FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alex Bean - Cleveland

n/a

Alex Bernardo - Sprague

Alexander Payne - NEHS

n/a

Allison Faherty - WHS

n/a

Althea Seloover - S. Eugene

n/a

Alyssa Waldman-Roberts - Wil Hi

n/a

Alyx Amber - NEHS

n/a

Ameena Amdahl-Mason - Clackamas

I competed in policy debate in high school, APDA in college, and I have been coaching all forms of debate, but primarily parliamentary, policy, and LD, since 2001. To me, your jobs as debaters is want to provide me with compelling reasons why you should win the debate, including organized refutations and voting issues in your final speech. I keep a rigorous flow, so organization, including a clear organizational system of lettering or numbering is important. Line-by-line refutation as well as overviews and underviews can provide clarity to the debate. CX:  I would consider myself a tabula rasa judge, as much as that is possible. I feel comfortable with any line of argumentation, including theory and kritiks. However, I do not appreciate rudeness, including cursing, either between or among teams. Generic argumentation, weak links, and time sucks are not appreciated. I enjoy judging policy, especially when new and interesting ideas enter the debate. LD: I feel comfortable with any line of argumentation, as long as it clearly linked to the topic being debated. I prefer philosophical argumentation in LD, rather than more policy style argumentation. However, I do judge a lot of policy debate, so I am capable of evaluating a policy oriented round. Parli:  I will evaluate what I hear in the round, not what I wish I had heard, so if there are things that need to be pointed out as fallacies, etc., please do so. I am not a fan of topicality/definitional debates in parli, unless the affirmative's definition is extremely skewed. PF: I don't flow PF, because I don't believe it is intended to be flowed in the same way as other debates. Otherwise, everything above applies.

Amy Meabe - WHS

n/a

Andrew Riley - Lincoln

n/a

Benjamin Agre - Cleveland

Bessie Lam - Lincoln

n/a

Carole Rentschler - Lincoln

n/a

Carole Anderson - Newport

Caron Newman - Loggers

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.

Cort Heroy - Wil Hi

n/a

Dakota Bouher - Bandon HS

n/a

Daniel Boyd - Butte Falls

Dante Haruna - Bandon HS

n/a

Darci Van Duzer Heroy - Wil Hi

n/a

Darren Dirk - North Bend

n/a

Doug McDonald - Summit

n/a

Elaine Gesik - Sprague

Ellen Howard - Bandon HS

n/a

Gavin Sykes-McLaughlin - Crescent Valley

n/a

Hayley Fanger-Guise - Wil Hi

n/a

Heather Dillion - Thurston

Henry Fields - Thurston

Jakob Gowell - MHS

n/a

Jan Pizzo - Butte Falls

Two years high school speech Judging since 1980 First coaching assignment 1981 Debate coach 1993-1994 and 2004 to present. 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. 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. 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. Oral critiques provided when permitted by the tournament.

Jane Leo - Lincoln

Jane Reardon - Newport

Jeff Mack - Glencoe

n/a

Jeff Stout - Wil Hi

n/a

Jennifer Conner - Forest Grove

n/a

Jennifer Gruter - Clackamas

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.

Jesse Vanderwerf - Ashland

n/a

Jim Raible - Ione

n/a

Joel Clements - MVHS

n/a

John Slaughter - Wil Hi

n/a

John Watkins - Glencoe

n/a

Judy Jernberg - Wil Hi

n/a

Julie Plummer - Summit

n/a

Kacy Crook - Bandon HS

n/a

Katie Finley - Wil Hi

n/a

Kayla Crook - Marshfield HS

n/a

Kevin Eighmey - NEHS

n/a

Kilee Walker - Sheldon

n/a

Kimberly Shanahan - MVHS

n/a

Lance Haberly - Siuslaw High

n/a

Les Milfred - Cleveland

Linzy Minger - Wil Hi

n/a

Lisa Kaner - Lincoln

n/a

Lisa Bertalan - Summit

n/a

Lloyd Hartley -

n/a

Luke Gunnarson - MVHS

n/a

Lynn Pizzo - Butte Falls

Marcia Stewart-Warren - Butte Falls

Mark Stephens - Marshfield HS

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.

Mindy Miller - Cleveland

n/a

Nikki Thommen - Wil Hi

n/a

Patty Harmon - Forest Grove

n/a

Peggy Kinkade - Summit

n/a

Rachel Sarrett - Redmond

n/a

Rachel Mosley - Thurston

Rob Moeny - N Val

n/a

Robin Hill - Bandon HS

n/a

Ross Burford - Summit

n/a

Ryan MIlls - Ashland

n/a

Scott Stoner - Sheldon

n/a

Shannon Ferry - Redmond

n/a

Steve Barth - Marist

n/a

Steve Coatsworth - Wil Hi

n/a

Susan McLain - Glencoe

n/a

Tatiana Havill - Bandon HS

n/a

Terri Dirk - North Bend

n/a

Tony Lam - Lincoln

n/a

Troy Thom - Redmond

n/a

Wendy Werthaiser - Ashland

n/a

Yvette Jernberg - Wil Hi

n/a

laurie thom - Redmond

n/a

2012 Robert D. Clark Invitational (University of Oregon)