FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Aleta Sanstrum - Centennial

n/a

Alex Parini - Wilson

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.  What I like to see: • 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.  • 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.  • 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.  • 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.) • 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.  • 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. • 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.

Allison Quarles - RPHS

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.

Andrea Polivka - Nestucca

n/a

Andrew Morgan - Tillamook

n/a

Andy Arnone - Cleveland

Anna Weston - Centennial

n/a

Autumn Rouse - Sunset

Benjamin Agre - Cleveland

Bethany Dozier - Wilson

Brad Tompkins - La Salle Prep

n/a

Brandon Johnson - SAHS

n/a

Brendon Gallant - Silverton

n/a

Cameron Nilles - Barlow

n/a

Carl Rupp - Tillamook

n/a

Carli Smythe - Summit

n/a

Carolyn Hill - Nestucca

n/a

Carrie Strecker - Neah-Kah-Nie

n/a

Chance Hill - Centennial

n/a

Cong-Qiu Chu - Lake Oswego

n/a

Craig Eroh - Lincoln

Daniel Mendyke - Aloha1

n/a

Dave Schaefer - Nestucca

n/a

David Barringer - OCHS

n/a

Dawn Wilson - West Linn

n/a

Debbie Queen - Tillamook

n/a

Debbie Hanussak - Silverton

n/a

Dinesh Bhat - Sunset

Don Steiner - Wilson

Elizabeth Timmons - Silverton

n/a

Erik Johannes - OES

n/a

Ethan Adelman-Sil - Cleveland

Farah Mohamoud - Westview

Grace Park - Southridge

n/a

Graham Howard - Silverton

n/a

Holly Shilling - Cleveland

Ingrid Skoog - Oak Hill

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>

Jamaica Jones - Barlow

n/a

Janet Billups - Cleveland

Jason Miller - Lake Oswego

n/a

Jen Loeung - Centennial

n/a

Jenn Van Vleet - Wilson

Jennifer Clark - Hood River

n/a

Jennifer LeSieur - Clackamas

Jim Johnson - Centennial

n/a

Jim Patterson - Hood River

n/a

John Gilligan - West Linn

Jonathan Sisley - Silverton

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.

Karen Hobbs - Summit

n/a

Kat Podlesnik - Hermiston

n/a

Kathleen Kessinger - SW Christian

Kathryn Arnone - Cleveland

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.

Kimberly Alejandre - Centennial

n/a

Linda Bonder - OES

n/a

Lisa Howard - South

MIchael Grainey - Blanchet HS

n/a

Mackenzie DeLong - Aloha1

n/a

Makoa Jacobsen - West Linn

Mark Little - OES

n/a

Marle Hoehne - South

Mary Stayer - Lake Oswego

n/a

Matt Karlsen - Cleveland

Mike Sandstrom - La Salle Prep

n/a

Mike Rosen - Cleveland

Nixon Xavier - Westview

Patrick Leahy - SAHS

n/a

Patrick Gonzales - Cleveland

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

Prafulla Deuskar - Sunset

Rachel Wilczewski - Barlow

n/a

Robyn Rose - Lake Oswego

n/a

Rod Seigler - Centennial

n/a

Ryan Endsley - Barlow

n/a

Sandeep Jain - Westview

Sanjay Vankudre - Westview

Sarah Foster - Westview

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.

Scott Curtis - Westview

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.

Shanta Calem - Cleveland

Shilpa Karnik - Sunset

Sophia Tzeng - Catlin Gabel

n/a

Stefana Sardo - Sunset

Stephen McClanahan - Silverton

n/a

Steve Root - La Salle Prep

n/a

Stewart Reed - Southridge

n/a

Sue Sanders - Cleveland

Suhas Kurse - Westview

Susan Andree - OES

n/a

Susanne Flynn - Summit

n/a

Taylor Farris - Silverton

n/a

Tempest Heston - Barlow

n/a

Terri Rosen - Cleveland

Tina Cheng - Sunset

Ting Chen - Sunset

Tisa Ambrosino - Cleveland

Tom Lininger - South

Run anything.  I am a flow judge.  Speed is fine.  Have fun and don't be rude.  I have taught debate and other subjects (mostly law) at the University of Oregon.  I used to be a policy debater back in the day.

2014 Fox Invitational