FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Adam Testerman - Wilson

Alex Bernardo - Sprague

Alex Hatch - Forest Grove

n/a

Alex Payne - Sheldon

n/a

Alexander Payne - NEHS

n/a

Amber Manning - Tigard

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 Meabe - Wilson

Andrew Samuelson - Lake O

n/a

Ben Mann - Lake O

n/a

Benjamin Agre - Cleveland

Brian Mann - Southridge

n/a

Brooke Mischkot - Sprague

Carole Rentschler - Lincoln

n/a

Don Steiner - Wilson

Ell Olson - Lake O

n/a

Ethan Adelman-Sil - Cleveland

Gena Dwyer - North

n/a

Gus Garcia - Cleveland

Hiro Nukaga - Tigard

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 Leo - Lincoln

Janet Billups - Cleveland

Jason Miller - Glencoe

n/a

Jennifer Gruter - Clackamas

Jennifer Conner - Forest Grove

n/a

Joe Provencher - Lake O

n/a

John Nelson - Lake O

n/a

Jon Thorpe - O\'Dowd

n/a

June Gerst - Century

n/a

Justin Richter - Lincoln

n/a

Justin Munoz - Tigard

n/a

Kathryn Ring - Lincoln

n/a

Katie Mann - Southridge

n/a

Katie Kantrowitz - Silverton

n/a

Katy Walker - Century

n/a

Kenneth Bisbee - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

Kevin Eighmey - NEHS

n/a

Kyle Suenaga - MVHS

n/a

Lynn Pizzo - Butte Falls

Mahkah Wu - Sheldon

n/a

Marci McDade - Cleveland

Marcia Stewart-Warren - Butte Falls

Matt Compton - Tigard

n/a

Maya Gold - Lake O

n/a

Megan Gaffney - Sheldon

n/a

Melissa Lowry Sullivan - Southridge

n/a

Molly Schulze - Willamette

n/a

Nai Blanc - Cleveland

Patrick Gonzales - Cleveland

Patrick Welch - BSH

n/a

Rachel Sarrett - Redmond

n/a

Reed Van Valkenburgh - Cleveland

Robert Trachtenburg - Cleveland

Stan Suenaga - MVHS

n/a

Stephen Clarke - Marist

n/a

Steve Barth - Marist

n/a

Steven Taylor - Clackamas

Surabhi Mahajan - Sprague

Susan McLain - Glencoe

n/a

Tafflyn Williams-Thomas - Cleveland

Vanessa Garrison - Sprague

Wendy Werthaiser - Ashland

n/a

2012 Jerry Hudson Forensic Tournament