2013 Clackamas Holiday Edge 2013
Clackamas HS - Dec 7 | Status: Completed
Judge Philosophies
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
Adam Aguilera - UHS
n/a
Addison Barton - Sprague
Adi Hoter - Lake Oswego
n/a
Allison Quarles - RPHS
n/a
Amber Manning - Tigard
n/a
Andrea Platt - Lake Oswego
n/a
Andy Arnone - Cleveland
Anna YOUNG - Centennial
n/a
Audrey Umber - Canby
n/a
Austin Carter - Canby
n/a
Autumn Rouse - Sunset
Bailey Swieck - North Bend
n/a
Ben Mann - Wilson
<p>Hey there! I’m the Assistant Speech and Debate Coach at Wilson High School.</p> <p> </p> <p>I competed in high school for a year at West Linn mainly focused on LD and IEs (Oratory, Impromptu, Radio, Prose, etc). Afterwards, I judged off and on at high school tournaments for the past three years. Currently, I’m a senior at Lewis & Clark College competing in college parliamentary debate and IEs along with coaching Wilson.</p> <p> </p> <p>Regardless of the event, I fundamentally believe you should compete in whatever way you feel most comfortable and I should adapt to you rather than the other way around. In debate, I generally value substance over style (the arguments you make over the way you deliver them). IEs are more of a balance between the strength of the piece and delivery. While I try to be as open as possible, I do have tendencies for specific debate formats which are as follows:</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>CX</strong></p> <p>Speed is fine, just give me a little pen time between positions to finish flowing. Slow down with plan/counterplan/alt texts. Prep time starts once you’ve put in the flash drive. Theory is fine – I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. K’s are good and I’m familiar with a lot of the classics (Cap, Nietzsche, Fem, etc) but explain obscure ones to me a little more. I’m neutral on most theory (condo, PICs, delay, framework, etc) and open to arguments on both sides as long as they have voters. Counterplans don’t need to be textually competitive or mutually exclusive if you show how they compete through net-benefits as the best policy option. I don’t need to see evidence unless you cite something that sounds blatantly counterfactual. Theory as an RVI is an uphill battle for my ballot.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>LD</strong></p> <p>Make sure to ground your contentions and rebuttals in your value and criterion. Some of the strongest LDers either explain why their value/criterion outweighs or explain why affirming or negating the resolution is preferable regardless of the value/criterion. Warrants, empirics, and logic get you far with me.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Parli</strong></p> <p>Most things said in CX apply here: I default to net-benefits, counterplans, kritks, and theory are fine (I default to competing interpretations and am neutral on theory). Though I’m not outright against fact and value debates, I strongly feel policy provides the greatest fairness and education and that a policy lens can be extracted from value and fact-oriented resolutions. If you’re affirmative on a policy topic, PLEASE read a plan text.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Public Forum</strong></p> <p>Of course, I value delivery more in this event. Aff should provide a clear weighing mechanism for the round and structured contentions will get you far with me. Please be respectful during crossfire.</p> <p> </p> <p>If you have any questions about my judging philosophy, feel free to email me at <a href="mailto:mannb@lclark.edu">mannb@lclark.edu</a>. Happy competing!</p>
Benjamin Agre - Cleveland
Bob Frentress - Cleveland
Brian Martin - Century
n/a
Brian Mann - Southridge
n/a
Cam-Lien Tran - Centennial
n/a
Cathy Cleaver - Lincoln
Christine Thomas - RPHS
n/a
Chunming Han - Sunset
Cindy Kuhn - UHS
n/a
Daniel Cross - Aloha1
n/a
Daniel Mendyke - Aloha1
n/a
Daniel Burwell - Cleveland
Dave Flagan - Redmond
n/a
David Curry - Sprague
Devery Gruter - Clackamas
Devon O'Donnell - Sprague
Don Steiner - Wilson
Doug Lovett - Cleveland
Drew Stortz - Sunset
Dwight Siewert - Westview
Elizabeth Fortier - HHS
n/a
Ellen Damaschino - Cleveland
Eric Mische - La Salle Prep
n/a
Faith Kempf - HCS
Genevieve Athens - Cleveland
Heidi Graumann - Westview
Hiro Nukaga - Tigard
n/a
Holly Shilling - Cleveland
Ian Dobson - Clackamas
Irene Fok - Clackamas
Jaben Carsey - Southridge
n/a
Jane Berry-Eddings - Sprague
Jane Griffiths - Lake Oswego
n/a
Janet Billups - Cleveland
Jason Miller - Glencoe
n/a
Jen Loeung - Centennial
n/a
Jennifer Barton - MVHS
n/a
Jennifer Proehl - Centennial
n/a
Jennifer Jones - Cleveland
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.
Jessica Runge - Century
n/a
Jimmy Nguyen - Sunset
Joe Sullivan - Cleveland
John Nelson - Clackamas
Jonathan Estey - Hood River
<p>I expect debaters to speak clearly (CX debaters: if you spread, I will stop flowing), express themselves with minimal jargon, use clear roadmaps and signposting, and generally maintain the communicative and educational value of the debate.</p> <p>I expect arguments to be civilly presented, have clear organization & sructure, and use reasonable impacts (CX debaters: if you make an extinction impact, I will drop your ad/disad from the flow). I expect evidence to be concise, well-explained, and chosen carefully for its relevance to the debate (i.e. don't just read a bunch of long cards).</p> <p>I accept kritiks in Parli, LD, and CX, if and only if they are legitimate and worthwhile additions to the scope of the debate (rather than an attempt to weasel out of debating the actual topic). I accept unconditional counterplans and kritiks; I do not accept conditional ones -- if you introduceeither one as Neg, you should be prepared to defend it!</p>
Josh Scheirman - North Bend
n/a
Julie Siewert - Westview
June Gerst - Century
n/a
Justin Munoz - Tigard
n/a
Kat Podlesnik - Hermiston
n/a
Katie Kantrowitz - Silverton
n/a
Katie Greer - UHS
n/a
Katy Walker - Century
n/a
Ken Hiatt - Southridge
n/a
Kris Igawa - Beaverton
n/a
Kristin Wilson - Barlow
n/a
Lisa Kaplan - Cleveland
Lisa Reynolds - Lincoln
Liz Caswell - Westview
Mackenzie DeLong - Aloha1
n/a
Mark Little - OES
n/a
Mary Teylan - La Salle Prep
n/a
Mary Stayer - Lake Oswego
n/a
Matt Compton - Tigard
n/a
Melissa Lowry Sullivan - Southridge
n/a
Melissa Wyman - Cleveland
Melissa Bickle - Hood River
n/a
Michael Doran - La Salle Prep
n/a
Michael Curry - Sprague
<p>For all forms of debate: <strong>BE NICE!</strong> Be nice to me. Be <strong>nice</strong> to your opponent. Be <strong>nice</strong> to your partner. There is no money on the table, so don't act like there is. <em><strong>Speech and Debate is one of the most important things you do as a human being.</strong></em> So help make this wonderful activity accessible to all!<br /> <br /> <strong>Public Forum</strong><br /> 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.<br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <strong>Parliamentary Debate</strong><br /> 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.<br /> <br /> <strong>LDV Debate</strong><br /> 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.</p>
Michael Springer - Neah-Kah-Nie
n/a
Michael Timmons - Silverton
n/a
Michael Harvey - Clackamas
Michelle Lentzner - Lake Oswego
n/a
Milena Collins - Centennial
n/a
Mr. Maybee - RPHS
n/a
Mr. Newman - Clackamas
Ms. Newman - Clackamas
Nikki Yoke - Tigard
n/a
Norm Sanford - EHS
n/a
Olivia Hering - Glencoe
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
Paul Slyman - La Salle Prep
n/a
Paul Hamann - Heritage
n/a
Paul Henson - La Salle Prep
n/a
Paul Buchanan - Cleveland
Ram Vemuri - Westview
Ray Streinz - Wilson
Ray Kempf - HCS
Reddy Mallidi - Westview
Rob Moeny - N Val
n/a
Roger Harper - RPHS
n/a
Roseanne Parry - Southridge
n/a
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>
Scott Constans - Centennial
n/a
Shelly Buchanan - Cleveland
Shelly Parini - Clackamas
Stefanie Slyman - La Salle Prep
n/a
Stephanie McCurley - Barlow
n/a
Stephen Rouffy - Gresham
n/a
Steve Root - La Salle Prep
n/a
Suhas Kurse - Westview
Susan McLain - Glencoe
n/a
Susan Evans - Centennial
n/a
Tafflyn Williams-Thomas - Cleveland
Tamara Still - Lincoln
Teresa Schultz - Cleveland
Theresa Lusardi - Cleveland
Tina Beltrone - Lake Oswego
n/a
Todd Bofferding - HCS
n/a
Toni Freed - La Salle Prep
n/a
Tracy Tingwall - Lake Oswego
n/a
Vani Mysore - Westview
Vickie Willson - Aloha1
n/a
Wendy Gallamore - Southridge
n/a
Yanwen Chen - Southridge
n/a
Yerim Park - Southridge
n/a
judge tba - Westview
laurie thom - Redmond
n/a