Sedro Woolley Invitational
2018 — Sedro Woolley, WA/US
Shivam Bansal Paradigm
Didi Barry Paradigm
Brooke Burdick Paradigm
Eileen Burdick Paradigm
Mark Cassell Paradigm
Kathy Chace Paradigm
Stephanie Curry Paradigm
Hebeltje Dykstra Paradigm
Ryan Eikenbary- Barber Paradigm
Joseph Entner Paradigm
Anna Ghinea Paradigm
Erin Gibson Paradigm
Jeffrey Giorgi Paradigm
Victor Gonzalez Paradigm
Derek Hanson Paradigm
I competed in Policy from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and am now running the debate program at Glacier Peak High School.
I'm a Stock Issues judge, and when Stock Issues are fulfilled, I default to Policymaker. I tend to have a low tolerance for frivolous Topicality arguments, but am willing to consider most based on the quality of the link and argumentation presented. My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy. I have absolutely no tolerance for performance affs. If you run one, and your opponent so much as utters a basic T shell and consistently extends it through the round, you stand very little chance of winning.
I have a dislike of most kritiks. In my view many Kritiks, while useful in theory, often allow debaters to become lazy and shirk their research obligations while running the same strategy year after year. In other cases they're based on hopelessly distorted pseudo-intellectual crap that regresses the educational value of the debate. They can, however, have their legitimate uses and it would be wise for the neg, if they choose to run one with me, to provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're here to debate.
I hate performance affs with a fiery passion. They're a cheap gimmick with no redeeming value beyond a few chuckles, and negate any educational value for the round. I cannot emphasize enough how much I despise these things.
I'm able to understand speed, but prefer clear articulation.
I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention in all cases, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; demonstrate how they show that you win the round.
I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. "Progressive" styles are a bastardization of this format. You want to pull that stuff, go back to Policy. Value-criterion debate is the name of the game, along with philosophical analysis of a topic, not how a plan might be implemented.
I am not a fan of Kritiks, but can understand that in some cases they can have legitimate uses. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible.
LD doesn't have plans. Stop trying to run them. Same with CP's.
No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.
Performance affs will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case.
Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Failure to do so is your own fault.
I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. No plans, no funny business from other forms of debate. I have a violent dislike for spreading in this format.
Traditional Worlds adjudication. Do not spread.
David Jung Paradigm
Paul Jurenka Paradigm
Mike Larson Paradigm
Steve McCartt Paradigm
Gwen McCartt Paradigm
Schoen Parnell Paradigm
Richard Sanders Paradigm
Andrew Shimer Paradigm
New Mount Vernon Parent Paradigm
Ming Wagoner Paradigm
Jennifer Xu Paradigm
Morgan Zerby Paradigm
Net net: I'm open to any arguments as long as they're well warranted. I try to evaluate the round through the lens you provide. I'm comfortable with speed but will make faces at you during the round if you aren't clear or aren't telling me where you're at on the flow.
I won state policy in high school (it was Alaska though...so....) and did parli at Western Washington University. My final year, I went to quarter finals at NPDA. I majored in analytic philosophy with emphasis on epistemology, feminist philosophy, and political philosophy. I ran a lot of criticisms, but I also really enjoy straight up CP/disad/case debates. If you're running a criticism, please have framework arguments that clearly explain how your opponents can engage in the debate. Comfortable with theory- I won't auto drop you on any theory arguments you run. Like most people, I raise my eyebrows if your theory arguments skew the other team out of the round.
Other stuff on speaker points:
Debate is awesome and I reward people who are classy, clever and creative. Biggest pet peeve is when more experienced teams steamroll over novices-- be kind and courteous. There's a learning curve to participate in debate, so don't discourage people from giving it a try by being aggro.
Good luck! Reach out if you have questions!