Redmond High School 2019

2019 — Redmond, WA, WA/US

Hyeoungho Bae Paradigm

I am a parent judge from Interlake High School. I have judged at 2 tournaments before and have been trained in flowing, assigning speaker points, and giving feedback to debaters.

I will disclose my decision after the round. Speaker points will usually range between 27.5-29.5.

To best adapt to me, speak clearly at a conversational pace, weigh arguments, and read an AC or NC with a delineated Value Criterion and contentions.

As always, remember to have fun and do your best!

Anna Bennett Paradigm

Not Submitted

Todd Bohannon Paradigm

I have a PuFo background, but I have spent the year judging policy rounds so I’m familiar with the topic and many of the arguments. A few things to know about me:

1. Critiques are fine with me.

2. Spreading is fine, but slow down on your tags. If your are going too fast I will raise my hand to let you know to slow down.

3. I like clash during CX, but don’t be rude. If you are rude, it will count against you.

Thats it!

Cheers!

Todd

Jay Busch Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rachel Greenwood Paradigm

Not Submitted

Suzanne Hall Paradigm

I do not find spreading useful in making a strong case; I prefer traditional LD debate. Framework arguments must be solidly grounded in scholarly research that ties tightly to the resolution. Courtesy to your opponent matters. Cases with plans are fine — provided the resolution is fully addressed and you can engage your opponent on the nuances of the resolution.

Chase Hutchinson Paradigm

Competed in LD for four years in high school, did parli for four years in college (plus a handful of policy tournaments), so I am generally familiar with most arguments you are interested in running. I am generally of the view that the debate is yours and am open to hearing whatever it is that you want to make the debate.

If you have any specific questions, please don't hesitate to ask.

Jennifer Johnson Paradigm

NOVICE LD

I am a traditional LD judge, so I expect traditional approaches, particularly in novice. No spreading. Please relate all of your arguments back to your Value/Criterion. This is philosophy debate, so I want you to use that framework throughout your round. Please stand for all speeches, including CX. Remember to stay on topic; relate your arguments explicitly to the resolution. Avoid definitions debates. I am a strong proponent of evidence; the more you use effectively in rebuttals, the more likely you are to win my vote. Please time yourselves, as I often write quite a bit on ballots and also flow.

OPEN LD

ALL OF THE ABOVE AND...know that I am more lenient on speed in open rounds. Spreading is acceptable. I expect strong clashes in CX, coherent and sustainable arguments and an exceptional display of philosophical prowess. I am less interested in plans/counterplans and kritiks. If you dig those arguments, policy is the place for you! Please no flex prep.

PUBLIC FORUM

This is an accessible form of debate, meaning it should be clear, concise and easy for any judge to understand. I expect debaters in this forum to be aware of that and adjust accordingly. Please avoid spreading, definitions-based debates and plan-oriented arguments. Do not read a pre-written rebuttal. If you don't have evidence, your argument carries little weight. Cite sources, time yourselves and be courteous.

Nick Julian Paradigm

Tabula Rasa: If you don't say it, I don't flow it. Framework arguments do not automatically get flowed on my ballots as a priori unless you outline them as such and explain why they are a priori voters. Additionally, I will not do work for you on the ballot, meaning that if I find an argument you have made convincing but you do not reiterate it or bring it up as a voter I can't vote on it. Finally and most importantly: clarity is key. If I can't understand you, I can't vote for you. If I say "clear" or "slow" you MUST abide or lose the round. I ask that you show your opponents the same courtesy.

Kinda goes without saying, but overt/explicit bigotry of any kind (classism, racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.) will automatically forfeit my ballot.

Meera Krishna Paradigm

Not Submitted

Gus Marks Paradigm

Tagteaming during CX is okay, just let your partner try to answer it first.

8 minutes of prep.

PLEASE roadmap/signpost! Tell me what argument you're answering!

Impact calc, tell me what flows you're winning on.

I will evaluate based primarily on T and K's, so answer those first!

Please don't run totally ridiculous T arguments ("Should is past tense so they're untopical", etc")

Eric McCormick Paradigm

Not Submitted

Laurie Milligan Paradigm

Not Submitted

Aidan Moran Paradigm

Don't talk fast

Jeffrey Richards Paradigm

 

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, Sammamish High School in Seattle, WA, and currently with Eastside Catholic High School in Sammamish, 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 2015 Tournament of Champions and at several NFL Nationals tournaments. 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 Theory RVIs 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 position 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 (competing interps). 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.

 

 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.

 

 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.

Paul Rossman Paradigm

Not Submitted

Rob Sorensen Paradigm

I'm a traditional LD judge - I prefer a traditional V/VC framework, and like a philosophical debate that substantively engages the resolution.

I have very limited tolerance for speed / lack of clarity.

Matthew Tilden Paradigm

Not Submitted

Overlake Volunteer Paradigm

Not Submitted

Lisa Weber Paradigm

LD Paradigm

If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain. prefer Aff to be topical. I prefer a traditional Value/Criterion debate. I like clear signposting, that opponents refer to when refuting each other. I also require evidence to uphold your warrants and link to your personal analysis. All affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win, value/criterion. The negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently.

When I see a traditional debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks, really matters in my weighing of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. There are very few arguments I would actually consider a priori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins standards, whichever one they decide to go for, and has a compelling round story. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear link story, with warrants and weighted impacts, are the best route for my ballot.

I will listen to a Kritik but you must link it to the debate in the room, related to the resolution in some way, for me to more likely to vote for it. I am biased toward topicality.

I hold theory to higher bar. I will most likely vote reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given a clearly phrased justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation and it is insufficiently contested, there is a better chance that I will vote for a competing interpretation. You will need to emphasize this by slowing down, if you are spreading, slow down, speak a little louder, or tell me “this is paramount, flow this”.

Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is high. I prefer engagement and clash with your opponent. If I feel like negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 2+ independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a "think tank" to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory, and gives direct examples from Neg, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Common sense counts. You do not need a card to tell me that the Enola Gay was the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima.

I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate. I do not flow cross examination. If there are any concessions in CX, you need to point them out in your next speech, for me to weigh them.

Cross Examination


Sitting or standing, whatever you are comfortable with. I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should be respectful and polite, and not look at each other. Cross examination concessions are binding, if your opponent calls them out in their next speech.


Speaker Points

If I do not understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28. You will lose speaker points if your actions are disrespectful to either myself or to your opponent. I believe in decorum and will vote you down if you are rude or condescending toward your opponent. I do not flow “super spreading”. I need to understand what you are saying, so that I can flow it. I will say “slow” and “clear” once. If there is no discernable change, I will not bother to repeat myself. If you respond, slow down, then speed up again, I will say “slow” and/or “clear” again. For my ballot, clarity over quantity. Word economy over quantity. I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, cadence, the entire debate.

If something is factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, do not expect to win it as an argument.

Please give me articulate voters at the end of the NR and 2AR.

I disclose if it is the tournament norm.

If you are unclear about my paradigm, please ask before the round begins.

Public Forum Paradigm

RESPECT and DECORUM

1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to stop their answer. When finished with answer, ask your opponent "Do you have a question?" Please ask direct questions. Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in Crossfire".

2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans.

I expect PF to be a contention level debate. There may be a weighing mechanism like "cost-benefit analysis" that will help show why your side has won the debate on magnitude. (Some call this a framework)

I like signposting of all of your contentions. Please use short taglines for your contentions. If you have long contentions, I really like them broken down into segments, A, B, C, etc. I appreciate you signposting your direct refutations of your opponents contentions.

I like direct clash.

All evidence used in your constructed cases should be readily available to your opponent, upon request. If you slow down the debate looking for evidence that is in your constructed case, that will weigh against you when I am deciding my ballot.

I do not give automatic losses for dropped contentions or not extending every argument. I let the debaters decide the important contentions by what they decide to debate.

In your summary speech, please let me know specifically why your opponents are loosing the debate.

In your final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.

Erika Yan Paradigm

Not Submitted

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!