FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Adam Testerman - Wilson

Alex Lianopoulos - Sprague

Alex Sun - Sunset

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.

Andrew Riley - Lincoln

n/a

Anne Sweeney - Sprague

Brendan Hsu - Westview

Brian Mann - Southridge

n/a

Cameron Nilles - Sam Barlow

I believe that the debaters ultimately frame the debate round. I am open to all types of arguments and styles of debate. Tell me explicitly how you want the round to be framed and weighed and then in the closing speeches debate that issue well. Speed is fine, be clear on the tags.<o:p></o:p> Topicality: It is a procedural and I will evaluate it first, unless otherwise told not to. Typically I believe there is some sort of T argument to be had in most debates, done well I can definitely pull the trigger on T. I also recognize its strategic advantages beyond just winning, so RVIs are not that compelling of arguments for me.<o:p></o:p> K: I am less likely to vote on the K because many times the debate degenerates into the K team having a non-specific link, and a poor alternative. I will default into a policy framework but if there is good argumentation not to then I can evaluate that.<o:p></o:p> DA/CP: This is a very effective way for the negative to gain leverage in the debate, use them well.<o:p></o:p> <span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family: "ï¼ï¼³ æ˜Žæœ";mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: JA;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">Theory: Most debates fall back onto reading shells and pre-written answers, if this is what you are going for make sure it is argued well, I am opening to hearing all theory arguments.

Carol Bellows - Tualatin

n/a

Chip Turhune - Tualatin

n/a

Chrissy May - OCHS

n/a

Christine Lemieux - Century

n/a

Clarissa Jones - Southridge

n/a

Colette Bray - Butte Falls

Courtney Walsh - MHS

n/a

Dana Turhune - Tualatin

n/a

Darren Dirk - North Bend

n/a

David Curry - Sprague

David Barringer - OCHS

n/a

Derik Gladden - Century

n/a

Eliot Woods - Lincoln

Elton Peace - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

Emily Strahan - N Val

n/a

Eric Endsley - Sam Barlow

n/a

Frank Selker - Lincoln

Gavin Knox - Silverton

n/a

Hali Owens - Tualatin

n/a

Hannah Jolley - Southridge

n/a

Henry Phipps - Lincoln

Ian Bisbee - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

Isaac Prahl - Wilson

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.

Jan Bosson - West Linn

Jason Miller - Glencoe

n/a

Jeanne O'Donnell - Sprague

Jennifer Gruter - Clackamas

Jennifer Bagshaw - Ashland

n/a

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.

Jerri Clark - MVHS

n/a

Jimmy Nguyen - Westview

Joe Provencher - Lake O

n/a

John Watkins - Glencoe

n/a

Josette Bisbee - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

Julian Harris - Silverton

n/a

Julie Plummer - Summit

n/a

June Gerst - Century

n/a

Karen Hobbs - Summit

n/a

Kat Podlesnik - Hermiston

n/a

Katie Mann - Southridge

n/a

Katie Kantrowitz - Silverton

n/a

Katy Walker - Century

n/a

Kayla Crook - Marshfield HS

n/a

Kehl van Winkle - Thurston

Kellon Hughes - Westview

Kelly Finley - Century

n/a

Ken Hiatt - Southridge

n/a

Ken Beare - Westview

Kenneth Bisbee - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

Kris Igawa - Beaverton

n/a

Kris Balliett - Summit

n/a

Lance Haberly - Siuslaw High

n/a

Lee Slaughter - Neah-Kah-Nie

n/a

Leeyah Pham - Westview

Liz Fetherston - Thurston

You can find my philosophy and my decisions from last year in this google drive: tinyurl.com/debate-rfd TL;DR: I debate for UO. You won't go too fast or be too technical for me, but it's your game, so play it however you want.  I recommend you still read the part about impacts in the philosophy.   Please email me at thurstonforensics@gmail.com if you have further questions or need clarification.

Lynn Pizzo - Butte Falls

Lynn Dooly - Grants Pass

n/a

Lynn Messer - Lincoln

n/a

Mack Smith - Sam Barlow

n/a

Madie Hurst - OCHS

n/a

Marcia Stewart-Warren - Butte Falls

Matthew Lacy - Sam Barlow

Melissa Lowry Sullivan - Southridge

n/a

Melissa Kolb - OCHS

n/a

Melody Lee - MHS

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.

Michelle VanderWaal - Neah-Kah-Nie

n/a

Morgyn Sattenspiel - Sprague

Nancy Bisbee - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

Nick Gragg - N Val

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

2013 Hap Hingston Invitational