FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

zz-bye

n/a

zz-bye

n/a

Afina Neunzert - Tigard

n/a

Alana Bertram - Aloha

n/a

Alec White - LOHS

n/a

Alex DeBruyne - Tigard

n/a

Allison Faherty - WHS

n/a

Alok Prakash - Westview

Alyssa Razmus - Silverton

n/a

Amber Manning - Tigard

n/a

Andrew Riley - Madison

n/a

Anita Reddy - LOHS

n/a

Aron Carleson - Century

n/a

Ashish Patra - Westview

Ashna Reddy - LOHS

n/a

Austin Thoma - Glencoe

n/a

Bart Millar - LHS

n/a

Becky Page - Sprague

Bobbi Wilson - North Bend

n/a

Bradley Cameron - Aloha

n/a

Breanna Flaim - N Val

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.

Cassie Passon - OCHS

n/a

Cheryl Twete - Westview

n/a

Chris Mohler - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

Christopher Potwora - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

Conner Vilhauer - Madison

n/a

Corey Rudolph - Tigard

n/a

Courtney Walsh - MHS

n/a

Crystal Williams - Silverton

n/a

Darcel Warren - Cleveland

Darlene Geddes - Century

n/a

Darren Dirk - North Bend

n/a

David Curry - Sprague

David Barringer - OCHS

n/a

Dhruv Pande - Westview

Donovan Bisbee - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

Doug McDonald - Summit

n/a

Dwight Siewart - Westview

n/a

Elie Adelman - Cleveland

Esther Hong - Westview

Forest Turner - Madison

n/a

Fred Gordon - Cleveland

Gabe Pagano - Summit

n/a

Hadley Jolley - Southridge

n/a

Harish Vemuri - Westview

Harmant Pandarpurkar - Westview

Helen Xun - Westview

Hilda Beltran - Redmond

n/a

Hoda Ilias - LOHS

n/a

Ian Bisbee - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

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.

Jane Berry-Eddings - Sprague

Jasmine Dickinson - LHS

n/a

Jason Miller - Glencoe

n/a

Jennifer Bagshaw - Ashland

n/a

Jenny Owen - WHS

n/a

Jerry Hodson - Westview

Jessica Horton - Neah-Kah-Nie

n/a

Jessica Cook - LHS

n/a

John Bryan - Westview

John Larson - Hermiston

n/a

John Watkins - Glencoe

n/a

Jonathan Larson - Hermiston

n/a

Judd Wagner - Redmond

n/a

Julia Holland - Southridge

n/a

Julie Siewart - Westview

n/a

June Gerst - Century

n/a

Kathryn Schelonka - LOHS

n/a

Kathy Nguyen - Southridge

n/a

Katie Mann - Southridge

n/a

Katy Walker - Century

n/a

Katya Raffensperger - LHS

n/a

Kenneth Bisbee - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

Kenny Rea - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

Kevin Kecskes - Cleveland

Kris Igawa - Beaverton HS

n/a

Kyle Vorderstrasse - Sunset

n/a

Lance Haberly - Siuslaw High

n/a

Leada Fuller - LHS

n/a

Leslie Kowash - Cleveland

Linli Pao - LOHS

n/a

Liz Turner - Forest Grove

n/a

Lori Daliposon - Century

n/a

Lori Waite - OCHS

n/a

Lynn Pizzo - Butte Falls

Marcel Rodriguez - WHS

n/a

Marcia Stewart-Warren - Butte Falls

Margot White - LOHS

n/a

Mark Williams - Madison

n/a

Mark Reynolds - Cleveland

Mary Kay West - Cleveland

Matt Ogle - Silverton

n/a

Matthew Marr - Ashland

n/a

McKenna Holmes - Siuslaw High

n/a

Melissa Lowry Sullivan - Southridge

n/a

Melissa Peck - North Bend

n/a

Merlin Benneth - Madison

n/a

Merry Borchers - Sprague

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 Golan - Silverton

n/a

Michelle Park - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

Narintohn Luangrath - Tigard

n/a

Neal Pisenti - LHS

n/a

Nikhil Shukla - Westview

Paislie Hill - Ridgefield H.S.

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 Gonzales - Cleveland

Rachel Sarrett - Redmond

n/a

Ram Narayan - Beaverton HS

n/a

Rebecca Patch - N Val

n/a

Rebekah Simpson - Sam Barlow

Rick Morton - Neah-Kah-Nie

n/a

Rob Moeny - N Val

n/a

Robert Crawford - PEHS

In all events, I expect adherance to classic public speaking values--crisp enunciation and good projection, eye contact, confident posture and controlled movement, and a sense of sincere commitment to the truth, whether the truth of your position in debate events or the truth of your selection in IE's. I judge Public and Public Forum debate forms. In both, I am a "communications" judge. I feel the opportunity to speed-read briefs, rattle away in arcane debate jargon, and demand specific outcomes from judges is offered in OTHER debate forms, so in these I expect attention to oratorical skills, the art of persuasion, and cogent argument centered on a common-sense interpretation of the resolution. I expect full engagement with that common-sense interpretation on both sides, rather than evasive attempts to shift the ground under the judge's feet--this means clarity and clash.

Robyn Rose - Sam Barlow

Sam Mershon - Sam Barlow

Saraga Reddy - Tigard

n/a

Sarah Smilkstein - LHS

n/a

Sayer Rippey - LHS

n/a

Sharad Tripathi - Westview

Surabhi Mahajan - Sprague

Susan McLain - Glencoe

n/a

Terri Dirk - North Bend

n/a

Tina Beltrone - LOHS

n/a

Tom Reynolds - Cleveland

n/a

Vanessa Hancock - Madison

n/a

Wendy Werthaiser - Ashland

n/a

Yun Ling - Westview

n/a

Zeng Ye - Westview

n/a

Zhiming Mei - Westview

laurie thom - Redmond

n/a

2011 Hap Hingston Invitational

Judge Philosophies

zz-bye

zz-bye

Afina Neunzert - Tigard

Alana Bertram - Aloha

Alec White - LOHS

Alex DeBruyne - Tigard

Allison Faherty - WHS

Alok Prakash - Westview

Alyssa Razmus - Silverton

Amber Manning - Tigard

Andrew Riley - Madison

Anita Reddy - LOHS

Aron Carleson - Century

Ashish Patra - Westview

Ashna Reddy - LOHS

Austin Thoma - Glencoe

Bart Millar - LHS

Becky Page - Sprague

Bobbi Wilson - North Bend

Bradley Cameron - Aloha

Breanna Flaim - N Val

Cameron Nilles - Sam Barlow

Cassie Passon - OCHS

Cheryl Twete - Westview

Chris Mohler - Ridgefield H.S.

Christopher Potwora - Ridgefield H.S.

Conner Vilhauer - Madison

Corey Rudolph - Tigard

Courtney Walsh - MHS

Crystal Williams - Silverton

Darcel Warren - Cleveland

Darlene Geddes - Century

Darren Dirk - North Bend

David Curry - Sprague

David Barringer - OCHS

Dhruv Pande - Westview

Donovan Bisbee - Ridgefield H.S.

Doug McDonald - Summit

Dwight Siewart - Westview

Elie Adelman - Cleveland

Esther Hong - Westview

Forest Turner - Madison

Fred Gordon - Cleveland

Gabe Pagano - Summit

Hadley Jolley - Southridge

Harish Vemuri - Westview

Harmant Pandarpurkar - Westview

Helen Xun - Westview

Hilda Beltran - Redmond

Hoda Ilias - LOHS

Ian Bisbee - Ridgefield H.S.

Jan Pizzo - Butte Falls

Jane Berry-Eddings - Sprague

Jasmine Dickinson - LHS

Jason Miller - Glencoe

Jennifer Bagshaw - Ashland

Jenny Owen - WHS

Jerry Hodson - Westview

Jessica Horton - Neah-Kah-Nie

Jessica Cook - LHS

John Bryan - Westview

John Larson - Hermiston

John Watkins - Glencoe

Jonathan Larson - Hermiston

Judd Wagner - Redmond

Julia Holland - Southridge

Julie Siewart - Westview

June Gerst - Century

Kathryn Schelonka - LOHS

Kathy Nguyen - Southridge

Katie Mann - Southridge

Katy Walker - Century

Katya Raffensperger - LHS

Kenneth Bisbee - Ridgefield H.S.

Kenny Rea - Ridgefield H.S.

Kevin Kecskes - Cleveland

Kris Igawa - Beaverton HS

Kyle Vorderstrasse - Sunset