Judge Philosophies
Andrew Morgan - Tillamook
n/a
Ann Simon - Marshfield HS
n/a
Audrey Umber - Canby
n/a
Beau Woodward - Lakeridge
n/a
Benjamin Agre - Cleveland
Brian White - Lincoln
Charlette Sinclair - Lincoln
n/a
Christopher Keller - Liberty HS
n/a
Courtney Walsh - MHS
n/a
Dave Schaefer - Nestucca
n/a
David Naidu - Oak Hill
Deb White - Lincoln
n/a
Debbie Groff - Canby
n/a
Don Steiner - Wilson
Earl Pettit - Monument
n/a
Ed Uecker - MHS
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 Sheiman - Lincoln
Emily Madden - Grants Pass
n/a
Erin Ramick - MHS
n/a
Frank Mukaida - Marshfield HS
n/a
Griffin Gonzales - Cleveland
Ishan Karnik - Sunset
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.
Jeremiah Hubbard - Southridge
n/a
Joel Ayala - Sunset
Jonathan Miller - Oak Hill
Josh Scheirman - Marshfield HS
n/a
Josh Reed - Summit
n/a
Josie Abuan - Southridge
n/a
Judge 4 - Southridge
n/a
Kaitlin Gilbert - MHS
n/a
Karen Hobbs - Summit
n/a
Kat Podlesnik - PHS
n/a
Katie Wilson - Lakeridge
n/a
Kayla Crook - Marshfield HS
n/a
Keith Eddins - Oak Hill
<p>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.</p>
Kris Igawa - Beaverton
n/a
Laura Keller - Liberty HS
n/a
Liz Weiler - Cleveland
n/a
Lorena Iach - Southridge
n/a
Luke Espinoza - Southridge
n/a
Lydia Casas - Marshfield HS
n/a
Marcy Landis - MHS
n/a
Mat Marr - Ashland
n/a
Mat Marr - Sunset
n/a
Mona Mensing - BSHS
n/a
Patrick Cannon - Lincoln
Patrick Smith - MHS
n/a
Patrick Gonzales - Cleveland
Paul Hamann - Heritage
n/a
Pavan Kumar - Sunset
n/a
Peter Sprengelmeyer - South
Rani Eapen - Sunset
Rene Straessle - Nestucca
n/a
Rhonda Scott - Neah-Kah-Nie
n/a
Rob Moeny - N Val
n/a
Roger Williams-Thomas - Cleveland
Rohan Hiatt - Sunset
Ross Burford - Summit
n/a
Sara Ogle - Forest Grove
n/a
Scot Klohe - Tillamook
n/a
Sean Ma - Lincoln
Shelly Heaps - CCS
n/a
Summer Ashley - Grants Pass
n/a
Suzanne Menezes - Lincoln
n/a
Tori Marshall - Grants Pass
n/a
Zak Zwald - Tillamook
n/a