FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

- Glencoe

n/a

AJ Breimon - Lakeridge

n/a

Alex Parini - Wilson

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.  What I like to see: • 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.  • 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.  • 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.  • 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.) • 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.  • 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. • 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.

Alex Gielish - Willamette

n/a

Audrey Umber - Canby

n/a

Beau Woodward - Lakeridge

n/a

Ben Hynes-Stone - Silverton

n/a

Benjamin Agre - Cleveland

Brandon Johnson - SAHS

n/a

Carli Smythe - Summit

n/a

Christine Stimson - Sprague

Chuck Hamaker-Teals - Southridge WA

I am the coach for Southridge High School in eastern Washington.  I competed in high school debate in the 90s.  I've been coaching for 18 years.  Each topic has lots of ground, find it and bring the arguments into the round.  Be polite and kind.  Rude debaters almost never win.  I can flow relatively quickly but will punish debaters’ speaks if they are unclear or unprepared.  I try to vote on the flow, although I don't like Topicality run without forethought.  I am not a fan of the kritik but I will vote for one.  I don't mind theory arguments, I just need to be clearly told how the impact relates to what is happening in the round.   I vote on issues where I can clearly see the impact in the round.  I like clear, fast, well organized debates with lots of good arguments and lots of impacts.  When I sit on out round panels, my decisions are very similar to those of current college debaters, not communication judges.   Arguments about sources are tiresome and I am more persuaded by rationale or meta-analysis.

Collin Mertens - Southridge WA

Conner Mertens - Southridge WA

Crys Ahlstrom - Ashland

n/a

Dana Reynolds - Ashland

n/a

David Augustine - Lincoln

David Curry - Sprague

Debbie Groff - Canby

n/a

Don Steiner - Wilson

Ellen Pfeifer - MVHS

n/a

Eric Endsley - Barlow

n/a

Ethan Adelman-Sil - Cleveland

Fielding Picton - Ashland

n/a

Gordana Dragosavac - Lincoln

Henry Phipps - Lincoln

Holly Shilling - Cleveland

Jack Sanderson - Cleveland

Jamaica Jones - Barlow

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

Jason Miller - Lake Oswego

n/a

Jeanne Stallman - 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.

John Watkins - Glencoe

n/a

Julie Ringo - Summit

n/a

June Gerst - Century

n/a

Justin Crow - West Albany

I am a tabula rasa judge. TOPICALITY: I don't like when AFF teams are abusive with definitions, and I don't like when NEG teams claim abuse or run T when it is not called for. Reserve T for those times when it is appropriate; don't run it every round. Here's a good example of abusive definitions in parli: For the topic R, THS significantly increase space exploration, the AFF defines the term "space exploration" as "offshore drilling in the Pacific Ocean." They justify this definition by saying "there's a lot of open space out there in the ocean, and it should be explored for energy and financial gain." If the AFF defines it this way, I assume the AFF either does not understand the resolution statement or is purposefully defining it in such a way that (1) caters to their own strength -- previous knowledge about the Pacific Ocean or (2) is unpredictable by the NEG, thus giving the AFF team an advantage. The key to avoiding T and the key to living up to your responsibility as the AFF team is to pass the predictability and fairness tests with your definition of terms. Like a tennis player who fairly calls lines, was the intention behind the definition in good spirits? If you take a poll of 100 debaters at the tournament and ask them to define the term in question, will any of them be in the ballpark of your definition? Also, be careful of definitions or plan texts that are too narrow or too broad (topicality and extra-topicality).   I am fine with CP, Disads, and K (though I don't really like K). Unless I give you a hand signal to slow down, I am fine with speed. As a courtesy to your opponents and me, please clearly label your contentions with brief taglines. (For example, "Contention 1: COST. The cost of implementing such a  plan..." DON'T REPEAT YOUR FLOW TO FILL TIME. Weigh, clash, give examples / metaphors, but don't repeat your case. If I have it on my flow, and you are repeating what I already have on my flow, what is the point of your speaking? Use htose precious minutes more constructively! If a team says "They did not ___ therefore we win the round" that is not necessarily so. It may be an a priori argument, it may not. Teams that argue something is a priori when it isn't annoy me because (similar to T) I don't know if they just don't know the rules or if they are trying to manipulate me into giving them a ballot. I once heard in a parli round, "Our opponents did not run a criterion to support their value; therefore, we win the round." That is just not true.  For voters, clearly weigh for me WHY you win. This often comes down to clearly stating and weighing impacts or otherwise stating why the better debating was performed by your team. If policy, many arguments for me will come down to evidence weighing. You both have data to back up your side of a particular point, but one team uses a solid Harvard study while the opposing team uses a study from crazyjoemanifesto.com or, worse yet, "my uncle says that..." In this case, all other things being equal, the team citing the Harvard study would likely win on that point.

Karen Hobbs - Summit

n/a

Kathryn Schwartz - Cleveland

Katie Kantrowitz - Silverton

n/a

Ken Bendat - Ashland

n/a

Kristin Wilson - Barlow

n/a

Lisa Reynolds - Lincoln

Lisa Kaplan - Cleveland

Lynn Pizzo - Butte Falls

Mary Stayer - Lake Oswego

n/a

Matt Karlsen - Cleveland

Megan Medley - MVHS

n/a

Melodie Martz - Grants Pass

n/a

Molly Schulze - Willamette

n/a

Nathan Mathabane - Lincoln

Nicholas Schnieder - BSH

n/a

Olivia Hering - Glencoe

n/a

Olivia Wall - Sprague

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

Patrick Welch - BSH

n/a

Rachel Wilczewski - Barlow

n/a

Rob Bingham - Ashland

n/a

Robyn Rose - Lake Oswego

n/a

Ryan Endsley - Barlow

n/a

Saige Miller - Sprague

Sarah Foster - Westview

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.

Scott Curtis - Westview

Shelbi Jenkins - Sprague

Stephen McClanahan - Silverton

n/a

Steve Barth - Marist

n/a

Sue Sanders - Cleveland

Tempest Heston - Barlow

n/a

Tisa Ambrosino - Cleveland

Tom Lininger - South

Run anything.  I am a flow judge.  Speed is fine.  Have fun and don't be rude.  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.

2014 Jerry Hudson Forensics Tournament