Judge Philosophies
AJ Breimon - Lakeridge
n/a
Alex Parini - Wilson
<p>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. </p> <p>What I like to see:</p> <p>• 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. </p> <p>• 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. </p> <p>• 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. </p> <p>• 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.)</p> <p>• 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. </p> <p>• 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.</p> <p>• 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. </p> <p> </p>
Alexei Kojenov - Southridge
n/a
Ali Giza - Glencoe
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>
Amy Grondin - Sherwood
n/a
Andrea Polivka - Nestucca
n/a
Beau Woodward - Lakeridge
n/a
Carmen Teodorescu - Westview
n/a
Carolyn Hill - Nestucca
n/a
Cesar Garcia - Century
n/a
Christopher Keller - Liberty HS
n/a
Courtney Walsh - MHS
n/a
Courtney Welch - Glencoe
n/a
Dave Schaefer - Nestucca
n/a
David Curry - Sprague
DeLona Campos-Davis - Hood River
n/a
Don Steiner - Wilson
Elise Brown - West Linn
Faith Kempf - HCS
Hampus Hammarland - Glencoe
n/a
Henry Phipps - Lincoln
Hiro Nukaga - Tigard
n/a
Jackie Floyd - Nestucca
n/a
Jane Berry-Eddings - Sprague
Jaswinder Guliani - Southridge
n/a
Jennifer Clark - Hood River
n/a
Jennifer Hafer - Glencoe
n/a
Jennifer LeSieur - Clackamas
John Watkins - Glencoe
n/a
John Flynn - Glencoe
n/a
June Gerst - Century
n/a
Karen Murphy - Hood River
n/a
Katy Walker - Century
n/a
Lorena Colcer - Glencoe
n/a
Matthew Compton - MHS
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>
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
Robin Brown - Hilhi
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>
Sharon Flynn - Glencoe
n/a
Sheryl Floyd - Nestucca
n/a
Stewart Reed - Southridge
n/a
Susan McLain - Glencoe
n/a
Tammy Buck - Glencoe
n/a
Taylor Faris - Glencoe
n/a
Tom Lininger - South
<p>Run anything. I am a flow judge. Speed is fine. Have fun and don't be rude. </p> <p>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.</p>
William Boothe - Century
n/a
Yanwen Chen - Southridge
n/a