FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

- Lincoln

Policy Debate Paradigm I am the policy debate coach for Lincoln High School in Portland, OR.  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.   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.  <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>   Stylistic Overview <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>   Positions Kritiks 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. Topicality/theory debates Slow down for clarity, these debates tend to be nuanced.  Try to limit these positions to only abusive situation Disadvantages Not shockingly, case specific disads are better than generic. Counterplans Competition is key. Aff leaning on Conditionality. Legit perms must include all of plan and part of the counter plan.   I will try to judge whatever you want, within reason, so long as you justify it.

Aden Krueger - Silverton

n/a

Alberto Rincon - Wilson

n/a

Alex Bernardo - Sprague

Alexander Erwig - South

I debated for four years in high school TOC level LD for Crescent Valley, and did three years of college parli for the University of Oregon. I've coached at multiple high school summer camps and am also currently coaching South Eugene’s policy team. Ultimately, you should deploy whichever strategy you are most comfortable and proficient with, and I’ll be happy to evaluate it. My favorite debates are those in which both teams are making smart, strategic arguments, regardless of whether those are critical or policy or theoretical debates.   I'm fine with any speed, any type of argument, and will not impose my own views about debate on you. I fundamentally believe that debate is an activity where each individual has an opportunity to speak about issues and arguments important to them, so I am fully open to whatever you want to do.    That being said, I’ll lay out a few of my general beliefs about debate. This isn’t to say that you should just conform to them, as I believe any theoretical issue is up for debate in-round, but should give you a heads-up as to what my inclinations are.   Specific Issues:  Kritiks: A strong framework with clear role of the ballot claims ideally accompanies most successful criticisms. I think a lot of critical debate suffers from a lack of warrant comparison and thesis-level analysis, so good comparative analysis and solid overviews will get you a long way. Just because I am versed in this kind of literature does not mean that I like seeing poorly executed critical strategies, so know your author's claims and be able to explain them. Extending tags and re-reading lines from your evidence is not the same as understanding and being able to explain your argument. Be able to sum up the thesis of your criticism in three sentences or less.   Theory: I like theory debates, especially those in which the interpretations are cleverly crafted (ex. Not “PICs bad” but rather “Counterplans that create an artificial net-benefit bad”). I am not a fan of the blatant doctored evidence that I’ve seen on the domestic surveillance topic to support some T interpretations. I’ll be reading the evidence that supports your interp, so be sure that your evidence actually says what you claim it does. Be sure to include fleshed out voters (“vote b/c education and fairness” is not sufficient).   DA/CP: I really enjoy evaluating these debates, and think that a well-crafted and argued DA/CP strat is probably one of my favorite debates to watch. The more specific and recent your evidence is, the better your disad is likely to perform in the debate. I tend to think that the internal links on most disads I’ve seen are the most lacking component, so having a well fleshed-out story is important in these areas.     Speaker points: My speaker points are primarily based on strategic execution in the debate, so even if you speak really well but make poor strategic choices you will get fewer speaks than someone who executes a winning strategy very well but doesn’t speak as well. That being said, I think most high school policy debaters would benefit from taking their speed down a level or two and increasing clarity. Not only does this ultimately make you faster (counterintuitive but true), but it also makes your speaker points go up. Especially in the rebuttals, many speeches would be more effective at a slightly slower pace while still making all of the necessary arguments.

Allison Quarles - RPHS

n/a

Amanda Edelkamp - Clackamas

n/a

Amelia Zuidema - Tillamook

n/a

Andrew Morgan - Tillamook

n/a

Angel Horta - Sandy

n/a

Anna Weston - Centennial

n/a

Anne Badgley - Lincoln

Ari Tjahjani - Sunset

Ashley Versteeg - Silverton

n/a

Asmita Patwardhan - Sunset

Audrey Umber - Canby

n/a

Austin Ewing - MHS

n/a

Badrinarayan Rajagopal Dhandapani - Westview

Beau Woodward - Lakeridge

n/a

Becky Blumer - DDHS

n/a

Benjamin Agre - Cleveland

Betty Ong - Cleveland

Brad Tompkins - La Salle Prep

n/a

Brian Malan - Gresham

n/a

Bridgitt Burris - Sprague

Bruce Jones - Southridge

n/a

Bryan Brock - Clackamas

n/a

Cameron Niles - OES

n/a

Carrie Strecker - Neah-Kah-Nie

n/a

Cathy Cleaver - Lincoln

Charlie Race - South

Chelsea Hill - Bandon HS

n/a

Christian Geddes - Century

n/a

Cody Wafford - Sandy

n/a

Collin Peterson-vanKanegan - West Linn

n/a

Courtney Walsh - MHS

n/a

Cristian Boanca - Centennial

n/a

Dana Maben - Tillamook

n/a

Daniel Shelton - Centennial

n/a

Danner Marshall - Canby

n/a

Dave Schaefer - Nestucca

n/a

David Barringer - OCHS

n/a

David Saenger - South

DeLona Campos-Davis - Hood River

n/a

Devery Gruter - Clackamas

Dinesh Bhat - Sunset

Don Steiner - Wilson

Dwight Siewert - Westview

Eileen Stone - Cleveland

Eli Morgan-Steiner - Wilson

Eliza 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!

Elizabeth Mathis - La Salle Prep

n/a

Ellen Howard - Bandon HS

n/a

Emily Tribble - Westview

Erik Johannes - OES

n/a

Erin Bray - DDHS

n/a

Eva Knowles - DDHS

n/a

Faith Gadling - Sprague

Gary Warner - South

Gavin Knox - Silverton

n/a

Hannah Mathieson - Lake Oswego

n/a

Helen Sanderson - Cleveland

Holly Shilling - Cleveland

Jake Viales - Century

n/a

Jake Weigler - Lincoln

<pre> Name: Jacob Weigler                   Institution: Lincoln High School</pre> <pre> Position: Assistant Coach            Years Coaching: 5</pre> <pre> Number of tournaments judged this year: 0</pre> <pre>  </pre> <pre> Theory</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> Topic Specific Args.</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> Evidence</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> Style</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> Misc.</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. Most importantly, 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>

James Gonzales - Cleveland

James Jeffery-West - Madison

n/a

Jane Thorp - Hood River

n/a

Jane Berry-Eddings - Sprague

Janet Billups - Cleveland

Janie Dial - Tillamook

n/a

Jason Miller - Lake Oswego

n/a

Jen Loeung - Centennial

n/a

Jeneveve Winchell - Bandon HS

n/a

Jennifer Clark - Hood River

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.

Jill Angle - Sandy

n/a

John Stump - Cleveland

John Goodson - OES

n/a

Judge C - OES

n/a

Julie Siewert - Westview

June Gerst - Century

n/a

Justin Crow - West Albany

I am a tabula rasa judge. TOPICALITY: I don't like when AFF teams are abusive with definitions, and I don't like when NEG teams claim abuse or run T when it is not called for. Reserve T for those times when it is appropriate; don't run it every round. Here's a good example of abusive definitions in parli: For the topic R, THS significantly increase space exploration, the AFF defines the term "space exploration" as "offshore drilling in the Pacific Ocean." They justify this definition by saying "there's a lot of open space out there in the ocean, and it should be explored for energy and financial gain." If the AFF defines it this way, I assume the AFF either does not understand the resolution statement or is purposefully defining it in such a way that (1) caters to their own strength -- previous knowledge about the Pacific Ocean or (2) is unpredictable by the NEG, thus giving the AFF team an advantage. The key to avoiding T and the key to living up to your responsibility as the AFF team is to pass the predictability and fairness tests with your definition of terms. Like a tennis player who fairly calls lines, was the intention behind the definition in good spirits? If you take a poll of 100 debaters at the tournament and ask them to define the term in question, will any of them be in the ballpark of your definition? Also, be careful of definitions or plan texts that are too narrow or too broad (topicality and extra-topicality).   I am fine with CP, Disads, and K (though I don't really like K). Unless I give you a hand signal to slow down, I am fine with speed. As a courtesy to your opponents and me, please clearly label your contentions with brief taglines. (For example, "Contention 1: COST. The cost of implementing such a  plan..." DON'T REPEAT YOUR FLOW TO FILL TIME. Weigh, clash, give examples / metaphors, but don't repeat your case. If I have it on my flow, and you are repeating what I already have on my flow, what is the point of your speaking? Use htose precious minutes more constructively! If a team says "They did not ___ therefore we win the round" that is not necessarily so. It may be an a priori argument, it may not. Teams that argue something is a priori when it isn't annoy me because (similar to T) I don't know if they just don't know the rules or if they are trying to manipulate me into giving them a ballot. I once heard in a parli round, "Our opponents did not run a criterion to support their value; therefore, we win the round." That is just not true.  For voters, clearly weigh for me WHY you win. This often comes down to clearly stating and weighing impacts or otherwise stating why the better debating was performed by your team. If policy, many arguments for me will come down to evidence weighing. You both have data to back up your side of a particular point, but one team uses a solid Harvard study while the opposing team uses a study from crazyjoemanifesto.com or, worse yet, "my uncle says that..." In this case, all other things being equal, the team citing the Harvard study would likely win on that point.

Kaden Meyers - Sandy

n/a

Karen Hobbs - Summit

n/a

Karen Armstrong - Glencoe Tide

Katie Kantrowitz - Silverton

n/a

Katie Wilson - Lakeridge

n/a

Keith Eddins - Oak Hill

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.

Kelsey Long - Madison

n/a

Ken Teschner - Tigard

n/a

Kjersti Sanders - Sandy

n/a

Kris Igawa - Beaverton

n/a

Lee Merrick - Clackamas

n/a

Lisa Howard - South

Lisa Reynolds - Lincoln

Lisa Hargrave - Hood River

n/a

Lori Sauter - South

M Griffiths - Lake Oswego

n/a

M Lantow - Lake Oswego

n/a

MacKenzie Baughman - Canby

n/a

Marie Krueger - Nestucca

n/a

Marissa Bertucci - Gresham

n/a

Mark Tompkins - La Salle Prep

n/a

Matt Karlsen - Cleveland

Matthew Compton - MHS

n/a

Meghan Henry - Clackamas

n/a

Melody Acosta - Hood River

n/a

Michael Theofelis - DDHS

n/a

Michael Doran - La Salle Prep

n/a

Michael Curry - Sprague

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

Michael Timmons - Silverton

n/a

Moni Mathew - Westview

Morgyn Sattenspiel - Sprague

Nancy Gadd - West Linn

n/a

Nathan Helland - North Bend

n/a

Nong Jin - Sunset

Norm Sanford - EHS

n/a

Olga Race - South

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

Patrick Gonzales - Cleveland

Paul Hamann - Heritage

n/a

Paul Altotsky - Tigard

n/a

Paula Ripke - Wilson

n/a

Philip Nguyen - Tigard

n/a

Qing Yi - Sunset

Rebecca Bair - Wilson

n/a

Rene Quines - La Salle Prep

n/a

Rick Gonzales - Cleveland

Robyn Rose - Lake Oswego

n/a

Roger Williams-Thomas - Cleveland

Rohan Hiatt - Southridge

n/a

Ross Burford - Summit

n/a

Sean McKean - Thurston

Experience Policy Debate (2009-2013): Tualatin High School Parli (2013- Current): University of Oregon Coach at Thurston High School. 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. I am fine with speed/ tag-team cross-ex, for paper-less I stop prep when the USB is removed from your computer. Now on to some more specific stuff, 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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.   If you have any more specific questions, or are confused by this feel free to ask me questions in round.

Selena Breazile - Neah-Kah-Nie

n/a

Sharron Gargosky - Lincoln

Shawn Lee - Clackamas

Stephen McClanahan - Silverton

n/a

Steve Barth - JCHS

n/a

Steve Barth - Marist

n/a

Steve Root - La Salle Prep

n/a

Stewart Reed - Southridge

n/a

Sudhakar Srinivasan - Westview

Sue Sanders - Cleveland

Susan McLain - Glencoe Tide

I love all types of debate. CX, PF, PARLI, AND LD. I am a real world Policy Maker. I am always looking for good solid critical thinking, support ideas or evidence as per event style and type. I believe debate is a persuasive speaking event with strong developed arguments. I am happy to answer questions before round starts. Individual Events are all unique and interesting! I like to judge a variety of events! My extemp, impromptu, radio, oratory and interp speakers have all had strong showings over the years.  I have coached for 43 years. Susan McLain

Thulasi Mavureddipathy - Sunset

Tina Ontiveros - Hood River

n/a

Tom Lininger - Springfield

n/a

Tom Witherspoon - Heritage

n/a

Tracy Doebesh - Centennial

n/a

Ty Wyman - Cleveland

Ty Russell - Sandy

n/a

Tyler Curtis - Bandon HS

n/a

Valerie Zwald - Tillamook

n/a

Veronica Brock - Clackamas

n/a

Victor Kojenov - Southridge

n/a

2015 Clackamas Holiday Edge