reduce your ability to show off your brilliant content and this would therefore reduce your overall persuasiveness and performance. Debaters should try to develop a style that best allows their speaking ability and content to be complimentary. Also – please don’t ‘spread’ or talk really fast unless you are absolutely certain you can be understood by everyone. I’m of the belief that you don’t need to rush in order to win a debate and you should manage your time to talk about the most important stuff in the round. If you talk too fast I probably won’t catch most of what you say and that’s bad. Feedback: I don’t mind giving oral feedback and I will give as much feedback as the debaters ask for as long as there is enough time to do so; I’m also happy to disclose if the tournament allows it and the teams ask.

Mrs Kwik - Newport

n/a

Mrs. Mckeague - Kentlake

n/a

Nancy Forstheofel - Walla Walla

Owen Zahorcak - S. Eugene

n/a

Pam Peck - Highland

Pat Brown - Corvallis

n/a

Patrick Johnson - Westview

Real world arguments win- theoretical/improbable impacts do not Comparative impacts critical for a win Topicality is legit, again, only for real world probability CLASH! and signpost where your arguments clash with opponents AND why your impact is more significant No tagteam when prohibited Speed is not your friend when I'm judging, if you have firmly established your contentions and have time, then spreading ok w/o speed

Paul Moses - Boise High

Paul Kanellopoulos - Saint George

Paul Dillon - Ferris

n/a

Rachel Wilczewski - Sam Barlow

Rebar Niemi - Bridge

Richard Zuercher - Renaissance

Background: CX competitor for Centennial High School (Boise, ID) for 4 years CX competitor for the College of Idaho for 2 years Parli competitor for the College of Idaho for 1 year Asst Coach for the College of Idaho 3 years (Parli, IEs, IPDA) Head Coach for Renaissance High School for 4 years (CX, LD, PF, IEs) Philosophy: I am usually open to most arguments made in the debate and will leave the debaters the responsibility to both justify their own arguments and attack those of their opponents.  Having said that, I evaluate arguments based both on how those arguments appear on the flow AND how those arguments persuade my thinking in the debate round.  For instance, a neg team may drop a conditionality bad argument on the flow, but it may not be a voting issue because there was no demonstrable impact in the round.  Just because the issue is dropped does not make the issue magically convincing - that work must still be done by the debaters.  CX Issues: T is a voting issue unless proven otherwise in the round. SPEC arguments are not a-priori arguments unless proven otherwise in the round. CPs are legit unless proven otherwise in the round.  I think Dispo is the most legit way to run a CP, but not necessarily the case.  There are a variety of reasons to run CPs in a variety of ways.  I don't tend to vote on theory issues unless there is actual in-round abuse.  Ks are legit for aff and neg unless proven otherwise.  I tent to vote on Ks when they are consistent with the neg strategy.  Reading a Statism K while simultaneously running an agent CP seems to defeat the purpose of the criticism and damages your cred.  It doesn't mean that I won't vote for it, it just means that you have to do some extra work justifying your contradiction.  Impact Calc:  I lean on probability before magnitude unless proven otherwise in the round.    LD Issues: I am open to a variety of argumentation and strategy.  I am most used to a value criterion debate, but I would love to see different strategies and theory. Ks are legit unless proven otherwise in the round. Plans are OK unless proven otherwise in the round.   PF Issues: I am open to a variety of argumentation and strategy. I am most used to a straight-up fact round debate, but I would love to see different strategies and theory. Ks and other various arguments are legit unless proven otherwise in the round.   Any other questions, just ask.

Rob Sorensen - Bear Creek

I’m a traditional judge – I consider the value/criteria debate to be most important.  Your contentions should flow naturally from your VC and should be clearly and intentionally related. I’m quite skeptical of theory and kritiks, so if you want to run these, you will need also to argue convincingly as to why I should vote on these sorts of things.  I expect debaters to actually engage the resolution, rather than trying to redefine or avoid the commonsense intention of the resolution.  Don’t try to spread.  I value clarity, fluency, and eloquence and have limited tolerance for speed.  I will not vote for a debater whose case I cannot easily follow and flow.<o:p></o:p>

Roberta Rice - Central Valley Hig

Robyn Rose - Sam Barlow

Ron Price - Renaissance

Roxy Valdez - Holy Names

Russ Wecker - Ferris

n/a

Ryan Hand - Boise High

<div>  </div>   <div> <div style="font-family: noteworthy-light; font-size: 15px;"> Things I generally think:</div> <div style="font-family: noteworthy-light; font-size: 15px;">  </div> <div style="font-family: noteworthy-light; font-size: 15px;"> To my dismay, timing flashing has been normalized, so I will time your prep until your speech doc is saved and ejected.</div> <div style="font-family: noteworthy-light; font-size: 15px;"> Debate is an intense, stressful, and sometimes terrible activity, so I really appreciate levity and being able to step back and laugh at yourself and the activity that we're engaging in.</div> <div style="font-family: noteworthy-light; font-size: 15px;"> Don't be mean, racist, sexist, or any other -ist you can think of. It'll hurt your speaks, I'll tell people (including your coaches) about it, and it just makes you look bad.</div> <div style="font-family: noteworthy-light; font-size: 15px;">  </div> <div style="font-family: noteworthy-light; font-size: 15px;"> I'll start what I think about things now,</div> <div style="font-family: noteworthy-light; font-size: 15px;">  </div> <div style="font-family: noteworthy-light; font-size: 15px;"> Overview:</div> <div style="font-family: noteworthy-light; font-size: 15px;"> This is my second year judging high school, I'm a second year debater at Idaho State, and judged probably about 75+ rounds on the space topic. I judged at the GDI this summer, so I have a basic grasp of this year's topic as well. I tend to be very flow centric, at least in the speeches until the 1AR. I do like debaters who are both smart and strategic enough to conceptually group arguments, but for the most part, I believe that people try to take themselves away from a flow because of technical shortcomings, not for strategic use. That being said, if you can execute a highly technical speech, you will be handily rewarded. In the end of the debate, whether it's a policy aff vs. a CP/DA or a critical aff vs a critique or something, there are central questions that will frame the way that the judge evaluates the micro-level arguments that are made. I believe that 2NRs/2ARs are best when they identify arguments that are important, spend time on them at the top of their speeches, and then explain how a certain argument should frame my evaluation of certain arguments on a flow. I'll talk more about my thoughts on specific arguments here:</div> <div style="font-family: noteworthy-light; font-size: 15px;">  </div> <div style="font-family: noteworthy-light; font-size: 15px;"> Affs:</div> <div style="font-family: noteworthy-light; font-size: 15px;"> A few things I think:</div> <div style="font-family: noteworthy-light; font-size: 15px;"> <ol> <li> I do NOT think the aff MUST have a plan text, I think the aff SHOULD have an advocacy statement, although if an aff doesn't have a plan text or advocacy statement, I will be more easily persuaded by framework arguments from the negative team. The best affirmatives are at least germane to the topic, and are ready to defend their "link" to the topic.</li> <li> While generally I am not a fan of theoretical objections from either teams, I can be persuaded by arguments in the 2AC regarding "Argumentatively Inconsistent Conditionality" --that just means that the negative has a right to "argumentatively consistent conditionality" where they have multiple sheets of paper that do not necessarily link to each other. Also, I don't believe the aff has a "right to a permutation" however, you should make them, but be prepared to theoretically justify them if pressed.</li> <li> I, being a 2N, err negative on theory--if you want to win theory--it needs to be most of the 2AR</li> <li> I believe that the 2AR can go for impact turns to framework arguments, even if they're not extended in the 2NR</li> <li> Politics Disad--I am a sucker for intrinsicness arguments here, and also will reward you if you know things and make arguments on the uniqueness and link level that don't necessarily need cards--i know what's going on in politics, and if you can give a warranted arguments about why what the negative is saying is untrue--i will reward you</li> </ol> <div> Negs:</div> </div> <div style="font-family: noteworthy-light; font-size: 15px;"> A few more things i Think:</div> <div style="font-family: noteworthy-light; font-size: 15px;"> <ol> <li> A negative team that reads 7 off case positions will certainly get lower speaker points than one that reads 4 off case positions</li> <li> I absolutely dig most negative arguments, i'm also a sucker for presumption arguments. <ol> <li> I love a good CP/case strategy, i think it rewards good research and strategy. Diverse case positions will be rewarded, and I do believe that if you're going to go for the CP, you need to do one of two things--1) explain why the counter plan solves the case with a persuasively extended and true net benefit 2) or to PIC out of things that you believe the affirmative does/says wrongly in the debate</li> <li> Disads--yes, do them. I think you need to explain your internal link chain, you just do. I can make the jump in my mind about why the spending disad might lead to war, but i want to see that you understand that too.</li> <li> Critiques---the more topic specific, the better. I don't like the generics as much, but I find arguments that fundamentally challenge the assumptions of the affirmative interesting. You need to explain and understand the link arguments, after all, what is your argument if the aff doesn't link. If you want to go for the critique in the 2NR, you need to do a few things--1) explain how the alternative either solves the aff or the impacts of the 1nc 2) Extend impacts, i know it seems obvious, but it's lacking and finally 3) do impact comparison--HINT: if you're not starting your 2NC/2NRs when going for the critique with these words, "the critique outweighs and turns the aff--then explain why" you're probably losing</li> </ol> </li> </ol> </div> <div>  </div> </div>

Sally Conner - Central Valley Hig

I have judged debate events for about 15 years, most frequently congress, with occasional LD and PF. I enjoy rounds that stay away from excessive jargon and debaters focus on clear communication. I think that the value is important in a LD round, and I think that evidence is important in a round, but that it is an even more important skill to focus on deciding what evidence is important to include in a round, and to explain the relevance of this information. I do not enjoy speed.

Sam Mershon - Sam Barlow

Sam Normington - Saint George

<h2> <span style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: en-us; mso-fareast-language: en-us; mso-bidi-language: ar-sa"><span style="font-family: 'times new roman', 'serif'; font-size: 12pt; mso-fareast-font-family: calibri; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-ansi-language: en-us; mso-fareast-language: en-us; mso-bidi-language: ar-sa">I competed in policy debate in high school and have been coaching all forms of debate the past ten years.  I traditionally judge policy debate, so often find myself preferring its trappings. Speed, topicality, kritiks, are all fine by me, use them or don't, doesn't bother me.  I will do my best to evaluate the round using the framework the debaters put forth.  I like clash, and I like impact calculus.  </h2>

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 Mercer - Tahoma High

Sean Harris-Campf - Holy Names

Seth Vick - CapitalID

<div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "> Tabula Rasa (default to policy maker if you don't put me in another paradigm)</div> <div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "> Speed is fine, slowing down on tags is helpful for flowing</div> <div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "> Theory is fine, I default to competing interpretations unless you argue otherwise</div> <div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "> Kritiks are fine, just be prepared to do the work</div> <div style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; "> As my paradigm shows, I'm pretty much prepared to handle whatever you want to throw at me. I debated for Capital High School 05-07, and have judged constantly since then. I'm big on impact analysis, if you want me to vote for you then the best way to accomplish that is to give me the whole story about why aff advantages outweigh negative impacts or vice versa. Slow down on tag lines and citations to make sure that I get the complete idea, I don't mind if you buzz through the card as long as you're understandable. Other than that, it's your round.</div>

Shaun Leibfried - Sammamish

Shawna Capell - Mtn. View (ID)

n/a

Shelly Reed - Timberline

Shem Malone - Tualatin

n/a

Sheri Ahlheim - Peninsula

Shirley McLaughlin - Walla Walla

Shirley Lim - Newport

Steve Denliger - Vashon

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.

Susan Worst - Wood River

n/a

Susan Grove - Sammamish

Susan Mohn - Newport

Sylvia Nixon - Mtn Home

n/a

TJ Billinger - Mtn Home

n/a

Taylor Reynolds - Puyallup

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.

2011 Whitman Wilcox HS Tournament