FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alayna Becker - Ferris

n/a

Alex Belisle - Timberline

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Belisle%2C+Alex

Alexis Di Sanza - Central Valley Hig

Policy: I typically prefer policy-based arguments, and do not have as much experience with kritiks. However, if that’s what you run, I’ll listen. Just be aware that I do not know the literature as well and I have a slightly higher threshold for explanation. I default to an offense/defense paradigm unless you tell me otherwise.  CX is binding. Topicality: I tend to lean aff on topicality arguments. The best way to win T in front of me is to articulate external impacts. Specific impacts are superior to potential abuse, and comparison of standards is very important for both sides. T is not an RVI. Theory: I am more sympathetic to aff conditionality arguments than other judges when the negative reads multiple conditional counterplans, especially if any those counterplans have multiple conditional planks. However, the aff has to develop these conditionality arguments throughout the round, and have a counter interpretation. Blippy tags won’t cut it. Most other theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, not the team. CPs/DAs: The more specific, the better. I tend to believe that counterplans should be both textually and functionally competitive. Even though I evaluate a round based on offense/defense, I will assign zero risk of a disad if you are substantially winning a defensive argument. Kritiks: As I mentioned, I am not as familiar with this style, but I have both seen and run kritiks, and I can figure out what you’re saying and vote on it if you explain your link/impact/alternative clearly.  Please avoid buzzwords, as I don’t regularly read much literature that is often introduced in kritik debates. LD: Do what you do best, and I will follow. Non-traditional formats are fine. I evaluate LD debates in a very similar manner as I do policy, offense is important.  Value to value clash is very important but should not be separate from the rest of the debate. I really don’t think Topicality or theory are RVIs. I have an extremely high threshold for this argument. I have never voted on an RVI and going for one will result in low speaker points. That being said, I can tell the difference between good theory arguments and dumb ones. I flow the affirmative and negative on two separate sheets of paper. You will be expected to adjust your speeches and signpost accordingly.

Alicia Bradley - Puyallup

Allen Jackson - Centennial

4 years High School Debate 4 years Judging High School Debate   I can follow fast debate, but stress clarity, especially the tag line and warrants of a piece of evidence.   I am partial to topicality arguments so long as you do the work on standards and voters. I believe this is a good neg tool to check off topic affs.   DAs- I like impact turns and calculus. Trying to non-unique a DA is rarely enough to sway me.   K's- I have a fairly high threshold for these arguments, but you shouldn't assume that I'm familiar with the literature you've read. Avoid jargon, and spend time relating your argument to the aff.   Framework- A clear framework is necessary to evaluate any argument, you would do well to establish and argue for impact evaluation through your framework.   I am not easily offended and will not dock you for presenting certain arguments, but be respectful of everyone involved in the round.

Aly Hoover - Squalicum

LD: Kritiks, CPs, etc are fine. Speed is fine as long as clear, has a purpose in the round, and opponent is not overwhelmed. I weigh the round through the value/criterion though I do think the debaters invent the rules for the round (aside from basic structure and NFL rules) Tab judge in policy debate. Speed is fine. Theory is fine.

Aly Hoover - Bellingham

Amy McCormick - Tahoma High

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 Durand - Whitman

Andrew Hoth - CapitalID

<div> *Overview*</div> <div> Hey all, I'm Andrew Hoth. I debated at Capital High in Boise for 3 years,</div> <div> and am currently a freshman at Idaho State University. I'm fairly new to</div> <div> judging, but I'm probably familiar enough with your arguments to judge</div> <div> effectively.  I'll go by type of argument here, but when in doubt just</div> <div> remember that I'm generally tabula rasa with a preference toward kritikal</div> <div> and performance argument. However, I will vote as I am told, and you'll win</div> <div> the debate on impact framing no matter what your 1AC/1NC is.</div> <div>  </div> <div> *Topicality*</div> <div> Generally speaking, I don't necessarily believe that the affirmative has to</div> <div> defend a topical plan implemented by the USFG. Negative teams will</div> <div> definitely have an uphill battle winning T debates, and my threshold for</div> <div> voting is fairly high. I'm not easily persuaded by "potential abuse"</div> <div> arguments. If you want to go for this in your 2NR, your best option is to</div> <div> have a list of arguments that are excluded and a topical version (or</div> <div> multiple) version of the plan, AND reasons why those are necessary for</div> <div> debate. "We lose the Spending DA" doesn't cut it for me.</div> <div>  </div> <div> *CP/DAs vs Case*</div> <div> In terms of plan-focus policy debate, I'm more likely to vote here than on</div> <div> Topicality. Definitely do your impact winning, and I do value defense more</div> <div> than most judges. "risk of a link" is a last-ditch argument, and shouldn't</div> <div> be the focal point of your 2NR/2AR. I do think winning a no-link argument,</div> <div> especially if it is true given the aff/cp, is enough to make a DA go away.</div> <div> Also, I find the politics and spending DAs hopelessly non-unique, and the</div> <div> 1A can score major speaks with me just by answering "How much does your</div> <div> plan cost" with "enough to be substantial, but not enough to trigger your</div> <div> spending DA". WEIGH YOUR IMPACTS. That's what these debates come down to,</div> <div> and not just your number of horrible nuclear war scenarios that don't</div> <div> change anything</div> <div>  </div> <div> *Framework*</div> <div> As noted earlier, I don't stand by the philosophy that an aff must defend a</div> <div> plan implemented by the USFG. By the same token, Negatives are generally</div> <div> free to win by criticisms of the other team's implications, rather than</div> <div> just advantages that never come true anyways. Essentially, framework</div> <div> debates are probably the hardest argument to win with me, and don't rely on</div> <div> potential abuse here. I've seen dozens of excellent K vs K debates, or even</div> <div> just have a defense of why your methodology is good. You better have a good</div> <div> reason why the K should be excluded, and it better include a lot of lost</div> <div> ground, topical affs, and other arguments to challenge the affirmative or</div> <div> negative. Not every DA links to every aff, and I don't care that you can't</div> <div> run spending.</div> <div>  </div> <div> *Kritiks*</div> <div> Definitely my favorite part of debate. I would love nothing more than to</div> <div> see an excellent K on K showdown, especially if it is made of issues that</div> <div> actually concern me. I'm mostly up on the jargon, although some of the</div> <div> wankiest K's I will get lost in. If I don't understand it, I'm not going to</div> <div> vote for it. Just because you said "zero point of holocaust" doesn't mean I</div> <div> automatically know how the affirmative's impact justifications should be</div> <div> rejected. Build your ethos, slow down in the block, and really explain to</div> <div> me the links. Remember, you start ahead on the framework debate, so cut</div> <div> time there if you need more on the K.</div> <div>  </div> <div> *Theory*</div> <div> First off, theory debates are pretty much flipping a coin in the first</div> <div> place. They are hard to flow, and usually muddled through by both teams.</div> <div> That being said, I think they are excellent weapons to be used by both</div> <div> sides, and I'm more than willing to vote on your theoretical objection.</div> <div> Don't expect high speaks though, and have actual in-round abuse. "Reject</div> <div> the argument, not the team" will go a long way with me.</div> <div>  </div> <div> *Other stuff*</div> <div> Time your own stuff. You should have a timer. Write in on the whiteboard.</div> <div> If you truly want me to, I'll time it, but I'd rather spend time thinking</div> <div> about your decision. Plus I'm generally bad at keeping track of speech</div> <div> times. I don't time roadmaps.</div> <div> Go as fast as you need to. I can keep up. Do not spew though; if I don't</div> <div> understand it, I won't flow it, and I won't vote on it.</div> <div> If you want an alternative flowing method, just say so. I'll only flow that</div> <div> way for your team though.</div> <div> Finally, just don't be an asshole. We're all here to have fun and debate,</div> <div> not to verbally abuse each other. While I'm totally fine with sarcasm in</div> <div> cross-x or whatever, don't be at each other's throats. Show up on time. If</div> <div> you do that, I think we'll all have fun.</div>

Andy Larson - Whitman

I think it will be most instructive to list my preferred 2NR strategies (these also tend to be strategies that I am most qualified to judge): 1) DA + Case 2) Adv CP + DA + Case 3) CP + DA 4) Ks with links to the plan + Case 5) Anything that requires zero topic research   K Affs: I think you should have a topical advocacy even if it is not a “plan” in the traditional sense.  I tend to lean neg on framework issues, but I will judge these kinds of debates as fairly as possible.   Kritiks: Buzzwords do not help me, especially if your preferred philosopher has made up this word (this includes words not used in their dictionary sense, and words that are an amalgamation of several other words).  K overviews help me only insofar as they provide me with a thesis and some impact calculus, assuming that I will understand your "embedded clash" from the overview is a risk. I would prefer that you debate the K like a DA, doing good line by line.  I will NOT turn a 2NR or 2AR that does not refute the other team’s major offense directly, into a slayer impact turn for you in the post round.    CP Theory: I lean neg on most CP theory questions with the major exception of competition.  I think that CPs should be both textually and functionally competitive.  Conditionality should be limited to around 2 or maybe 3 advocacies.  I will judge kick counterplans assuming that SQ is a logical option is an argument made.   T: I usually lean toward reasonability when evaluating T; this has become less true for me every year I have remained in the activity.  Spec is not a winner in front of me unless it is nuanced and supported by the literature, if you think this might not be the case, I suggest you read a real strategy instead.    Other Things: Personal attacks are not cool, in any context (this applies to both sides in K debates and will be enforced with substantial deductions of speaker points).  I like jokes and points of connection, they are important for high speaks.

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 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.

Arinola Dada - Eastside Catholic

I am the parent of an Eastside Catholic competitor.  I prefer a clear, moderate pace and explicit voters.  Please impact your arguments to the standard and explain how arguments function in the round.  I prefer straightforward debate and am not comfortable voting on Kritiks, theory, or other alternative arguments.  Please articulate your warrants, not just your claims, in each speech.

Ashley Skinner - Tahoma High

n/a

Ashley Skinner--TAHOMA HS - Whitman

Austin Brittenham - Centennial

<a name="_GoBack">Things about me regarding if I’m right for you:</a>   This will be my second tournament judging, my first was at the Gonzaga Debate Institute this summer (2012). I debated for 3 years in high school and am in my first year at, and debating for, the University of Puget Sound. I’m most experienced with critical debate where I did quite lefty stuff, but have run small squirrely policy affs to big stick heg affs. I’ve primarily been a 2a but respect the 2nr in clear 1ar/2ar continuity. My 1nr in high school was largely case, occasionally politics or a counterplan. Our affs in high school were usually non-plan, and usually involved reading a play. In college our affs haven’t had plans, and have been about psychoanalysis and aesthetics. I like to think I’m pretty middle, but in a very techie policy v policy round I might be a bit less proficient. My partner was a T hack. I really like it when you talk about the topic.       Things I think about in debate:   I think no risk of an argument is possible, but to win a round on terminal defense means you should be clearly answering competing warrants and spin. I reward gutsy argument selection in any speech with higher speaks granted if it is a viable strategy.   I don’t think debaters should have to change their argument to a judge. If you get me I’ll hear your arg. Don’t think you should change your 1ac, 1nc or 2nr choice with me in the back; go for what you’re comfortable with and just clearly weigh it against the other team’s offense.   I follow a pretty clear offense/defense paradigm. A clear articulation of offense in the 2a/2n helps me frame my ballot and is rewarded with higher speaks.   I default to competing interpretations and timeframe if no other analysis is going on.   Finally, I really enjoy a good techy k team. I understand there are meta-enframing claims, but I like it too when that happens on one part of the flow, and the line-by-line gets answered explicitly too.

Barbara Roberts - Highland

Ben Menzies - Whitman

(things have changed some - my old philosophy really didn't reflect very accurately on how my thoughts have changed over the last couple years) Short version: I’m middle of the road, willing to listen to anything, and conscious of biases that I also try to keep at arms length. I’m a senior debating at Whitman College, so you know I’m into those DAs and CPs. I do a lot of thinking and reading about “non-policy” modes of debate though, both in my academic life and in my pre-college debate career. I like contextualized analysis and am much more happy with a few good cards deployed well than a mountain of single-sentence cards extended in a list at the bottom of your speech. Be competitive, be smart, but shake hands and be nice at the end of the debate. Condescension to opponents, especially inexperienced opponents, will be punished with poor speaks. Also, in case you can’t tell from the novel below, I think long thoughts and will probably have quite a bit to say at the end of the debate – feel free to cut me off if you need to go. Update 10/28 - I will be disclosing speaker ranks in all future rounds. Typically I operate on a scale of 26-29, with 29+ points awarded for people I think should be locks for top 15 speakers at a major tournament (Cal, Harvard, USC, etc) and below 27 reserved for younger debaters with substantial progress to be made on both technical and stylistic fronts. I would guess that my average is something like 27.9. This scale will be different for JV/Novice divisions - I would probably use 28+ for debaters I think display significant promise already and could probably hang in an open division round without being blown out. Contact me at <a href="mailto:menziebr@whitman.edu">menziebr@whitman.edu</a> if you want help on going to Whitman, debating in college (anywhere) or just generally want to talk about debate or making it to college. Debates I am most qualified/happy to be judging based on 2NR strat: Case/DA CP/DA Case/K T K alone (...) Bataille Couple quotes that illustrate my perspective – “I believe I have an obligation to work as hard at judging as the debaters do preparing for the debates.” – Scott Harris – in other words, I’m gonna read a lot of cards and I’m going to think a lot of thoughts “When you go for everything, you get nothing.” – Stephen Goldberg – debate is a game of strategic choices – the best way to play it is to make conscious, intelligent choices that put you in a better position to win the debate. I give speaker points that reflect whether I think you did that or not. Long version: Debate, for me, has been a space for extraordinary diversity of thought, and has allowed me tremendous space to bounce all over the place in the past seven years. I think my primary responsibility as a critic (not a judge) to help you in whatever way I can regardless of where you are locating yourself within that space. My vision for debate is a space in which hard work necessarily results in success, despite natural ability and material inequalities. As such, I tend to reward teams with specific, contextualized arguments backed by rigorous research and deployed responsively against opposing arguments. I think judges who say they are “tab” are lying to themselves and to you, so I will not claim to be that – see below for specific argumentative proclivities – but I also think that it is my obligation to work as hard as possible to hear your arguments fairly. That means I’ll listen to any strategy – K, policy, something irreducible to such labels – and will work very hard to give you a constructive critique. I sympathize with one iteration of James Stevenson’s philosophy: “I aim to be the most middle-of-the-road judge ever”; however, I also am limited simply by what I find persuasive. Members of the community who I particularly admired and thus have exercised significant influence over the development of my perspective(s) on debate (in no particular order): Lindsay VanLuvanee, Alex Zendeh, Allison Humble, James Stevenson, Ryan Wash, Sam Allen, Meghan Hughes, Matt Schissler, Nate Cohn, Ben Meiches, Stephen Goldberg, Jimi Durkee, Aaron Hardy, Tom Meagher. I hope to add many more to this list. Inclusion on this list does not mean that I agree with everything this person things - in fact I have some very serious disagreements with a number of these people on philosophical grounds, but each person there has contributed significantly to my understanding of debate. Note that the above list would produce a very interesting squad… My background: I debated for three years in high school on the California circuit (Long Beach, USC, Cal, Stanford, Berkeley, usually a few more in there) at Nevada Union HS. We were a rural, public high school and as such encountered a LOT of difficulties in terms of resource disparities. We were lucky enough to be somewhat proximate to a lot of good debate (only an eight hour drive to LA!). The team also basically fell apart shortly before I joined. As a result, the vast majority of my time in high school was spent doing team-building things (teaching, fundraising, recruiting etc) as opposed to “debate” things. Most of this time was spent moving further towards the “critical” side of the policy/critical divide – my senior year, I read narratives about Hmong veterans on the aff and talked about Chaloupka and decoloniality (word to Tom Meagher) a lot on the neg. Then I got a massive need-based scholarship to go to Whitman and got shafted by a lot of state schools, which sort of changed my argumentative toolbox. I spent a lot of time early in college learning how to do “traditional” debate with Aaron Hardy and had a somewhat radical pendulum swing towards the “policy” stuff. At Whitman, I’ve also studied a lot of humanities – I’m a Religion major in a department headed by a brilliant Gender Studies scholar who specializes in Queer Studies, if that gives you a picture for the kind of work we do. As a result, I’m very comfortable with the general theoretical framework of “critical” arguments (even if I am a bit of a materialist at heart). I’ll also take this moment to note that while I do still have some of that “rural, poor, small, public school kid” chip on my shoulder, there’s a lot of privilege embedded in the above background, and personally, I spend a lot of time thinking about how to acknowledge that privilege without letting it entirely determine my thought and practice. In the last couple years, I’ve settled somewhat in the middle if I had to peg my ideology: I have a lot of respect for what some “critical” teams do (Emporia SW was obviously one of the best teams ever, for instance), and think the K is a strategic tool much like anything else, but I’d be lying if I didn’t say that I found the incommensurability of impacts in these debates somewhat difficult to evaluate, leaving me in an awkward position as a critic. I’ll confess: I like extinction impacts because I think they create a somewhat stable locus of impact comparison, but I’m also pretty soundly persuaded that they tend to obviate other forms of violence that have “probability” and “timeframe” metrics through the roof. “Framework” (whatever this is). I think the framework debate is becoming kind of a vestigial component of K debates, which is unfortunate. While I am almost entirely unpersuaded by the 2AC framework that says Ks are cheating, I also think some discussion of “framework” is necessary to determine how I, the critic, should evaluate new, different frames of analysis. IE – if the 1NC says your ontology is bad, you definitely need some reason why the 1AC should matter at all as a matter of ontology. At the same time, if your K is about ontology, you really should defend why an ontological focus is necessary. The basic utility of this argument, then, for the K on the neg is to “frame out” aff impacts, and for the aff, to develop a reason why I should evaluate the 1AC. My perspective on this changes significantly when there is a K aff. K affs are cool. However, a necessary cost is defending your relationship to the topic, whatever that is. I honestly don’t understand the snide dismissal of framework/T in these debates these days – it seems like a central question of the affirmative’s “mechanism” much like a plan in a more traditional debate, and thus seems an important argument to forward by the negative. I think “T version of your aff” is often devastating, and affs should be very diligent about answering it. I also think that negatives are best served by establishing an interpretation of debate that grants some space for “non-traditional” argumentation while preserving some locus of negative debates. I am also somewhat alarmed by a growth in affs that I find fundamentally un-negatable – I am deeply troubled by the prospect of compelling a negative to make arguments against a person’s identity, for instance, or forcing that same negative to discuss their identity if they do not wish to. But of course, like all things, that perspective is wrapped up in some privilege. K affs – if you don’t derive any advantage from the plan action, why read a plan text? If you’re only garnering solvency from your critical genealogy (or whatever), having a text probably only hurts you by creating space for the neg to out-radical you. Affirmative thoughts: I’ve spent most of my time in debate writing affirmatives. As such, I appreciate well-constructed affs. A good aff is much like a good article – there is a coherent purpose to each part of the aff. Furthermore, the best affs begin as responses to the best negative arguments on the topic. Thus, on the college topic, the best 1ACs contain embedded DAs to the XO counterplan. The worst affs are a bunch of random impacts strung together loosely, and these are usually defeated by intelligent counterplans. Most affs depend on fairly tenuous internal links – I reward negatives that are able to pull those apart. You don’t need cards to make case args – nothing is more devastating for a 2A than a 1NC that contains significant quantities of smart analytics against the case. Cards against the case are good though. I think a neg that doesn’t answer the aff will lose 95% of its rounds – that can mean either adequately extending defense to the case directly or a well-argued counterplan that negates the strategic benefit of the 1AC, but one way or another, that case is likely big and scary and quite persuasive to me if you aren’t challenging it. Theory – here are my biases. First, as noted above, my least favorite kinds of debates are debates between blocks written by somebody else. Theory tends to be the epitome of that. I tend to think theoretical challenges are no-cost, small reward options, and therefore will not punish you for them, but I am probably zoning out while you read your crappy shell. You probably don’t need ten standards on your conditionality violation. Interpretations are useful and make debates easier to adjudicate. I am a 2A and therefore probably somewhat aff-biased on question of cheating counterplans (I am usually not fond of CPs that just steal the whole aff, although they are also often strategic necessities), but I am also a 1N which means I am also friendly to neg claims making fun of “abuse.” The best way to get my ballot on this is to set up an intelligent, coherent, and short violation early in the debate, have offense for your interpretation, and spend a lot of time in the final rebuttals doing impact calc. I recommend you only do this if they have made a serious, round-losing error, like dropping the argument. I’ll close with a thought from James Stevenson that largely sums up my feelings: “I no longer flow answers to theory arguments, I just write "hard debate is good debate" and move on.” “The K”: If all you are looking for is whether I will listen – yes. That said, I’ve had a long and complex relationship with the K. I’ve used it to effectively demolish some teams by being crafty and working hard. I’ve also had it used against me in ways that I think sidestepped the importance of hard work in favor of obscure philosophical terms. I think the K is at its best when it is paired with a heavy case press to disprove the truth claims of the 1AC. It is at its second-best when effectively deployed to criticize a critical aff’s methodology. It is at its worst when it is the McWhorter card and the Zimmerman card in the 1NC, and the block fails to mention the aff. The K is powerful because it offers alternative theoretical understandings of the 1AC – those NECESSITATE contextualization. Your overview written in August is likely not directly applicable to the round at hand – so don’t read it verbatim. The best K debaters are those who are most flexible against the affirmative – applying their genero Burke evidence to the ways the 1AC constructs a violent ontology SPECIFICALLY (as opposed to “They said states do stuff = genocide”). I confess, my “Ivory Tower Bullshit” alarm starts going off the more cards read by abstract European intellectuals – Heidegger, Baudrillard, Derrida, Lacan, and Bataille, are all individuals I find entirely boring (but occasionally useful). I’ve rolled with many a standard cap K in my day and am very comfortable with that literature. In the right context, I think Nietzsche is slayer and I have read a lot of Nietzsche in my day. I am generally on board and quite familiar with critiques of oppressive systems – I have a ton of background in gender studies, and quite a lot of background in various strains of critical race theory (and its more contemporary iterations). The #1 problem with critiques is the alternative – the more the aff indicts it and impacts their indictments of it, the more likely the aff is to win. I am generally uncompelled by “the K is cheating” but some component of framework is necessary – see above. Analytics > cards 99% of the time in these debates – in fact, I am generally inclined that cards are not necessary for critique debates (although you should probably still read some). DAs – these exist and I frequently vote on them. Topic DAs are always better than politics DAs. The politics DA is basically on dialysis given the political dynamics of the Obama Administration, but I have seen it occasionally revived. Smart analytics are sometimes (often?) better than cards. I’m generally a “low risk = some risk” kind of guy, but can be persuaded otherwise. Counterplans – they’re important. I’m an aff guy and am therefore sympathetic to the aff’s case when you read a stupid/cheating cp that is generic to the topic. I am particularly hostile to cps that result in the entirety of the aff by some currently-nonexistent system – for instance, a counterplan creating a commission that will recommend the plan be done whose recommendation enters into law after a certain amount of time. The dumber your cp evidence, the more weight I will grant to aff analytics indicting the cp. I’m persuaded that the SQ is always a logical option, but I sure would feel uncomfortable kicking the CP and voting neg after a 2NR/2AR where these words were never uttered. Don’t interpret the above as meaning I’m anti-CP – you gotta do what you gotta do, and I anticipate what you do will probably be fine. Textual competition is a gold standard probably, but again, you should debate it. T – eh. See theory above. Debate it like a disad – don’t forget that even T debates are about impacts, NOT links – ie – if you just repeat your violation a million times without telling me the impact, I will likely not be that compelled. This seems like a pretty easy topic to be topical under. Probably should not be your A strat. Then again, if they aren’t topic, probably no excuse. T version of your aff is highly compelling. And, as we all-too-often forget in this activity of stress and anger - have fun doing whatever it is you do. If it isn't fulfilling you, find a way to make it fulfilling. This community should be a welcoming place where people come to think and talk about important things in a setting that allows them freedom to develop their own perspectives while engaging in friendly competition.

Ben Croft - Highland

Bob Gomulkiewiz - Bear Creek

Bonnie Gilmartin - Eastside Catholic

Brad Thew - Central Valley Hig

I’ve coached LD for about eight years, most significantly at Central Valley High School in Washington, and I coached the 2010 Washington State 4A LD champ. Although I don’t like the implications that often come with the phrase “traditional judge,” that is probably the best way to describe myself judging. I try to check my opinions at the door and keep it tab. However, I only understand what I’m capable of understanding, and I’m not always up to date on the most recent trends in LD. I rely on my flow, and if it isn’t on there, it isn’t evaluated. Make clear extensions as a result. I really like real world debates with logical argumentation. Framework- I work best in rounds that operate with a traditional framework. Generally this means a V/VC, but I can deal with an advantage/standard as long as you link into it. I don’t think that plans are necessary, and I don’t know that I like them because honestly I don’t hear them often enough in an LD context to really have an opinion yet. Honestly, I have reservations about plans because I think the structure of an LD resolution does not necessitate a plan, but I believe that they have the potential to operate effectively. At the point an affirmative has ran a plan, it is acceptable for the NC to present a CP. Presentation/Speaker Points- I can handle moderate speed. I will say slow/clear if necessary. I’m not used to people particularly caring about the speaker points I award, but I generally stay in the range of 27. I like hearing what a card says, and I don’t like having to card call after a round. Be explicit in your signposting. Tags need to be super clear. Don’t be rude or deceptive. Try to be helpful and cordial in round. Humor is a plus, as rounds can get stale as tournaments drag on, but don’t take it too far. If/when I disclose, don’t bicker with me. Doing these things equals good speaker points, and I’ll try to compare you to what I’ve seen recently. Theory- I’m not the biggest fan of theory debate, but I understand the growing necessity of it. Do not run theory just because you feel like it, do it because there is a genuine need to correct a wrong. You need to be super clear in the structure of the argument, and it needs to be shelled properly. I need to know what sort of violation has occurred, and I need to understand its implication. Don’t use it as a time suck. Philosophically, I’m ok with RVI’s. I default to drop the argument, not the debater, and I default to reasonability over competing interps. I don’t want theory to be a strategy to win. Kritiks- I’m not a fan of critical positions. I know a bit about philosophy, but not everything. You don’t know me though, and you don’t know how much I know, and I can’t guarantee that you can tell me everything I need to know about Derrida or Foucault in 6-7 minutes in order to evaluate an argument properly. I feel that the greatest flaw of the k is that it requires so much preexisting knowledge on the part of me the judge, your competition, and yourself to be of any substantive value in the round. Most debaters really aren’t up to the task, and even if they are, the time constraints inherent in an LD round make it tough to evaluate properly. I like the idea of a k, but in reality, it just doesn’t work. Miscellaneous- 1- Flex: You need to use CX for questions. Do what you want with your prep. Don’t abuse flex. This will effect speaks. 2- I don’t care if you sit or stand. You’ll speak better if you stand though. 3- If you are paperless, I will time flashing. I don’t want to wait around forever. 4- You should be pre-flowed before the round. 5- Don’t be smug. 6- I constantly flow. I generally flow by hand. If I stop flowing, it means I’m lost and trying to figure out where you are, or that you’re going too fast, or that you’re just rehashing old material. In any case, it’s probably not a good thing. 7- If I didn’t mention a type of argument, I probably have no idea what it means. Don’t run it. Or ask me first. I’m not stupid, I promise. I just coach in a place where I don’t have to think very hard.

Brooke Mischkot - Sprague

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

Carl Crowell - Sprague

Carol Shackelford - Bingham

Head Coach at Bingham, UT Rounds on the Topic: 20 Years in Activity: 10 Overview: I’ve been involved with debate for a while. I debated for Kelly Walsh High School, Univ. of Wyoming, and Weber State University. I was an assistant coach for a few years and now I coach at Bingham which is a full service program. That being said, I've grown to appreciate articulate, diverse, and intelligent speakers. I love a good CP/DA debate (I never ran the K), but am open to anything you do well. Debate is a game, so have fun. That being said, do what you do best. Topicality: My fall back is a competing interpretations framework. As a head coach I don't see a lot of debates on the topic so don't rely too much on community norms. Disads: I prefer specificity instead of generics. Counterplans: Again, I prefer a CP that is tailored to the aff. This means I would rather hear a CP from the literature/solvency advocate than a Consult NATO CP. Kritiks: Not my preference but sometimes its the best option. Spend a lot of time on the framework and ALTERNATIVE debate. In my opinion, the difference between a good and a great K debater is their ability to be creative, funny, and accessible. Give me a few choice metaphors/analogies/etc. and I will enjoy the debate a lot more. Theory: I loved going for theory when I debate and I will appreciate clever nuances instead of just reading your blocks. I default to an offense/defense mindset when evaluating theory, but I’m flexible. Final Thoughts: I flow a lot. If you junk up the debate, I probably won't read evidence...prepare for intervention. I will vote on dropped voters. Don’t use all your speech and prep time if you don’t need it. Weigh impacts. If you want good speaks, be clever, strategic, and NICE.

Cheryl Sutherland - Mtn. View (ID)

n/a

Chloe Kinsey - Holy Names

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.

Christina Wilmot - CapitalID

n/a

Christine Trouten - Mtn Home

n/a

Christopher McCool - Ballard

Christopher Cuneo - EHS

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

Connor Brahman - Juan Diego

Corey Curr - Blackfoot High

n/a

Dan Teimouri - Newport

Tabula Rosa, will judge on most any issue so long as it is presented fairly and persuasivley. Come from an LD background, but comfortable with speed and policy arguments. Prefer that debaters empahsize the standard/framework debate.

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 Holland - Mtn Home

n/a

Dave Collins - Mead

I'm Dave Collins. I'm one of the assistant coaches at Mead. I debated last year at Eastern Washington University, but I've debated for a couple of other schools as well. I would be happy to tell you about it after the round, if you want. But you don't care about where I have debated, you care about my judging philosophy. So here it is. I feel the most equatable way to determine who won is to based my decision off the flow. This is where I will default. If, however, you feel that I should be a stock issues judge, then persuade me to do so and I will vote on the stock issues. Likewise for discourse, or T, or whatever. Most of my background is in critical argumentation, but that doesn't mean I haven't also voted on T. I will vote on any argument that is impacted out. Speed is fine, but a lack of clarity is not. I will let you know verbally if you aren't being clear a few times, then I'll just stop flowing. Debate is a communication activity and if I can't understand what you are saying, then you are going to have a tough time getting my ballot. I feel similiar about tag team cross-ex. In addition to being a communication activity, debate is also a team activity, and if you don't let your partner answer cross ex questions than your speaker points will reflect that. But mostly, have fun! We are giving up our weekend to be here, so we should enjoy ourselves. I've been known to give slightly improved speaker points to teams that incorporate memes into their speeches.

David Tobin - Walla Walla

David Curry - Sprague

David Dingler - Eastside Catholic

David Maravilla - Puyallup

Donna Boudreau - Central Valley Hig

Donna Herold - Ferris

n/a

Draco Liu - Whitman

Duy Tran - Whitman

Dylan Mccarthy - Gig Harbor

Ed Bowman - EHS

Elana Simon - Whitman

Elissa Picozzi - Mercer Island

n/a

Emily Dhatt - Holy Names

Emma Thompson - Whitman

I've been doing policy debate for Whitman for 2 years, and did PF and LD all four years of high school.   How I decide Policy debates: I will vote the way you tell me to.  That means that I need some sort of framing done in the 2NR/ 2AR.  Absent arguments about how I should weigh impacts, I'll default to offense/ defense.  Also, I'm much more likely to vote for you if you give me clear voters - that usually means saying something like "vote here" and then doing some sort of impact calc.  I'm open to voting off a non-policy framework, but if you want me to do that you have the burden of proof as to why that should happen, otherwise I default to a pretty basic util calculation.   Affs: I am very unlikely to vote on an argument that I don't understand, which should be viewed as a warning to teams planning on running crazy affs/ Ks.  I'm likely to give negs a lot of leeway on framework against affs that are clearly not topical.  That said, if the aff is advocating a topical plan, even if it's through a weird/ critical method, I expect the neg to be extending something beyond framework in the 2NR.  Ks: I will vote on Ks.  However, I think that alts are often underexplained and I have a pretty high threshold for solvency arguments on either Ks or CPs.  So if you want to win on a K make sure that you have a good explination of what your alt does and how it solves the K by at least the block.  Note that this makes me generally skeptical of alts that are just reject the aff.  In terms of affs reading FW against the K, I view FW as a reason why I should weigh the impacts of the aff/ have a higher threshold for links, not as a reason that the neg doesn't get access to the K. CPs: Strategic CPs are good.  Cheating CPs are bad (i.e. consult, CPs that create a new mechanism without a solvency advocate).  You should have a clear articulation of a net benefit.  I'm also probably a little more prone to accepting perm solves arguments than most judges (this is also true of Ks where relevant). The more ridiculous the CP the more leeway I'll give the aff in terms of perms/ analytics Theory: On theory questions I'm sympathetic to voting on reasonability and drop the arg not the team arguments.  The two major exceptions to that are consult/ delay CPs, which  I am likely to accept theory arguments against, and T, on which I will default to competing interps unless told otherwise.  I tend to think ASPEC is awful and will almost never vote on it. I also have a pretty high threshold on contradictory arguments - I'm ok with condo but I will drop arguments that you have answered on a different flow (which means you need to be careful about what cards you're reading).   DAs: I'm perhaps a bigger advocate of the educational value of politics DAs than the average judge but almost all cards are terrible so I will value smart spin over dumping evidence.  Otherwise the debate I'd most like to judge is one with topic DAs and good case defense.   Presentational Preferences: Tag team cx is fine. I don't mind aggression but speaker points will start going down if you don't answer the question or start being rude. Speed is fine, with the understanding that I do not flow at a thousand words per second. Don't forget that your aim is to get me to write down your arguments, and if I can't understand what you are saying, I won't write it down. I will try to warn you if you are consistently unclear. That means you should extend cards by argument, not author, if you extend them by author there's a 50-50 chance I won't know what card you want me to extend.   Other Info: Keep things organized, if I don't know where you are I will stop flowing.  Also, I'll call for cards after round but I expect you to be extending warrants in round if you want me to vote on them.  I have absolutely no sympathy for any sort of evidence abuse (clipping cards, fabricating evidence, etc.) and I will drop you if you're caught.

Erika Sabol - Mtn Home

n/a

Garrett Heilman - Eastside Catholic

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

Geoff Thatcher - Renaissance

<div style="margin: 0px;"> Background:</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Competitor in all debate forms for multiple high schools for 4 years</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Parli competitor for the College of Western Idaho for 1 year</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Assistant Coach for Renaissance High School for 1 year (CX, LD, PF, IEs)</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;">  </div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Philosophy:</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> I’m open to new and unique arguments however I believe that both sides still have their respective burdens to prove or disprove the argument. Having said that, I evaluate arguments based both on how those arguments appear on the flow AND how those arguments have been proven within the debate round; so quality of argumentation over quantity. Also if one side drops an argument that argument must have some merit to it to count as a voting issue in the round.</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;">  </div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> CX Issues:</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> T is a fine to run however it should not be used as a time suck.</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> SPEC arguments are fine to run once again not to be used as a time suck and you must prove violation to have it be a winning issue </div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> CPs are great </div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Ks are legit for aff and neg unless proven otherwise. I tent to vote on Ks when they are consisted with the neg strategy and don’t contradict itself or the rest of the off-case aurguments</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Impact Calc: probability> magnitude> time frame. Meaning if you have nuke war but there is only a 0.0000001% chance of it happening I will tend not to vote on it</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;">  </div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> LD Issues:</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> I am most used to a traditional value criterion debate, but I would love to see different strategies.</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Ks are legit unless proven otherwise in the round.</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Plans are OK but will take a lot more work</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;">  </div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> PF Issues:</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> I am most used to a straight-up fact round debate, but I would love to see different approaches to this form of debate.</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Ks and other various arguments are legit unless proven otherwise in the round.</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;">  </div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Any other questions, just ask.</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;">  </div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Parli issues:</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> I’m most used to a cx type round, however I understand high school is different than the type done in college.</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> What I’m expecting is slow cx round with salutations at the beginning and a nice debate</div>   <div style="margin: 0px;"> Imperial evidence is the best evidence.</div>

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.

Hailey Clawson - RHSM

All you need to know is I have a hard time voting on cheap shots. I think debate holds a lot of value independent to winning rounds. I’ll listen to all arguments, but I like the k debate, or the impacts. I really hate topicality and resent it as being a strategic time tradeoff, this being said, I won’t punish you for running it, but I won’t vote on it without some pretty dec explanation to why its unfair. If you don’t give me another way to view the round it’ll be impacts v. impacts. T/Procedurals- I don’t really buy topicality as a good strategic argument, and will likely not vote an affirmative down if there’s a world in which they are topical. I will vote on it if there’s loss of ground on in round abuse, but I’m easily persuaded by aff reasonability arguments. Theory- I need some in round abuse claim to vote, or an independent reason why the theoretical objection is bad for debate. I’ll listen to your shells in the through the 2ac, but if you’re going to advance theory into the rebuttals, you better be doing a little more work on it. My personal belief is education outweighs fairness, but I will listen to another theory debate. Theory/topicality as the easiest way to win is not a good strat in front of me. I generally view it as a cop out and kind of unfair, however, I see the strategic value in some theory so by all means run it. Stocks- I debated in Colorado, can be easily persuaded to vote on things like Solvency and Inherency, but it’s not necessary you incorporate them if that isn’t your thing. I’m sympathetic to a good stocks debate, but will not stick you with it. I’ll listen though, you can definitely win a round on inherency, I did many times in high school. Case in general- I need to have a good vision of the way the affirmative functions or voting affirmative is an uphill battle. I don’t know a lot about the resolution this year, so the case debate is really important. I probably don’t know your acronyms, but I can also probably keep up. The rebuttals should be very clear on the case debate. I’ll vote on neg on presumption if the aff can’t prove plan is better than sqou, however presumption flips aff when the neg goes for an advocacy other than sqou. CP’s- I’m a fan, they’re good and fun and I’ll listen to them, but make sure it’s competitive. PICS are good and inevitable, although I’ll listen to theory all across the board. I’m not a fan of delay cps or consult cps, but I’ll listen and evaluate fairly. K’s Probably my favorite debate argument. I think the aff should be able to, and needs to defend the methods and ideologies they’re using. That being said, I won’t reward you for simply reading and going for a kritik, the round still needs clash and that’s a neg burden. In fact, if your kritik does NOT provide clash, I’ll vote aff on presumption in about 10 seconds. I appreciate a K that has a solid alt that can be enacted outside of the round, but it’s not necessary. I better have a good idea of why endorsing the negative alt is good in context of the impacts, because I won’t reward the neg for noticing something wrong with the squo and recognizing the affirmative does it. I really enjoy the value to life debate, but want it to go deeper than the few cards y’all have in your files. The K v Policy debate always requires a lot of articulation in the rebuttals for why my endorsing either side is net good. K Aff’s I’m game. F/W- Necessary. This goes without saying, but if you don’t win your framework, you’ll likely lose. I care about debate and find these debates really interesting and important. Have fun with them and don’t be afraid to articulate yourself without evidence on framework, I think it’s as much about the personality and opinions of the individual debater as it is about the lit. Just because you outcarded the other team does NOT mean you’ve won. Speaks: I’ll reward persuasion. Prep: Whatever man. Be fair, that’s all. That’s true for ethics in general, actually. I’m more likely to vote for you if you’re not engaging in shady business.

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.

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>

Howard Stenn - VHS

Jack McGougan - Ingraham

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

Jaime Holguin - Gig Harbor

Version:1.0 StartHTML:0000000183 EndHTML:0000005304 StartFragment:0000002721 EndFragment:0000005268 SourceURL:file://localhost/Users/coov/Downloads/Jaime%20judge%20paradigm.doc Two years of high school policy debate, will be my fourth year of judging. Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and Analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.   Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does need to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round.   Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me the judge to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW.   Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don't just tell me to reject the 1AC and that it somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get strong analysis of the warranted evidence of the neg to vote for a reject alt.   Counterplan: If you show how the CP is a better policy than the Aff, I will vote for it.   Theory: No matter what the theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the argument not the team.   For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don't make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before the round.

Jason Selley - Ferris

n/a

Jazlyn Jacobs - Ferris

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>

Jennifer Barton - MVHS

n/a

Jimmy Nguyen - Westview

Joann King - Mtn Home

n/a

Joe Engel - Bingham

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 Maltman - Bridge

I am a 2nd year Parent Judge – I am very traditional, in that I look for a good contention based battle. My  pet peeves are, 1) I hate to give time signals – if I do I’m paying more attention to the clock than to your case – I should be listening and flowing, not counting down with hand signals. 2) Stupid use of speed – I can handle a little bit of speed if you are clear, but please slow down for your tags… I will  give you a “clear” chance – but I really favor a reasonable paced smooth logical presentation -If I can’t understand it I can’t flow it, and I can’t judge it .  and 3) Process, check to make sure your judge and opponent are ready before each speech ….…. I’m not really big on theory and will rarely vote on it. Your job is to make it easy for me to vote for you. This means being organized with your thoughts and presentation – don’t make me jump all over my flow.  Give me good roadmaps and signposts, make sure you extend dropped points, give me clear voters at the end.

John petti - Mtn Home

n/a

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.

Joseph Fernando - Eastside Catholic

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.

Kaelyn East - Gig Harbor

My name is Kaelyn and I did LD for 3 years in high school and have been judging and coaching for past 5 years.    I will look at the round based first by the framework (value and criterion) that is set by the affirmative. The affirmative should be using this value and criterion as a way to prove that the resolution is true and support this with evidence. The negative must then either provide a counter framework to prove why the resolution is not true, or prove why the resolution is not true under the affirmative's framework. If the affirmative cannot prove the resolution to be true or the negative provides more persuasive evidence against the resolution then I will negate. I am open to other ways to weigh the round if both debaters agree on this during the round.   Other aspects to keep in mind:   I am basically going to be deciding who wins the round by looking at the key framework in the round (whichever is established as the most supported framework in the round) and looking at my flow to see which side has the most arguments on the flow that support that framework.    I am in general looking to see the big picture at the end of the debate, I do not want to decide the round based on details of definitions or small semantics. I prefer have bigger impacts linked back to the framework.  Delivery: I am fine with speed but like tags and important information to be read slower. I will say clear if I can't understand the speed.  I do have a basic understanding of some policy arguments like topicality, theory, DAs, Ks. However, I do not find it to be the most persuasive way to win a round. I generally find most such arguments to be distracting from the focus and not well supported. They are not the most persuasive way to win a round in my opinion, but I will look at them if they are clearly explained and well supported.  Overall, I am looking for clarity,

Kallee McGrady - Timberline

Kara Smith - Lake City

n/a

Katie Bergus - Gig Harbor

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

Kaveh Dilmaghani - Tahoma High

Kelli Helzerman - Mt Si

Kelliey Chavez - EHS

I am a communications Lincoln-Douglas judge who likes things in black and white. The debater needs to basically spell it out for me. I like Value to Value and Criterion to Criterion Clash as well as voters. I do not like critiques. I like a steady stream of dialogue but I do not like fast speaking like a policy debate. If I can't follow and do a flow then your arguments will mean nothing to me.

Kelly Reed - EHS

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.

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>

Kris Mullen - Highland

Kyle Hendrix - Whitman

LaWanda Parker - Blackfoot High

n/a

Lacey Gerback - Highland

Lexi Clark - Blackfoot High

n/a

Lindsay VanLuvanee - Pocatello

I debated at Idaho State University for 5 years, and am in my first year of working for them. I have coached at Pocatello High School for 4 years. I try to line up all the arguments on my flow. I am, however, open to alternate flowing styles. I really do prefer when debaters make specific reference of which argument(s) they are answering at a given time regardless of flowing style. I also flow the text of cards. I prefer not to call for evidence. This means explain, explain, explain! Tell me what the card says; tell me why I should care and how I should apply it. That being said, I do not think that cards are always better than analytics. Be prepared to defend all aspects of your argument. Everything is open to (re)interpretation. For example, some questions that may be relevant to my ballot include: What is the purpose of the debate space? How does this affect the way that impacts are evaluated? These kinds of top-level framing issues are the most important to me.

Lisa Weber - Newport

Lisa Leibfried - Eastside Catholic

I am an assistant coach at Eastside Catholic (Sammamish, WA). I competed in LD for Sammamish High School (Bellevue, WA) 2010-2012 mostly on the WA circuit, and a couple national circuit tournaments. My Ballot/Paradigm - Please explain to me what you are winning, why, and why it means you should win the round. All arguments will be evaluated through whichever framework is winning at the end of the round. It’s your job to do weighing, layering and explaining of impacts to me under the framework(s) and give a very clear impact calculus. There are no particular arguments I do not like to hear. I will never vote for a side with a thesis argument I don’t understand so feel free to use stories and analogies to help me understand.  Speed/Clarity - Start slowly and build up speed so my ears can adjust. Slow down on tags and cards. Put space between a tag and a card. If you are too fast I will stop flowing. Please enunciate. Please signpost. Clarity must never be sacrificed for speed. Extensions – Every single extension must have a clear warrant and impact! Theory - This should only be used if there is extreme abuse. I’m not super well-versed in theory, so it might be in your best interest to avoid it. I would rather see substantive debates. If you are going to run theory, please don’t do it at lightening speed. Cross-ex – I listen to cross like any other speech. Being intentionally unclear or rude during cross-ex will lower your speaks. Critical arguments - This area is not my forte, meaning you will have to be extra clear and explain exactly how the argument functions in the round and what I should do with it. Speaks - I look for things like clarity, persuasion, and composure. Speaks will go down for: being offensive/disrespectful/rude, being a jerk in cross-ex, and ignoring me after I call out “clear” twice.  If there is anything you want more detail on or isn’t covered here, please ask me before round. Have fun J <a href="http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Leibfried%2C+Lisa">http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Leibfried%2C+Lisa</a>

Lori Palmer - Mtn. View (ID)

n/a

Lori Cossette - Gonzaga Prep

Lydia Kautsky - Walla Walla

Madeleine Kemme - Whitman

Madison Hanberg - Juan Diego

Years coaching/judging: 3 Rounds on the topic: 20   T/Theory I think they should be argued like a disad. There should be an impact to your claim. Generally I default to competing interpretations. Theory needs an interp for me to vote for you. I also think the only theory argument that warrants rejecting the team is condo. If they say reject the argument not the team I will (given you are winning theory). That being said I have voted on this before. If they a: don't say reject the arg not the team and b: you spend a lot of time explaining why they should lose the debate because they read a certain argument. This would still take a lot of work for me to vote on. If you are going to go for theory v t you should still do an equal amount of work on both arguments (don't just go all in on theory and forget to answer T or vice versa). Please also make arguments as to why one precedes the other. Chances are if you don't I will default to T before theory, but I don't want to have to sort through which is more educational and all that jazz. It makes the debate more ambiguous and makes my decision a lot more based on my own beliefs. Also compare the education loss from not being topical to being theoretically unsound, or whatever standard you are going for. This will put you ahead in this debate. CP/DA The more specific to the aff the better. I am generally not persuaded by generic links to the topic. I think a lot of time spent on a dropped defensive argument can make it a voter (ie - bottom of the docket). That being said a dropped argument doesn't lead to a win, it has to have a lot of time spent on it. If your CP is super specific to the aff and highly complex give an overview explaining how it solves and what it does. This new planked counterplan trend is something that I think if really cool, but part of me thinks kicking planks in the 2nr is kind of cheating. If you are going to read these have a good theory block, but I definitely find them cool. K I know most general K ideas but I not well versed on specifics. Please explain the K and don't assume I know the complexities. For the aff I find perms extremely persuading; especially perm do the plan and all non competitive parts. I think if the alt would result in some sort of plan action then the perm solves, so the neg needs to do a good job on the link debate and needs to prove a unique reason why any plan action would be bad. Specific links we always be more persuasive than generic link cards. Performance Debate/We Don't Read a Plan This isn't really my favorite kind of debate to watch. I think the ideas behind it can be kind of cool but I don't think I've ever seen one of these debates where the debate actually focused around the idea/performance that the team presents. In these debates another thing that often bugs me is that teams are block relient. Grouping the DA can be beneficial, but make sure you are responding to the specificity of their arguments, especially when it comes to framework. A lot of these critical teams have blocks to framework, that is cool, but please also do some line by line work and create some clash. Explain how your framework responds to their framework. Too many of these debates lack this aspect. I will also say that I do think if you aren't going to debate a plan text or advocacy statement you need a pretty good explanation why you can't defend anything. The argument, "you can do all of this performance or whatever and still defend some sort of advocacy" is pretty persuasive to me because I honestly can't think of a reason having an advocacy statement would hurt you. Not even a plan text, just a "this is what we want formt the debate". Even a roll of the ballot claim in the 1ac/1nc is persuasive. But I think I do agree with the framework claims that you have to defend something is some way that is written/has some kind of text. If you aren't going to do that I am totally cool with it but answer the argument that you can still do all of your crazy non-traditional stuff and still defend something. I have yet to see someone answer this claim and I have probably watched 20 or more of these debates. Some sort of overview is also a really good idea. Just a quick "this is what we want to gain from this debate/this is our argument". I like this because honestly I feel a lot of the time the aim of the K is unclear.

Marabie Barck - Renaissance

Marcy Curr - Blackfoot High

n/a

Margaret Rockey - Whitman

Mari Sanchez - Whitman

Mariel Cruz--POLYTECHNIC - Whitman

Mark Ornelas - RHSM

High School: Damien HS '12 College: Gonzaga University '16 Years of Judging: 3 Short Version: I generally begin to evaluate debates by deciding if the Affirmative gets their case, be this by evaluating the impacts or through framework. Tell me how you want me to view the round and what I prioritize as the most important impacts. That said, feel free to run anything you want in front of me, I've debated now for five years, and I have read and seen my fair share of arguments. Theory is a tough sell for me, and to sound like a broken record, don't just read blocks. I tend to reject the argument no the team, although a dropped theory argument can leveraged to do so, but you still have to defend what the other team did was bad and abused you. Permutations can be advocated in certain situations, if the Aff wants to do so, then you have to be ready to defend it, give me a real reason why the perm is the best policy option. Agenda Politics DA's in my opinion are well, bad for debate. I am more receptive than most judges to vote on intrinsicness, however, I do think that elections/ mid-terms DA's or topic specific agenda DA's are good (i.e. Health Care on the Social Services Topic or START on the Nukes Topic). Other than that, explain and extend arguments well, impact them, be clear, be aggressive, and most importantly be smart. I love to debate, and it's a ton of fun, so have fun and debate well! Good Luck! Prep: End when the flash-drive leaves the computer of the debater is going to speak. Long Version First Some of My General Personal Issues Uphill battles: Conditionality Bad (w/ 2 or less non-contradictory positions) Baudrillard D & G A-Spec (or any spec argument) Delay CP's Good Whiteness/ Wilderson Nietzsche 1. Topicality- It is simply not enough to prove that they are not topical, you must provide a reason why what the Aff has done is bad for the debate or for the topic in general. I usually default to competing interpretations when no alternative is presented. Giving a topical version of the Aff or a Case List of what is T under your interp is key to winning T. List what arguments they prevent you from reading, don't just say we lose things like Agent CP's or the Politics DA, because in general, I think those are bad for debate, let's talk about topic specific stuff! Also, remember to extend your standards and V/I, if you win T, but don't extend the V/I, you're just going to learn a difficult lesson. 2. Case- There is such a thing as no risk of the Aff solving, its called presumption. I'll vote on it, though I might hate doing it. If you are winning a total risk of impact defense and you're confident that you have the best cards on this, then by all means go for the Aff solves nothing. I do believe in absolute defense. 3. CP's- I love creative CP's that find a way to solve the Aff with a very distinct and specialized Net Benefit. I will usually be more lenient for CP solvency cards, but the more specific the better. You must answer every perm or at least have a distinct reason why the Perm has no net benefit. You can read you're generic stuff with me, I'm cool with that too. In terms of theory, I generally think that the following are bad: Delay CP's, Sunsets CP's, & Multi-Actor Fiat CP's. There is still a tough theory debate to be had on them, but those are my general predispositions. 4. DA's- I prefer case specific, or at least topic specific DA's. I really don't like hearing agenda politics debates. Be very clear on the links and impact levels. For the Aff, please quantify how much of a link you take out, or explain very very very clearly how your link turns function, especially with the Elections DA. Refer to the case section to see my feeling on impact defense. 5. K's- I really love the K lit that is going around, but I prefer the traditional K debate style, with distinct link and Alt text. The more progressive styles are just simply not my forte nor my favorite to hear. Since I was kind of a K debater in High School, I generally like really well explained Alt's and links. Impact the debate well here, especially framework, and be very clear on the turns case analysis. I am typically very persuaded by root cause claims, and am dissuaded by VTL impacts, I'll vote on them, I just don't really like them. 6. K Aff's- Not a big fan of the K Aff's that are currently being read. I'd prefer you had a plan text or advocacy statement, but i will listen to other forms. I generally am more sympathetic to Neg's who go for framework here, or go for another reason why the specific K (by itself or in this form) is bad. If you plan on playing music, dancing, or acting, ect. you can expect your speaker points to go down, as I feel that you are not conveying arguments directly, it's up to my interpretation of what you do. 7. Framework- I love me a good framework debate. Aff's who go for "you don't get the K" will have a really tough time with me in the back, I am generally going to give the Neg the Alt, and the Aff their Adv's. For K Aff's as said above, I am very sympathetic to the Negative. Always impact framework and be clear on what I am doing as the critic of the debate and what my role is this forum. 8. Other Stuff: Ethics: Clipping, Fabrication of Evidence, Seriously Mis-citing of evidence, False Disclosure and Stealing Prep will get me to drop you immodestly if I deem that you did any of the above. Your speaker points will go as low as the tournament will allow me to give them. Any other punishment that the tournament imposes is up to them. I also reserve the right to stop the round due to any overly offensive ad homs against the other team if it makes me uncomfortable in the round. I will almost never do this, but I have know certain circumstance on which I have heard of rounds where this was appropriate. Speaks: Make me laugh and you're points will go up, also clever arguments will also get you extra speaks. I tend to evaluate speakers within the following areas: Clarity, Knowledge of Arguments, Ethos, Logos, Pathos, Decision making Skills, and Cleverness. There is no specific value I assign to each, but a good speaker has all of these in her/his speech. Cross-X is the best way to gain or lose speaks, I don't flow every word, but I do pay close attention.

Marten King - Whitman

<h3>Saved Philosophy:</h3>   The purpose of this judge philosophy is to give you insight into who I was as a debater and how I tend to think about the game that I obsessed over for 4 years. I do not find philosophies that declare themselves to be “neutral” to be particularly useful. Rather, I believe it is more valuable that I make my preferences clear to you so that you can debate to the best of your ability.   Debate background:   I debated for four years at Whitman College. For the most part, I did parliamentary debate, although I also went to 2-3 policy tournaments per year. I graduated in 2014.   General comments:   First and foremost, you should roll with the strategy that you are most comfortable with. While I have certain preferences, I am willing to vote on almost any argument. That being said, you should use the knowledge of my preferences to your advantage. Rather than changing your go-to strategy entirely in front of me, it is probably best to simply pay attention to the frustrations that I have with particular parts of various strategies.   Regardless of what you run, please place an emphasis on clarity and depth of warrants. I am very troubled by the recent trend in favor of blippy LOC arguments. Please have clear taglines that explain each distinct argument in a position, be that a subpoint of uniqueness or a link. A good rule is that you should be able to read the taglines of your position to a person outside of debate and they should be able to understand what the position is saying. I am confident in my ability to flow, and I will give the PMR leeway to respond to arguments that were impossible for me to follow in the LOC.   Please read the above paragraph again. I really mean it.   I am fine with speed. I think that speed is a positive for the activity and, absent issues concerning disabilities, it is perhaps the most accessible tool in the activity; becoming fast requires nothing more than a closet and time. However, I do think that there is a limit (around 300-330 wpm) to how fast you can go in parli because the need for pen time is much greater than in policy.   Etiquette:   Feel free to be as passionate and as intense as you want in front of me. That being said, be respectful. I have seen far too much bullying in debate in my time. It is totally unnecessary and inappropriate. Do not, for instance, scoff at every argument your opponent makes. It is fine to have strategic non-verbals, but do not be rude.   Try to be as inclusive as possible. If you are debating someone who is clearly less experienced than you and they ask you to slow down or explain things again, I will reward you with speaker points if you do.   The K   I believe that the concepts and ideas explored in Kritik debates are very important. I also recognize that the K has immense strategic value. During my senior year, my partner and I ran a K along with a DA almost every round because of the flexibility that the K-DA-Case strategy provided. I am perfectly willing to vote on a Kritik, and I believe that MGs responses to Ks are generally lackluster. That being said, I find a lot of things about K debate frustrating.   I do not like the use of overly obtuse language. Too many debaters try to be intentionally confusing reading the K. If I do not understand the K out of the LOC, I will not want to vote for it. As a great judge once told me, you want to make everyone in the room want to vote for you. Don’t do that by hiding the meaning of your argument. Have a clear thesis section. Have crystal clear links that can then be explained as DAs to the perm. Perhaps read the K a little slower than other parts of the debate.   I find much of the impact debate on the K to be underdeveloped. I rarely, if ever, will find no value to life claims persuasive. I find the extinction and turns case arguments on the K to be very tenuous. For the aff, this means that you should defense to the Neg’s impact claims. For the Neg, this means that if the aff reads solid D to those over the top claims, you might want to go for a structural violence impact coupled with case indicts (for example).   While I understand the trend away from framework, I am somewhat puzzled by it as well. I do not think that the Ks function in a debate is “self-explanatory.” In fact, it is not immediately obvious why the mindset/decision making process/etc. of the aff is a reason why the plan is a bad idea. While I do not think framework is necessary, I do think it is important for the negative to explain their conception of debate and how the K functions within that conception. How does the alt function? Does it ACTUALLY get rid of all bio-power, or is that question irrelevant? This being said, spending a lot of time saying the aff “isn’t real” and therefore its impacts don’t matter is not compelling to me.   Politics   I ran politics a LOT. I like politics. I also think that there are many problems with the politics debate.   Please do not lie. Do not claim that a bill has bi-partisan support when it passed the house without a single democratic vote.  Please also have an explanation for how the link is connected to your specific piece of legislation – I.E., why would the GOP being mad about Obama’s executive orders relating to immigration make them unwilling to do something totally unrelated?   If a politics DA is bad, then it should be easy to beat. I find thumpers to be one of the best answers to a politics DA. The link is not simply “stupid,” but rather demonstrably false – the GOP has been angered many many times, but the farm bill still passes.   Not Defending the Topic   I am not very fond of this strategy. I believe in the educational value of topic-area research and of switching sides. I am not compelled by answers to framework that claim that policy debate is totally vapid. I also find fairness and competition to be important, as I think the competitive aspect of debate is what incentivizes people to research and participate at an in depth level.   That being said, I recognize the importance of the discussions that have been generated by folks who decide not to defend the topic. If you wish to do this, I will of course evaluate the debate in as fair a manner as I can. Do know, however, that I will be pre-disposed towards certain arguments that your opponents might make. You will need to be nuanced in responding to these arguments.   CPs   I believe that counterplans are, by their very function, conditional. I believe that it is fair for me to kick the counterplan for you, but I believe that the NEG has to introduce this theoretical concept.   I believe that conditionality is a logical and educational model for debate, and I think that this is uniquely true in parli where the lack of backside rebuttals makes PMR sandbagging on DA’s to CPs particularly unfair. That being said, I find people’s answers to conditionality bad to be horrible. I think that given the bad answers that MOs generally have, it is strategic to read conditionally bad in front of me if your PMR is good at going for it.   I believe that counterplans should be both textually and functionally competitive. While textual competition is an arbitrary standard, so is all other counterplan theory. I find text comp to be a predictable limit that allows the negative to read educational PICS while preventing them from reading abusive strategies.   In general, I find counterplan theory difficult to assess. The lack of backside rebuttals leaves the debate woefully underdeveloped. It also makes the MOs life very difficult as they are unable to both read standards and weigh them in an efficient way. I have not decided how much room I will give the PMR to extrapolate on their standards, but it will not be as much as some judges give.   Please don’t say “perm do both – they can both happen at the same time!” and leave it at that. If a perm does not shield the link to the DA or resolve some of the negative’s offense in some way, it does not matter.   Theory   Theory – excluding counter plan theory – was the one area of debate that I did not invest a particularly large amount of time in. I rarely if ever ran T by the end of my senior year.   As a result, I do not have a lot of fully formed preconceptions when it comes to T. While I default to competing interpretations, I am somewhat compelled by the model of debate encapsulated by reasonability that states that the aff’s interpretation is ok if it gives the negative sufficient ground, not if it gives the negative perfect ground. My guess is that I will have a generally high threshold for voting on T. It is difficult to provide a brightline when evaluating T through the lense of sufficiency, however, and I will continue to struggle with the CI/Reasonability debate.   I do not like spec arguments.   Please read your interp slowly and twice. If the interp is missed, nothing else makes sense.   Parli-specific things   I will protect against new arguments even if you don’t point of order.   I will assess the intuitive interaction between every argument, including those that are dropped. I think that this is especially fair given the lack of backside rebuttals.   Please write down a text of any advocacy and share them with your opponent.

Matt Vraspir - Renaissance

Matthew Lacy - Sam Barlow

Maxwell Merchant - VHS

I view myself as a tab's judge in so far as I expect the debaters to frame the debate for me.  In other words tell me where to vote and why to vote there.  I do not come into the round with a belief in stock issues; if you are going to run an issue as a stock issue, I expect excellent framework to back up this assumption.  In judging a round, I prefer that both teams run framework arguments to help frame the debate:  a lack of framework leaves the round open to judge bias and intervention.  Kritiks, kritikal affs, and theory are all fine and encouraged.  I will never vote you down based on the type of argument you are running as long as it is run well.  Speaker points are awarded based on clarity, but more importantly on who provides the best in-round analysis.

Maxwell Merchant--VASHON JUDGE - Whitman

Meghan McDonagh - Centennial

Melissa Nelson - Highland

Meritt Salathe - Whitman

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.

Michelle Flores - Whitman

Mike Shackelford - RHSM

Rowland Hall Years Coaching/Judging: 10 Rounds on the Topic: 15 Do what you do best. I’m comfortable with all arguments. Practice what you preach and debate how you would teach. Strive to make it the best debate possible. Key Preferences & Beliefs Debate is a game. Literature determines fairness. It’s better to engage than exclude. Critique is a verb. Defense is undervalued. Judging Style I will work hard to be objective. I flow on my computer. If you want a copy of my flow, please request it. I think CX is very important. I reward self-awareness, clash, good research, humor, and bold decisions. I stop prep time when you eject your jump drive. Feel free to ask.

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.

Miranda Morton - Whitman

Miranda Morton Section 1: General Information   In High School I was a mediocre LD debater. I went on to 4 years of Parliamentary debate at Whitman College ending in 2013. I was the MG/LO I studied history at Whitman, now I work in the craft beer industry. See how far a degree can get you? ALERT: Although I was around debate quite a bit during the last four years, I have only judged at one tournament (L&C) in the 2013-2014 season. Beyond that one tournament, I have only watched myself loose rounds on YouTube. FOLKS, that means I have only judged ONE college-level debate tournament EVER. The following is a meager attempt to guess what I care about as a judge. Feel free to ask me any questions not answered here! Specific Inquiries    Speaker points (what is your typical speaker point range or average speaker points given)? <ul> <li>I would guess between 26.5 and 29.8. But alas, I could be shocked higher or lower.</li> </ul> How do you approach critically framed arguments?   <ul> <li>Critical debates are best when they are nuanced, clear, and interact with the specifics of the topic or affirmative. Critical debates that are messy and generic are upsetting.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>I am inclined to think that the affirmative gets to weigh the impacts of the AFF against the impacts of the K unless told otherwise. Given that inclination, I think it is a pretty smart idea for a K to try and internally link turn the affirmative. Or solve the case with the alt. Or, you know, the neg could answer the case.</li> </ul>   Can affirmatives run critical arguments?   <ul> <li>Sure, run whatever you would like.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>OPINION: Affirmative Ks sometimes use the element of surprise, not debate skill, to win. That does not mean that I am against them. What it does mean is that I am somewhat open to a negative that suggests, either though argument or through theory, that a topical plan passes in the world of the K.</li> </ul>    Can critical arguments be “contradictory” with other negative positions?   <ul> <li>Definitely.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li> I assume this question is really asking about the number of “worlds” I think is acceptable in a debate round. The question of conditionality comes later, but generally speaking I believe that the world of the SQ, the world of a negative policy action, and the world of a K are all open territory for one negative strategy. Of course, this is up for debate, and seems like a surefire way to link into your own criticism.  </li> </ul>   Performance based arguments…   <ul> <li>Are rarely as thought provoking as I wish they were. They seem exceptionally difficult to evaluate, and necessitate a VERY clear framework. See my comments on AFF criticisms for more thoughts on the element of surprise.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>I debated at Whitman College. Take that as you will.</li> </ul>    TOPICALLITY   What do you require to vote on topicality?   <ul> <li>Ugh. I can count on one hand the number of T debates I thought were interesting. And most of those were only good because I got to be in the same room as Zach Tschida’s hair.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li> In round abuse is the most likely way to get me to vote for you on topicality and not be ticked off about it.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>I think reading topicality well will put your chances of winning close to 50-50 with me. Even in the best T debates, I find debaters do not give a frame to evaluate impacts… So I never have any idea if education or ground or whatnot is most important.</li> </ul>   Do you require competing interpretations? <ul> <li>Yes. I can’t think of a case where I wouldn’t require competing interpretations, but I’m sure it’s out there.  </li> </ul>  Counterplans –   PICs good or bad?   <ul> <li>PICs are strategic.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>Consult counterplans are probably cheating unless there is a very good reason, rooted in the lit, that consultation is valid.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>Tiny PICs tend to make debaters feel smug. I don’t like smug.</li> </ul>   Should opp identify the status of the counterplan?   <ul> <li>Yes.</li> </ul>   textual competition ok?   <ul> <li>Up for debate. See info on Perm texts and functional competition.</li> </ul>   functional competition?   <ul> <li>Yes please. The right of the AFF to perm with just “do both” should check non-functionally competitive but textually competitive counterplans. Boy is that a mouthful.</li> </ul>   Perms: <ul> <li>A perm is a test of competition, not an advocacy. </li> </ul>   <ul> <li>I think “Perm: do both” is fine in the place of perm text. If your perm is more nuanced than “do both,” don’t say “do both.”</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>It’s great when teams explain how the perm solves the AFF and NEG, It’s even better when there is independent offense to the perm.  </li> </ul> Issues regarding counterplan status: <ul> <li>Conditionality is up for debate. I read multiple conditional advocacies all the time when I debated. But when other people did it, I would get all huffy and angsty. Why? Because it makes the NEG’s job a tiny bit easier, and the MG’s job much harder.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>While I do not have a set-in-stone threshold for number of conditional advocacies, I do think that the quality and strategic utility of each one diminishes after 2 (maybe 3).</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>Does anyone actually know what dispositional means? There are enough different interpretations of this status that it is worth explaining if your position is going to be dispositional.  </li> </ul>   Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round (not just their plans) <ul> <li>Sure, but they don’t have to.</li> </ul>  In the absence of debaters' clearly won arguments to the contrary, what is the order of evaluation that you will use in coming to a decision (e.g. do procedural issues like topicality precede kritiks which in turn precede cost-benefit analysis of advantages/disadvantages, or do you use some other ordering?)? <ul> <li>The negative should (almost) ALWAYS collapse to EITHER theory or substance by the end of the debate, preferably in the MO. This keeps the debate smart, and keeps me from having to do the calculus mentioned above.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>Otherwise: I automatically assume a NB framework unless I am told not to</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>I revert to this order if no order is given: <ul style="list-style-type:circle"> <li>Proceedurals</li> <li>The impacts of the K versus the impacts of the case. I would not consider the K before the case unless I am explicitly told to.</li> </ul> </li> </ul>   <ul> <li>I hope this never comes up.  </li> </ul>     How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighting claims are diametrically opposed? How do you compare abstract impacts (i.e. "dehumanization") against concrete impacts (i.e. "one million deaths")? <ul> <li>Diametrically opposed claims: I have no problem throwing out arguments that do not meet a basic threshold of understandability or fact. If both claims are semi-logical, I will generally evaluate the analysis of the claim’s effect on the debate over the number of warrants behind each claim.</li> </ul>   <ul> <li>Impacts: I would pick the best explained, most logical impacts. In this situation I could also see myself being very moved by claims in the later speeches about how the plan solves the impacts to the disadvantages, or how the SQ or CP solve the advantages.</li> </ul> Things not covered: POOs: <ul> <li>I’ll protect within reason to the best of my abilities. That doesn’t mean that you can’t call them. It’s your debate, and if it makes you feel better to point them out, please do.</li> </ul> Talking Pretty/Looking Pretty: <ul> <li>Speed and Clarity: I will do everything in my power to keep up with you. It is a rare case that speed is a reason I do not catch an argument. If you are not clear, however, it is likely I will miss something.</li> <li>Clothes: are important. Wear them.</li> <li>I always thought standing up helped me speak loudly, clearly, and quickly. But you can do what you’d like.</li> </ul>

Mitch Dunn - Whitman

Years Coached Parli Debate: 0 Years Competed in Policy Debate: 6 Years Competed in Parli Debate: 2 Coach or compete in the Northwest? Yes. Coach or compete on the National Circuit? Yes Involved in Other Events? I like mountain biking and woodworking. How I decide Parli debates:  Key for reading my philosophy: <ul> <li>If you are reading this right before the round then just read the bolded sentences.</li> <li>If you are reading this to fill out your pref sheet then read the paragraph below the bolded sentences for more detailed analysis.</li> </ul> <ol> <li>I think that a long judging philosophies by a recent graduate is mostly ego-stroking.</li> </ol> Because of this, I have created a sparknotes version of my philosophy that you can quickly read before a round begins to save you time. 2) Blank slates are impossible, but I’ll try my best: I try to go in Tabula Rasa and then I remind myself that this is impossible. While I bring many pre-conditioned notions of the world into the round, I will flow all arguments and then use what is on my flow to determine what the world of the affirmative looks like vs the world(s) of the negative looks like at the end of the debate to determine the round. 3) Round vision will be rewarded: I think offense/defense is the best way to view the round. Impact calculus done in the MO and the PMR is the best way for teams to win the debate.  Speaker points will be allocated accordingly to people who do this well. 4) Counterplan theory is good, limited conditionality is good, MG’s should be held to a high standard: I believe that counterplans must be both textually and functionally competitive. I believe that 1 counterplan and 1 kritik is fine, past that on either or both is probably pushing it. I was lucky enough to debate with a women who was certainly the best MG in the country my senior year and arguably the best MG debate has seen in a very long time.   As a result of having the privilege of seeing just how good MG’s can be in parli debate, I have a very high threshold for the aff on theory issues that were not stated above. But, I will vote on any and all that are introduced into the round. I just though I’d let you know how I lean. If you have any questions about this, please feel free to email me at <a href="mailto:mitch.s.dunn@gmail.com">mitch.s.dunn@gmail.com</a> OR <a href="mailto:mitch.s.dunn@icloud.com">mitch.s.dunn@icloud.com</a>.

Nancy Forstheofel - Walla Walla

Natalie Fisher - Highland

Nick Corr - Ferris

n/a

Nizar Ajanovic - Sprague

Noah Stern - Whitman

Paige Joki - Whitman

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 Montreuil - Centennial

3 Years debating at Idaho State 1 Year at UNI 4 Years judging college debate 8 Years judging high school debate My favorite debaters (in no particular order)- Michael Klinger, Jessica Yeats, Stephen Weil, Sunil Pai and Kade Olsen My favorite judges (in no particular order)- Steve Pointer, Mike Hester, Adam Symonds and Aimi Hamraie My favorite strategy for pretty much any argument is impact turning. You should probably do what you do best though. I’m very strict about clarity and the highlighting of evidence. If you have an off case arg or advantage that takes less than a minute to read you should probably save it for another critic. Topicality- Explanations of aff and neg ground under your interpretation goes a long way. I’m persuaded more than most by reasonability arguments. DA’s- Defense is underrated. Please highlight enough of your ev to make an actual argument. Remember what I said about impact turning. CP’s- I lean affirmative on most theory questions. K’s- The key to winning these debates, regardless of side, is to talk about the aff. Don’t assume I’ve read the same literature you have so keep the jargon to a minimum. In most K debates I’ve seen there isn’t enough discussion of the alternative for my liking. Framework- I’m one of the sick few that enjoy these arguments. A clear framework for evaluating impacts is a necessity for any argument. Whether you’re down with traditional or non-traditional frameworks you should make these arguments in front of me. I’m not sure I can be offended and I respect boldness. I’m confused by the widespread belief that people somehow have a right to not be offended. Oh and paperless teams- don't give the other team a document with cards you aren't going to read. If you realize you have to skip some cards to cover tell them exactly how many cards you are skipping then take prep (your own) to delete them from their document before the next cx starts. Good luck to all. Any questions please ask. I promise to work hard and I respect you for participating in this intense competition.

Paul McPherson - EHS

I have been judging debate for three years. Most of my experience is in the public forum model, but I have judged LD as well. My paradigm is communication. If I cannot understand what participants are saying, then I cannot judge properly. I prefer 2-3 well developed, reasoned and defended arguments than a long list of poorly explained arguments. I use the following criteria in deciding a winner: 1) skills in analysis 2) clarity in organization and delivery 3) validity of argument 4) ability in defending position 5) factual back up

Paul Apostolidis - Walla Walla

Rachel Wilczewski - Sam Barlow

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>

Robert Gordon - EHS

Roberta Rice - Central Valley Hig

Robyn Rose - Sam Barlow

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 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.

Satinder Haer - Whitman

Sean Mulloy - Whitman

I am in my seventh year of debate. I debated three years in high school at Chandler Prep Academy in Arizona and am currently in my fourth year of debate in college debating for Whitman College. General Overview: I am a middle of the road judge, who if willing to listen and vote on anything so long as it is well articulated, defended, and impacted. I have more experience with traditional policy strategies (DA, CP, etc.) in my debate career most recently, but focus more in my academic studies on more critical literature/understandings of the world. Please run whatever arguments you are most comfortable and competent debating. I get frustrated when people run arguments they cannot explain and do not have an adequate understanding of the literature of those arguments. Style: I am fine with speed and generally have a proclivity for technical, efficient, line-by-line debating. I will consider arguments not answered dropped, but it is up to the other team to articulate why that dropped argument matters. For instance, placing blippy voting issues in random places will have little impact on how I vote unless they are given adequate analysis and weight in the round. DAs: Love them - topic specific DAs are the best. That said, I enjoy a good politics DA throw down. Nuanced and specific link stories will be rewarded. Impact analysis is crucial - how does the DA interact with the impacts of the case? CPs: Advantage CPs, smart PICs, and case specific mechanism CPs are great. I have a slight leaning towards the neg on issues of conditionality, unless it is egregious or very well debated. I am very skeptical about the legitimacy of consult CPs and other questionably legitimate/cheating CPs and probably am much more enticed by theoretical objections to these. Ks: Debating for Whitman, people often assume I am hostile to critical argumentation - this is not true. I am very fond of critical approaches that challenge the underlying assumptions and practices of mainstream policy making. Please be sure to clearly explain the argument and how it engages with affirmative - specific links based on the plan are best, recycled generics are fine but require a higher bar of analysis on your part to make them specific. Have a clear interpretation of how debate as an activity should function and what is my role as a judge. Please, please engage directly with the sorts of truth claims that aff is making and explain how I as a judge should view them (are the irrelevant? based on flawed epistemology? are the masking a larger issue at hand? etc). Make sure to utilize your alternative in a way that gives me a clear picture of how it functions and how it remedies the links you isolate. For affs answering Ks: I thoroughly enjoy impact turn debates on the K when possible. Performance/Non-Traditional: I am very open to non-traditional styles of debate, but have little experience debating or judging them. Please articulate how the debate space should function and please directly clash with the arguments that are made against your interpretation. T: Same as above, I view it as a DA. Generally think T debates get boring, but I will obviously vote for them. I usually default to competing interpretations unless reasonability is straight dropped.

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>

Shanglun Wang - Whitman

Stephanie Lauritzen - CDA

n/a

Stephanie Shelton - Lone Peak

Stephanie Shelton- <o:p></o:p> Background- 1st year as assistant coach for Lone Peak High School, debate policy for two years for Lone Peak High School. <o:p></o:p> Case Debate<o:p></o:p> I love a good case debate. <o:p></o:p> Aff- use your 1ac throughout the land. You should of put a lot of work into it so use it! Extend it throughout the round not just in your last speech. <o:p></o:p> Neg- I will buy plan is worse than the status quo if the neg can prove it. <o:p></o:p> T<o:p></o:p> I am fine with T. Neg show me what you lose by the aff running the certain aff. If you want to win on t, go all in and don’t just extend your argument go deeper into the details of the standards. <o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Da<o:p></o:p> I also love to see good disads. My favorite is politics but don’t run it just because I said that.  If you run a disad do good impact calculus!<o:p></o:p> Cp<o:p></o:p> Counterplans are a great strategy for the neg. I am fine with theory as well but you can’t just read the block you have to really paint the picture of what you are losing by the neg running the cp. Pics are great. <o:p></o:p> K<o:p></o:p> I mostly just know the main arguments behind the K so if you run a k make you arguments clear. Don’t be afraid to run a K and change your strategy. I want to see a good debate. If you really are a K debater then making your argument clear should be easy.  <o:p></o:p> Overall<o:p></o:p> Post signing is always a good thing. I am open to new arguments. Don’t change your overall strategy for me. Debate your strengths. Even-if statements are great, use them. No new args in the last speeches and tell me where the round came down to and what I should vote on in the last speeches Clarity is also good. I love a good cross ex but make sure you bring what was said in cx into the debate through one of your speeches. Be nice and act like you want to be debating even if it is your last round.  Any questions feel free to ask.<o:p></o:p>

Stephen Goldberg--NEVADA UNION - Whitman

Steven Denlinger - VHS

As an LD Judge, I bring the following expectations to the round: 1. Speed:  Since this is only my second year of judging, speed is still a challenge for me. Slow down on the Tags.  You can read the evidence as fast as you wish, but make sure you slow down and number your Tags/Contentions if you wish me to flow. I will never complain that you are going too slowly. :-) 2. Signposting:  This is important. Make sure you signpost clearly so that I can clearly follow your argument. 3. Links:  The link between each Contention and its Value needs to be crystal clear. 4. Topicality and Theory:  Don’t use either as a time suck.  You need to show me the abuse clearly. 5. Kritiks:  I am still uncomfortable with Kritiks. If you decide to run one, make sure that it has a clear structure.  In addition, in your crystalization, you need to show explicit links either to the opponent's advocacy or the resolution.  Don’t run a Kritik if it is just as confusing to you as it is to me. 6. Extensions:  Don’t just extend the tag and date.  You need to also explain why that card is important, and what it does in the round. 7. Crystalization:  This is the crucial part of the round.  You should be able to distill the entire debate into simple, clear voters. Write the ballot for me. 8. Tab:  I am as TAB as possible, but it is easier for me to see your argument if it is set within a classic LD argument with a V/VC structure.  I am a human being, so I am not completely objective, but I try to be.  You should know, however, that your Speaker Points will suffer if you run a morally repugnant argument during the round.  If your opponent points this out, it will become a voter.   9. Final Note:  Politeness and sportsmanship will always win you speaker points.  This is an educational event and an intellectual sport, and I want to enjoy judging your round.

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 Lofland - VHS

Susan Mohn - Interlake

Taylor Neher - EHS

Taylor Deardorf - Southridge WA

I debated for Southridge High School but most of my judging criteria come from my experience come form my colegiate Mock Trial competitions.  I am a college student at the University of Washington. Because of this experience in the trial court, PF teams would be more successful laying out cogent arguments in real world situations. Debaters, especially for Public Forum, should focus on clarity and well-warranted, logical arguments. That being said, debaters should feel free to use any really creative impacts or arguments as they like, as long as they can back it up and is somewhat believable. Real wolrd impacts play a huge role for me when I vote. Furthermore, disrespectful, overly-aggressive, and/or dishonest debaters will also be deducted significant speaker points. I expect a good clear framework or I will simply default to my personal preference for a framework. In the end, I will vote for the team who persuades me in believing that their side will create a better world or the least-worse world (so impacts are important for me). If the aff fails to provide any reason for change, and I feel the status quo is the most reasonable, then I will default to con because it is the aff’s job to create change and withhold the entirety of the resolution. I do not like to disclose unless the tournament requires to, but I am willing to give constructive feedback.

Tia Butler - Bingham

Tia Butler Background: Policy Debate: 4 years Arlington HS (WA) 3 years Whitman College (WA) I debated for a while, I only recently left the activity, I have worked at the WNDI so a lot of you know me, and I love debate. I will work hard in rounds, flow all you say, and do my best to make the right decision. I will take the round seriously if you do, that being said a good joke can help your speaks, but don’t overdo it. Topics I think are funny: Bronies, internet cats, Alex Zendeh (WNDI students should get this). I can do speed, and am willing to judge and be fair about any position – below are some caveats and tips to keep me happy! K: Aff must be within the resolution – I just really think for debate to be an educational activity the affirmative HAS to talk about the resolution – while this does mean I am likely to be cranky if you run an aff that isn’t even tangentially related to the topic I will be cranky, it does NOT mean that I won’t hear your critical aff, I appreciate the utility of K’s in debate, only if they are run correctly. 1) K must be related to the topic. You can run your aff if it talks about topic literature 2) It has to be fair, the negative should be able to test the plan advocacy with DA’s, CP’s, other K’s, if the negative can prove they can literally only go for T or FW, I might be cranky. I debated for Whitman so most of my experience comes from “straight-up” debate, however I can appreciate the utility of running K’s as strategic options on the neg. I will listen to the K, but the team should meet the following requirements: 1) The k has to have a legitimate link to the affirmative case, and you have to prove that link. 2) The k has to have a legitimate alt, I don’t buy the utopian “do nothing” or “reject the aff” and that will solve all the world’s problems. 3) I flow and listen, please don’t change what the k does in the block, I will notice if you are being vague to change that way the k works with the 2ac answers If you do this, and win, I will vote for the K. DA’S and CP’S and Case: Love em. Nuff said. I am very open to all this – but be warned of the following: 1) If the 2NR is only a DA you will most likely lose, you need to have at least defense on the aff to win the DA 2) I don’t like delay CP, I think they are cheating, try to avoid them 3) Theory – if you want to win on theory, you really have to go all in on theory and prove an impact T: ASPEC is not a voter. RVI’s are not voters. Other than that if the aff isn’t topical, go for T, I really like T and get it.

Tiana Hilton - Highland

Tim Harper - Gonzaga Prep

<a data-hovercard="/ajax/hovercard/hovercard.php?id=1450020135" href="http://www.facebook.com/tim.harper.359" id="js_1">Tim Harper</a> <div class="_53" id="id.255042037952260"> <div class="_3hi"> <div class="_1yr">  </div> <div class="_38 direction_ltr"> Judging philosophy: Experience: I have been debating for 6 years – Three for Ashland High School and three for Gonzaga. I am a senior and captain of the Gonzaga debate team. I have 20+ rounds of experience on this year’s topic. Preferences: General: I default to an offense-defense paradigm. I don’t think a conceded argument automatically constitutes a win—you must explain the arguments you want me to evaluate and extrapolate why I should do so. why do I care and what does it mean to the rest of the debate? That said, concessions are tie-breakers. I will read evidence. Most likely, I will read lots of it. However putting evidence in my hands means I will give it only as much weight as it deserves and not necessarily as much as you tell me it does. Make sure if you tell me to read a card that you are willing to stake the debate on it being as good as you think it is. I reward concise, articulate, well-reasoned arguments over pedantic soap boxing. With this in mind, you will be well served to remove filler phrases from your vocabulary – “pull the trigger,” “at the point where,” “extend across the flow” etc, etc… If you could choose to be funny or be smart and professional while debating in front of me, I prefer the latter. CP: I will accept a lens of sufficiency for evaluating counterplans and believe the aff must win a large risk of a solvency deficit, permutation or disadvantage to the counterplan to win a debate against a counterplan that resolves a large portion of the aff. I am not adverse to conditions, multi-plank advantage, process, or consultation counterplans. Theory arguments except conditionality are a reason to reject the team unless persuasively proven otherwise. DA: I think a DA that turns the whole case can outweigh the whole aff without substantive case defense, but you are well suited to cover your bases and sufficiently mitigate aff advantages to be safe. For the aff, I will vote on terminal defense on a disadvantage, however because I default to offense-defense, the threshold for winning zero risk of the DA is somewhat higher than winning some risk of offense, especially if there is a counterplan that solves all of the aff. Impact calculus should not be ignored – it can often be the tie-breaker in close case v. disad debates. Topicality: I will default to competing interpretations but will usually lean aff unless the T argument is particularly compelling or the affirmative is very obviously non- or anti-topical. Kritik: Although I am not a K debater, I increasingly find myself voting for K teams because highschool debaters largely do not a) understand or b) forward a framework argument. That said, I will likely understand and simultaneously detest your kritik. If you think your opponent is smart enough to read my philosophy (an admittedly unlikely proposition) and therefore decide to go for framework, you are likely in a less-than-desirable position. I will evaluate alternatives in the following manner—It will either need to establish a competing role of the ballot through which I should view the alternative, or I will default to assuming it operates within the same worldview of the aff and therefore should be able to outweigh or solve those competing impacts. </div> </div> </div>

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.

Todd Bofferding - Hood River

Tabula rasa for arguments. For style, please speak slowly enough for effective communication.

Tryon Thompson - Tualatin

n/a

Tyler Jensen - Gig Harbor

Vicki Orrico - Newport

Wendy Gordon - EHS

I have judged policy debate for 2 years now. This doesn’t mean I understand it all. I am a hard core comms judge. If I can’t understand you I won’t vote on it. You have to paint a picture for me. If you do not explain your world and why I should vote for it I probably won’t. I know enough about policy to get me by but don’t assume I know what you are talking about. SLOW! I can’t follow speed. I like good traditional policy debate without the jargon and speed! Aff: I want traditional aff’s. I do not like performance aff’s and I WILL NOT VOTE ON THEM! Kritikal advantages are also another no no. DA’s Explain it to me show me why your way is better! CP’s RUN THEM BECAUSE I HATE JUST OUTRIGHT REJECTING THE AFF! I love a good CP that can tie the world together. Kritik’s NO. That’s all I am going to say. Topicality: Prove it to me cause I won’t vote on potential abuse. Theory: Same as T. Run a traditional case and you should be fine with me as long as you impact calc it out.

Wendy Leavitt - Highland

I am new to judging. I try to concentrate on the moral value arguments. I prefer a communication style with a steady rhythm but do not care for speed. I like clear voters and crystallization.

Whitney Johnson - Tualatin

n/a

Yonah Biers-Ariel - Whitman

Zach Markovich - AHS

I debated for Ashland high school for four years. I'm currently a sophomore debating for Dartmouth. 1) Shorter speeches = better points. 2) An argument is a claim and a warrant. Unless you provide a reason why what you say is true I don't think your opponent has much of a burden to answer it. This means that even though you assert "severance permutations are a voting issue", you have not advanced an argument for why I should reject the team due to their permutation and I will act accordingly. This also means that you still have to fully explain an argument for to be willing to vote on it, even if it is dropped. 3) Evidence -- I usually try to resolve the debate before calling for cards. I will and often do call for cards in resolving debates, but this is secondary to the arguments that were advanced by the debaters. I will prioritize spin put on evidence over evidence quality. Good evidence> bad analytics. I usually do not evaluate arguments made in cards that I don't believe were explained in a speech. 4) K v policy. I have a read a planless aff, but also regularly went for a policy da. I'm more of a centrist, although I'm probably more familiar with policy than kritkal debate. Also, most of my understanding of these author's ideas comes from debate. Please do not assume that I am familiar with the author you are discussing. 5) I think there can be zero risk of an argument, although this won't be super relevant in most debates. Smart defensive arguments are underutilized. Debaters seem to often prioritize mediocre carded offense when there are holes that could easily be exploited with smart analytics. 6) I've been the 2n and 2a about equally over my history with debate, the time I've spent as the 2n has probably been most significant in shaping how I view the activity though. 7) Other than that I really have very biases. I think about debate a lot and my viewpoint on most other issues is changing all the time. I also usually end up discarding those viewpoints anyways so none of it really matters.

Zach Gordy - Mercer Island

n/a

2012 WHITMAN Wilcox HS Tournament