FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Aaron DeShaw - Lincoln

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 Grondin - Sherwood

n/a

Andrew LaFountain - West Albany

Ari Tjahjani - Sunset

Ashley Almqvist-Ingersoll - Silverton

n/a

Ashley Versteeg - Silverton

n/a

Beau Woodward - Lakeridge

n/a

Bekah Kolb - Barlow

n/a

Ben LeBlanc - Lincoln

Benjamin Agre - Cleveland

Bhavesh Parekh - Sunset

n/a

Brandon Johnson - SAHS

n/a

Briana Mendenhall - Silverton

n/a

Cameron Nilles - OES

n/a

Curtis Tsai - OES

n/a

Dana Maben - Tillamook

n/a

Dave Schaefer - Nestucca

n/a

David Saenger - South

DeLona Campos-Davis - Hood River

n/a

Debbie Satrum - Silverton

n/a

Diane Avenoso - Cleveland

Dinesh Bhat - Sunset

Don Shen - Sunset

n/a

Earl Pettit - Monument

n/a

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 Bush - Tigard

n/a

Erik Johannes - OES

n/a

Erika Hard - Westview

n/a

Gordon Watt - Lincoln

Graham Howard - Silverton

n/a

J Corso - Sunset

Jad Chehab - Sunset

n/a

Jane Griffiths - Lake Oswego

n/a

Jason Miller - Lake Oswego

n/a

Jayesh Palan - Sunset

n/a

Jen Card - Barlow

n/a

Jennifer Clayton - SAHS

n/a

Jennifer LeSieur - 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.

Jocelyn Sparks - Willamette

n/a

John Stump - Cleveland

Jonathan Lindren - Cleveland

June Gerst - Century

n/a

Junior Harkless - Tillamook

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 Lenore - Cleveland

Katherine Cowan - MHS

n/a

Kathy Lloyd - Lake Oswego

n/a

Katie Wilson - Lakeridge

n/a

Kaylene Davis - Tillamook

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.

Keith Voigt - Lincoln

Kiki Wolfe - SAHS

n/a

Kris Igawa - Beaverton

n/a

Kristin Wilson - Barlow

n/a

Laurel Eddins - Oak Hill

Lisa Stewart - Westview

n/a

Lisa Hawking - Cleveland

Mackenzie DeLong - Aloha1

n/a

Mahesh Mudigonda - Westview

Marcy Landis - MHS

n/a

Mark Little - OES

n/a

Marlaina Isbell - Lincoln

McMinnville Parent - MHS

n/a

Meghana Damle - Sunset

n/a

Melanie Merryman - Nestucca

n/a

Michael Doran - La Salle Prep

n/a

Miles Stirewalt - Willamette

n/a

Milind Damle - Sunset

n/a

Morgyn Sattenspiel - Sprague

Mouna Khabbaz - Lincoln

n/a

Nicky Stump - Cleveland

Owen Dukelow - Tigard

n/a

Parvathy Sankaranarayanan - Westview

n/a

Pat Johnson - Lakeridge

n/a

Patrick Leahy - SAHS

n/a

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 Cannon - Lincoln

Petter Almqvist-Ingersoll - Silverton

n/a

Rachel Wilczewski - Barlow

n/a

Ramesh Sakala - Sunset

Ramnath Devulapalli - Westview

Rod Seigler - Centennial

n/a

Rohan Hiatt - Sunset

Ronnie Ontiveros - Hood River

n/a

Sahil Goel - Westview

n/a

Sanjana Mukherjee - Westview

n/a

Scot Klohe - Tillamook

n/a

Scott Vanauker - Aloha1

n/a

Sean Ma - Lincoln

Sebastian Ward - Sprague

n/a

Serena Reeves - Silverton

n/a

Shahid Akhtar - Sunset

n/a

Shelly Heaps - CCS

n/a

Steve Root - La Salle Prep

n/a

Sue Jepson - Hood River

n/a

Supriya Joshi - Westview

n/a

Tamra Kroft - Aloha1

n/a

Taylor Knudson - Cleveland

Tempest Heston - Barlow

n/a

Theresa Wallace-Lopez - Tigard

n/a

Therese Gerlits - Silverton

n/a

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.

Tracy Dobesh - Centennial

n/a

Trent Stewart - Westview

n/a

Victoria Garcia - SAHS

n/a

Xin Yang - Lake Oswego

n/a

Yan Luo - Sunset

n/a

2016 Fox Invitational