Judge Philosophies
- Lincoln
<p>Policy Debate Paradigm</p> <p>I am the policy debate coach for Lincoln High School in Portland, OR.</p> <p> I was a policy/LD debater for Lincoln High School and CEDA debater for The American University in Washington, DC. Upon graduation, I returned to coach the American CEDA program for three more years. After a long hiatus, I’ve been called back to the activity that I love.</p> <p> </p> <p>Debate is awesome! But … it’s only as good as we, as a community, make it. I am coming back to the activity to make sure that it continues for future generations. Teams that disrespect their opponent, or this activity, will be dealt with severely on my ballot. Integrity is not something to trifle with for short-term strategic benefits. </p> <ol> <li>Stand during speaking times, unless you’re medically unable.</li> <li>Homophobic, racist, religiously intolerant, or sexist language and/or behavior will not be tolerated.</li> <li>Rudeness, dishonesty, cruelty and vulgarity devalues the activity.</li> <li>Have fun! Strive for creativity, humor, debate scholarship, humility, compassion, and being strategic.</li> </ol> <p> </p> <p>Stylistic Overview</p> <ol> <li>CLASH!</li> <li>Quality over quantity. Just because I can handle a faster round doesn't mean that it impresses me.</li> <li>Smart analytics is always better than lazy warrantless evidence.</li> <li>Debates about evidence QUALITY and CONTEXT are to be encouraged! </li> <li>I am ok with tag teaming during cross ex so long as it provides greater clarity and isn’t abused.</li> <li>So long as it’s not a new case, advantage/scenario or neg position. The negative and affirmative positions should be disclosed pre round, if asked.</li> <li>If asked, evidence must be made available to the opposition.</li> <li>Prep stops when the flash leaves your computer.</li> <li>Provide a clear decision-making calculus judge from the start throughout the round and please do all of the impact analysis for me.</li> <li> I believe one or two prestandards (a propri) arguments are sufficient, anything more and I lean towards abuse.</li> </ol> <p> </p> <p>Positions</p> <p>Kritiks</p> <p>I’m more than open to them. But know that I’d probably rather judge just about anything … than a postmodernism debate. Even if you argued this in front of me 5 times this season, debate a K as if I’ve never heard the topic before.</p> <p>Topicality/theory debates</p> <p>Slow down for clarity, these debates tend to be nuanced. Try to limit these positions to only abusive situation</p> <p>Disadvantages</p> <p>Not shockingly, case specific disads are better than generic.</p> <p>Counterplans</p> <p>Competition is key. Aff leaning on Conditionality. Legit perms must include all of plan and part of the counter plan.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>I will try to judge whatever you want, within reason, so long as you justify it.</em></strong></p>
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
AJ Breimon - Lakeridge
n/a
Alex Parini - Wilson
<p>I'm a Neo-Communication judge. What exactly does that mean? Think of me as a modern version of your classic communication and stock issue judge. </p> <p>What I like to see:</p> <p>• Real world policy making. The Aff should tell me how the state can make a difference. If you're running a Kritikal Affirmative then it needs to be run well. Dancing during the 1AC while telling me the state is prejudice is not enough to get my ballot. </p> <p>• Solid link chains. Any argument-whether it's on the Aff or Neg-needs a clear story. Generic links can get you there if the warrants are strong. </p> <p>• Clash. Both teams need to engage on some level. I'm ok with a framework debate so long as both teams actually engage each other's arguments. </p> <p>• Line-by-line. Please go down the flow and tell me where you're going. Nothing sucks more then losing a round because the judge (me) flowed your argument in the wrong spot and couldn't extend it over. (I'll try my best to give you the benefit of the doubt, but don't put me in that position.)</p> <p>• Logic. Don't be afraid to "step outside the box". If you know something is BS call it out. Just because you don't have a card against them doesn't mean you should ignore their argument. </p> <p>• Impact calculus. Weigh your impacts against your opponent's. Don't let me decide morality comes before nuclear war or vice versa. Convince me (with logic) which impacts are a priori.</p> <p>• Tell me why you won the debate. When I'm writing the RFD on the ballot I should use a line the 2A/NR used in their final speech. </p> <p> </p>
Alex Gielish - Willamette
n/a
Allison Quarles - RPHS
n/a
Almas Saheed - MVHS
n/a
Amanda Brixius - West Albany
Amber Hoang - Sandy
n/a
Amy Moss Strong - Bandon HS
n/a
Andrea Polivka - Nestucca
n/a
Andrew Morgan - Tillamook
n/a
Angel Horta - Sandy
n/a
Ansheng Zhang - Sunset
Audrey Umber - Canby
n/a
Austin Ewing - MHS
n/a
Barbara Spisla - RPHS
n/a
Beau Woodward - Lakeridge
n/a
Ben Hynes-Stone - Silverton
n/a
Benjamin Agre - Cleveland
Brad Tompkins - La Salle Prep
n/a
Brian Malan - Gresham
n/a
Brian Avery - Lake Oswego
n/a
Cameron Nilles - Barlow
n/a
Carl Rupp - Tillamook
n/a
Carli Smythe - Summit
n/a
Carolyn Hill - Nestucca
n/a
Caron Newman - Loggers
<p>I am first and foremost a communications judge. That means that eye contact, respect for your opponent while he/she is speaking - not talking to your partner (to me, that is rude), inflection, and rate of speech are important. Regardless of the type of debate, you must be clear and concise. I do not like spreading; what’s the point if no one can understand you? Remember, Aff must convince me there needs to be a change in CX. I don’t appreciate the neg wasting time on T if it’s not really an issue. The worst round I’ve ever judged spent 20 minutes arguing the definition of “its.” If you are not arguing the resolution, it’s very difficult for me to vote for you. For LD, I enjoy the philosophical portion as that was my minor in college. Try to stay away from policy jargon in LD; it doesn’t fit. For parli, I expect you to answer questions instead of avoiding them and filling time that could be better spent responding to your opponent. Finally, in all events, the cross weighs heavily in my decision-making. I appreciate insightful questioning and clear answers.</p> <p> </p>
Carrie Strecker - Neah-Kah-Nie
n/a
Chad Lopes - Tillamook
n/a
Chansik Im - Sunset
Chris Farlow - RPHS
n/a
Courtney Walsh - MHS
n/a
Craig Leve - South
Dave Schaefer - Nestucca
n/a
David Saenger - South
DeLona Campos-Davis - Hood River
n/a
Derek Culver - Century
n/a
Don Steiner - Wilson
Doug Sam - Cleveland
Dwight Siewert - Westview
ER Zusman - Lincoln
n/a
Eli Morgan-Steiner - Wilson
Elizabeth Fortier - HHS
n/a
Elizabeth Haas - Sunset
https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Haas%2C+Elizabeth The above philosophy was written mainly for nat circuit LD, but most things will apply to most debates. I'm also totally good with a traditional, Oregon-style debate. If so, I look more at internal consistency of argumentation than I would with a more progressive debate. Read the paradigm, but feel free to ask me specific questions before the round if you have them!
Ellen Howard - Bandon HS
n/a
Ellen Pheifer - MVHS
n/a
Eric Mische - La Salle Prep
n/a
Erick Lee - SAHS
n/a
Erik Johannes - OES
n/a
Ernie Leland - MVHS
n/a
Ethan Adelman-Sil - Cleveland
Ethan Swift - Cleveland
Graham Howard - Silverton
n/a
Griffin Gonzales - Cleveland
Helen Phan - Westview
Jack Sanderson - Cleveland
Jake Weigler - Lincoln
<pre> <strong>Name: Jacob Weigler Institution: Lincoln High School</strong></pre> <pre> <strong>Position: Assistant Coach Years Coaching: 5</strong></pre> <pre> <strong>Number of tournaments judged this year: 0</strong></pre> <pre> </pre> <pre> <strong>Theory</strong></pre> <pre> I like good theory debate, don’t like bad theory debate (Duh). A good theory debate would involve teams providing their interpretation of the theoretical issue, warrants to justify that as the superior interpretation and indicts of their opponents interpretation. Bad theory debate almost always lack the third and frequently the first. I have little problem pulling the trigger on a theory debate as long as those implications are clearly identified and explained early in the debate.</pre> <pre> </pre> <pre> <strong>Topic Specific Args.</strong></pre> <pre> As of October, I have not judged a round on this topic. I do know about the topic area and I’ve reviewed what was put out by camps over the summer. </pre> <pre> </pre> <pre> <strong>Evidence</strong></pre> <pre> I like well-applied evidence. I don’t mind sifting through a bunch of cards to decide a debate, but I’d rather not. At that point I am forced to make my own evaluations to the quality or comparative value of evidence that you might not agree with. So … make those comparisons for me. Final rebuttals (or even earlier speeches) that isolate the warrants in their evidence and use that to make comparisons will save me a lot of trouble and you a lot of disappointment if I see things differently.</pre> <pre> </pre> <pre> <strong>Style</strong></pre> <pre> Style tends to be a matter of taste. I am encouraged about the willingness of teams to expand the stylistics of debate, but remain deeply committed to the core principle of rejoinder. In other words, the ability for critical debate. I welcome performative arguments, but I think you must provide a point for your opponents discourse to engage and respond or, absent that, accept your opponents’ attempts to do so. I have some problems with being asked to simply affirm a performance as that seems at cross purposes with the nature of this activity. Other than that, BE NICE! Zero style points for being a jerk.</pre> <pre> </pre> <pre> <strong>Misc.</strong></pre> <pre> I’m a pretty flexible judge. Tell me what to do and I’ll generally do it. I have a set of assumptions and criteria about how to evaluate a debate that I will fall back to absent instructions from the debaters. If you have any questions about that, just ask before we start. <strong>Most importantly</strong>, I like impact and issue comparisons in the final rebuttals. Statements like “Even if” or “Regardless of if they win X” or “My impacts should always be preferred because” will go far to win my ballot. Too many debates are reduced to trying to stack a bunch of impacts on your side and hope it is enough to outweigh. Don’t be that kind of debater, give me a big picture and weigh it out for me.</pre> <p> </p> <p> </p>
Jamila Osman - Beaverton
n/a
Jan Pizzo - Butte Falls
<p>Two years high school speech</p> <p>Judging since 1980</p> <p>First coaching assignment 1981</p> <p>Debate coach 1993-1994 and 2004 to present.</p> <p>LD: Clash between aff and neg. Value/Crit should be integrated throughout cases. Analysis and cards are both important. Speaking speed should not be as fast as Policy. Line by line rebuttals are important. Debaters will be expected to know the rules, especially concerning new arguments. Ethical behavior is always a must.</p> <p>Policy: T, K and CP arguments are all fine. Generic disads and random T arguments tend to strike me as lazy. Old style stock issue debate is fine. My paradigm is: "Don't do anything to drive people out of the event." Line by line or grouping are both fine. Spread/speed okay. Speed should not be so fast that I need your written case/cards to understand the debate. Do not panic if I use a paper flow pad, I just like it better than the computer. Also, do not panic if I stop flowing, it does not mean I am not following the debate. Tag team does not work for me when it results in only one partner doing the C-X. Debaters will be expected to understand the rules, especially concerning new arguments. Ethical behavior is a must. Policy-maker slant. Therefore, tell me why we need new legislation/law/plan, how it will fix the problem and why the plan is better than the status quo. Give me justification for voting for the plan on aff. On neg, tell me either why the status quo is not bad, why the aff plan will not work, why the aff plan is not needed or how the plan will create bigger issues. Alternatively, a K or CP is also a fine neg. approach as long as it connects. Traditional stock issue take-outs on-case of aff is also fine. For example, minor repair arguments work with me.</p> <p>PF: I will try my best to judge this form of debate from the perspective of a lay judge. Therefore, theory arguments, excessive speed or spread and jargon will be judged less favorably than in LD or Policy. Communication, illustrations, eye-contact and writing style will have more emphasis. Ethical behavior is a must.</p> <p>Oral critiques provided when permitted by the tournament.</p> <p><br /> </p>
Janet Billups - Cleveland
Jason Swallow - Hilhi
n/a
Jason Miller - Lake Oswego
n/a
Jeannette Culver - Century
n/a
Jeff VanVickle - Bandon HS
n/a
Jen Loeung - Centennial
n/a
Jeneveve Winchell - Bandon HS
n/a
Jenn Van Vleet - Wilson
Jennifer Clark - Hood River
n/a
Jennifer Barton - MVHS
n/a
Jenny Owen - Lincoln
Previous debate and practical experience: High school policy debate (1977-1981); legal career; past seven years judging all forms of debate, individual events & Student Congress in Pacific NW for 15-20 tournaments/year as well as 2-3 ToC Tournaments/year; and, six years of coaching a large, comprehensive speech and debate team. I value and thank debaters for pre-round research and preparation, but I view the actual round as the place where even more is required, namely: Engagement, clash, aggressive advocacy/defense of positions, respectful behavior and proportionality. Use of canned arguments, kritiks and counterplans without specific links into the actual debate fail even if they are entertaining, well planned and/or superior to the alternative. I prefer the substance of the debate over the form. Taglines make flowing easier, but do not warrant claims nor constitute extensions of arguments per se. I try to flow all of the debate but not robotically. I aim to judge competitors on their round at hand, not on all the arguments that could have/should have been made, but were not. I do not view the ballot as my chance to cure all that is wrong in the world though I wish it were that easy. I offer a caveat: Rude or malicious conduct are ill-advised. I will default to the rules of that form of debate (to which I will refer if they are called into question) as the base for my decision within the context of debate before me.
Jerry Dobesh - Centennial
n/a
Jill Angle - Sandy
n/a
Jill Phipps - Lincoln
Jim Patterson - Hood River
n/a
Joan Huston - UHS
n/a
Joe English - MVHS
n/a
Joe Sullivan - Cleveland
John Nelson - Clackamas
John Watkins - Glencoe
n/a
Julie Siewert - Westview
June Gerst - Century
n/a
Karen Hobbs - Summit
n/a
Kat Podlesnik - Hermiston
n/a
Kate Weatherly - South
Kathryn Schwartz - Cleveland
Kathryn Lizik - Cleveland
Katie Kantrowitz - Silverton
n/a
Katuma Janay - Beaverton
n/a
Keith Eddins - Oak Hill
<p>I prefer and default to a policymaker paradigm in CX policy debate. In current jargon, I reside in the truth-over-tech world. That said, I try to evaluate the round from (almost) any framework on which the debaters agree. If they cannot or do not agree, I will do my best to adjudicate the framework issue, as well, based on the arguments presented in the round. Regardless, I believe AFF cases should have a plan, not just a generalized statement of intent. I still consider inherency an issue that must be addressed by the AFF, and I think solvency should be demonstrated in the 1AC. In my mind, the notion of presumption favoring the status quo (and, thus, the NEG) continues to exist. That said, if AFF presents a prima facie case and NEG chooses not to contest it, presumption essentially shifts to AFF, and NEG better have some pretty persuasive off-case positions. I am liberal on T (at least from an affirmative perspective). But if NEG presents a strong T argument that AFF fails to rebut effectively, I will treat T as an a priori voting issue. In NEG terms, a well-constructed, logical, evidence-based DISAD remains the most persuasive argument against an AFF plan. It need not result in nuclear war or the end of the world. In fact, I find most DISADs more persuasive when not taken to the ultimate extreme. Ks are fine arguments provided you really understand and explain them. But you need to present them in terms I can understand; while I know my Marx, Engels, and Lenin quite well, I would never even pretend to comprehend French post-modernist philosophy (to use one example). CPs should offer sufficient detail to be fully evaluated and include evidence-based solvency arguments. As for other forms of debate, I will gladly evaluate an LD round from either a value or policy perspective depending on the nature of the resolution and the results of any framework debate. Plans, Ks, and CPs are fine in LD. In Parli, I am also quite comfortable with plans, Ks, and CPs, but they are not necessary. However, I will discount arguments in Parli that are based on a gross factual misstatement (even if the other team fails to challenge it). In Public Forum, I am looking for solid evidence-based argumentation and real clash (too often the clash is missing in PF debate). In each of these forms of debate I am a flow judge. But for me to flow your arguments effectively, I need good signposting and clearly stated tag lines. Remember: I neither receive nor do I want a flashed version of your speech. Your best arguments may prove meaningless if you fail to tell me where to record them on the flow.</p>
Kelley Marchant - RPHS
n/a
Kelli McMellon - Nestucca
n/a
Kevin Collins - MVHS
n/a
Kim Super - Westview
Kris Igawa - Beaverton
n/a
Kris Lippencott - Sandy
n/a
Krissi Van Order - Heritage
n/a
Kristina Kurtz - Lincoln
n/a
Kristine Hayes - Neah-Kah-Nie
n/a
Leslie Dailey - Cleveland
Linda Bonder - OES
n/a
Lindi Watson - Cleveland
Lisa Kaplan - Cleveland
Lynn Pizzo - Butte Falls
M Griffiths - Lake Oswego
n/a
Madison Sturdevant - Neah-Kah-Nie
n/a
Mahmoud Aghel - Sunset
Mamta Sharma - Westview
Marilyn Czel - Centennial
n/a
Marisol Quintana - Neah-Kah-Nie
n/a
Marissa Bertucci - Gresham
n/a
Mark Little - OES
n/a
Matt Karlsen - Cleveland
Matthew Compton - MHS
n/a
Megan Medley - MVHS
n/a
Melissa Winters - North Bend
n/a
Melissa Wyman - Cleveland
Michael Doran - La Salle Prep
n/a
Michael Timmons - Silverton
n/a
Michael Valbuena - UHS
n/a
Michelle Winchell - Bandon HS
n/a
Michelle Lentzner - Lake Oswego
n/a
Michelle Jenck - Tillamook
n/a
Molly Schulze - Willamette
n/a
Nancy Keates - OES
n/a
Nathan Silvers-Boyce - Wilson
Olivia Hering - Glencoe
n/a
Olivia Katz - MHS
n/a
Patrick Johnson - Westview
<p>Real world arguments win- theoretical/improbable impacts do not</p> <p>Comparative impacts critical for a win</p> <p>Topicality is legit, again, only for real world probability</p> <p>CLASH! and signpost where your arguments clash with opponents AND why your impact is more significant</p> <p>No tagteam when prohibited</p> <p>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</p>
Patrick Gonzales - Cleveland
Patrick Leahy - SAHS
n/a
Paul Hamann - Heritage
n/a
Peter Adrian - MVHS
n/a
Peter Sprengelmeyer - South
Phil Fisher - South
Poonam Patel - UHS
n/a
Rachel Constans - Centennial
n/a
Reddy Mallidi - Westview
Reed Van Valkenburgh - Cleveland
Rekha Karthik - Sunset
Ridgefield Judge 1 - Ridgefield H.S.
n/a
Ridgefield Judge 2 - Ridgefield H.S.
n/a
Robin Brown - Hilhi
n/a
Robyn Rose - Lake Oswego
n/a
Ryan Endsley - Barlow
n/a
Sandeep Jain - Westview
Sarah Foster - Westview
<p>This is your round. Do what you want to do in all debates. I will believe anything that you want me to but you have to make me believe it. Sign post well. I NEED to know where you are going so that I don't fall asleep. </p>
Sarah Baggs - La Salle Prep
n/a
Scott Constans - Centennial
n/a
Sean McKean - Thurston
<p>Experience</p> <p>Policy Debate (2009-2013): Tualatin High School</p> <p>Parli (2013- Current): University of Oregon</p> <p>Coach at Thurston High School.</p> <p>General Overveiw: I tend to be down with anything you want to read in front of me, I believe that it is my job to adapt to you and the arguments you want to read not your job to adapt to me. I am not going to tell you what to or not to read in front of me or reject your arguments on face. I tend to prefer more technical debates where you explain to me how all of the relevant arguments interact at the end of the round over just extending them and making me try to figure it out myself at the end. I want to be able to write my RFD at the end of the round by sticking as much as possible to the flow without having to insert my own analysis, this means I want you to write my RFD for me, tell me why I should vote a particular way at the end of the round.</p> <p>I am fine with speed/ tag-team cross-ex, for paper-less I stop prep when the USB is removed from your computer.</p> <p>Now on to some more specific stuff,</p> <p>Impacts are the big one for me, I don't care what impacts you are reading or what framework (Ontology, Methodology, Util, ect.) you are using, but I NEED you to explain to me the interaction between your impacts and theirs, I don't want to have to be the arbritrator of what impacts outweigh each other at the end of the round without any analysis from you. This is especially important if your impacts operate within different frameworks, I don't know how to weigh extinction v value to life debates if you don't explain to me how one outweighs the other. If I am not provided with an alternative framework I default to utilitarianism.</p> <p>Theory/ T: I read a lot of theory in high school, and still do some in college so I am pretty much able to follow what is going on in complex theory debates, although I would prefer that you slow down a bit when spreading theory since it is more condensed and harder to flow. I evalutate theory just like any other argument, which means I am probably more likley to vote on it than most judges if you go for it correctly, using an offense/ defense paradigm. In order to win theory in front of me you are going to need to impact it out and explain what it means for the round. (IE just because they dropped your Consult CP's are illegit argument doesn't mean you insta-win if you don't give me some reason why that theory argument results in a ballot, not just me dropping the CP).</p> <p>CP's: I don't believe in judge conditionality, that means that if you go for the CP in the 2NR I won't kick it for you if the aff wins a perm or a DA to the CP. Besides that I am down with whatever CP you want to read, I think that competing through net benefits is just as legit as being mutually exclusive. I default aff on presumption if the debate comes down to CP v plan, you need to win that your CP is for some reason better than the plan not just that it solves equally as well.</p> <p>K's: I am down with whatever K you want to throw at me, and am somewhat versed in the lit, but don't just assume that I have read every book written by your K author and am some sort of scholar on the subject. When in doubt default to explaining what your argument is saying rather than just giving me tag line extensions. I tend to prefer more specific links to the aff and explanations of how the K works with the aff than simply "they use the state," but that does not mean I won't listen to your more generic K's. I prefer a good explanation of what your alternative does over simply reading the tag line and telling me it solves.</p> <p>K affs: Most of what I said above applies here, I am down with reading kritikal affs and I think that reading non-topical affs or affs without a plan text can be a defendable position. I do think that the aff needs some kind of advocacy statement, if it isn't a plan text, that tells me what I am voting for.</p> <p>DA's: DA's are DA's there isn't much more to say, either read them with a CP or explain how they interact with case.</p> <p> </p> <p>If you have any more specific questions, or are confused by this feel free to ask me questions in round.</p> <p> </p>
Sharon Baggs - La Salle Prep
n/a
Shawn MacDonald - Sunset
Shawn Garza - RPHS
n/a
Stacy Erickson - West Linn
Stephanie Backman - Beaverton
n/a
Steve Root - La Salle Prep
n/a
Steve Barth - Marist
n/a
Steve Bosson - West Linn
Sue Sanders - Cleveland
Suhas Kurse - Westview
Susan McLain - Glencoe
n/a
T.J. Fontenette - La Salle Prep
n/a
Tempest Heston - Barlow
n/a
Tracy Tingwall - Lake Oswego
n/a
Uresh Patel - UHS
n/a
Valerie Adrian - MVHS
n/a
Victoria Garcia - SAHS
n/a