Judge Philosophies
Adam Xu - Lake Oswego
n/a
Adi Hoter - Lake Oswego
n/a
Alex Sisca - West Linn
Allison Quarles - RPHS
n/a
Ameena Amdahl-Mason - Clackamas
<p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p>
Andrew Riley - Lincoln
n/a
Angel Horta - Sandy
n/a
Azure Smith - JJudges
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>
Chelsea Hill - JJudges
n/a
Don Steiner - Wilson
Emily Van Vleet - JJudges
n/a
Hampus Hammarlund - Glencoe
n/a
Heidi Graumann - Westview
Holly Shilling - Cleveland
James Matson - Sandy
n/a
Jan Bosson - West Linn
Jane Leo - Lincoln
Janet Billups - Cleveland
Jason Miller - Glencoe
n/a
Jennifer LeSieur - 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>
Justin Munoz - Tigard
n/a
Kathleen Kessinger - SW Christian
Kelly Court - SW Christian
<p>Debate: I want to be able to flow your debate. Speak clearly and not too fast. If I can't keep up with you, you will not win. Make sure to state your contentions clearly at the beginning and again as you move from point to point. Be polite. Pay attention while your opponents are speaking. I like a clean well organized debate. Have fun.</p> <p>Individual Events: Tournaments make for long days; I like to learn new things and to be entertained. Please refrain from swearing in your presentations. It is seldom necessary. I look forward to judging again this year.</p> <p> </p>
Kris Igawa - Beaverton
n/a
Krishna Somayajula - Westview
Lisa Reynolds - Lincoln
Mahkah Wu - Sheldon
n/a
Malia Lindsey - JJudges
n/a
Mark Little - OES
n/a
Mat Jennings - Wilson
n/a
Matt Compton - Tigard
n/a
Melissa Wyman - Cleveland
Molly Schulze - Willamette
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>
Paul Altotsky - Tigard
n/a
Quentin Knutson - JJudges
n/a
Rick Turner - Beaverton
n/a
Robyn Rose - Lake Oswego
n/a
Steve Bosson - West Linn
Susan McLain - Glencoe
n/a
Tamara Still - Lincoln
Tasha Lane - Glencoe
n/a