FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Marineau - Wilson

n/a

Abhay Dharmadhikari - Sunset

Alex Modjeski - MVHS

n/a

Alexander Erwig - South

I debated for four years in high school TOC level LD for Crescent Valley, and did three years of college parli for the University of Oregon. I've coached at multiple high school summer camps and am also currently coaching South Eugene’s policy team. Ultimately, you should deploy whichever strategy you are most comfortable and proficient with, and I’ll be happy to evaluate it. My favorite debates are those in which both teams are making smart, strategic arguments, regardless of whether those are critical or policy or theoretical debates.   I'm fine with any speed, any type of argument, and will not impose my own views about debate on you. I fundamentally believe that debate is an activity where each individual has an opportunity to speak about issues and arguments important to them, so I am fully open to whatever you want to do.    That being said, I’ll lay out a few of my general beliefs about debate. This isn’t to say that you should just conform to them, as I believe any theoretical issue is up for debate in-round, but should give you a heads-up as to what my inclinations are.   Specific Issues:  Kritiks: A strong framework with clear role of the ballot claims ideally accompanies most successful criticisms. I think a lot of critical debate suffers from a lack of warrant comparison and thesis-level analysis, so good comparative analysis and solid overviews will get you a long way. Just because I am versed in this kind of literature does not mean that I like seeing poorly executed critical strategies, so know your author's claims and be able to explain them. Extending tags and re-reading lines from your evidence is not the same as understanding and being able to explain your argument. Be able to sum up the thesis of your criticism in three sentences or less.   Theory: I like theory debates, especially those in which the interpretations are cleverly crafted (ex. Not “PICs bad” but rather “Counterplans that create an artificial net-benefit bad”). I am not a fan of the blatant doctored evidence that I’ve seen on the domestic surveillance topic to support some T interpretations. I’ll be reading the evidence that supports your interp, so be sure that your evidence actually says what you claim it does. Be sure to include fleshed out voters (“vote b/c education and fairness” is not sufficient).   DA/CP: I really enjoy evaluating these debates, and think that a well-crafted and argued DA/CP strat is probably one of my favorite debates to watch. The more specific and recent your evidence is, the better your disad is likely to perform in the debate. I tend to think that the internal links on most disads I’ve seen are the most lacking component, so having a well fleshed-out story is important in these areas.     Speaker points: My speaker points are primarily based on strategic execution in the debate, so even if you speak really well but make poor strategic choices you will get fewer speaks than someone who executes a winning strategy very well but doesn’t speak as well. That being said, I think most high school policy debaters would benefit from taking their speed down a level or two and increasing clarity. Not only does this ultimately make you faster (counterintuitive but true), but it also makes your speaker points go up. Especially in the rebuttals, many speeches would be more effective at a slightly slower pace while still making all of the necessary arguments.

Anthony Ross - SAHS

n/a

Anya Caro - Marshfield HS

n/a

Asmita Patwardhan - Sunset

Austin Gulstrom - SAHS

n/a

Beau Woodward - Lakeridge

n/a

Ben Hynes-Stone - Silverton

n/a

Bethany Dozier - Wilson

Bharadwaj Wuppalapati - Westview

n/a

Brandon Johnson - SAHS

n/a

Brian White - Lincoln

Carla Charlton - Lincoln

Caron Newman - BF

n/a

Catie Easter - Barlow

n/a

Chansik Im - Sunset

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.

Clint Rodreick - Phoenix

n/a

Collin Mertens - Southridge WA

Conner Mertens - Southridge WA

Connor Davenport - MVHS

n/a

Crys Ahlstrom - Ashland

n/a

Dalton Hellman - Westview

I look forward to judging rounds for everyone. Below is some of my judging philosophy. As always, feel free to ask specific questions in round if you have them. Background: 4 years competing in speech and debate in high school (Canby) 4 years competing in college (Mt. Hood CC and Boise State Univ.) Debated almost every format and will judge any format of debate. How I view rounds: The start of the round is your space. Use it how you want to. I have clean pieces of paper in front of me at the start of the round and that is how I judge. If you tell me something, it is on my paper. I will evaluate a round how you tell me to. I believe the debate space is yours to use how you want. I will listen to almost any argument and would consider myself pretty progressive for debate. I am alright with you running: Kritiks Plans Counter Plans Theory I am fine with speed. I feel like I keep up with almost anyone. If you are going fast and aren't clear then I will either stop writing or say clear. In the end, I want to see a good round with clash and lots or arguments. I evaluate theory first and foremost unless you tell me otherwise and then go to offensive arguments before defensive. As I said, if you have specific questions feel free to ask me. Thanks!

Dan Tattersfield - Lincoln

Don Steiner - Wilson

Elena Johnson-Lafferty - Marshfield HS

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

Faith Gadling - Sprague

Frank Mukaida - Marshfield HS

n/a

Fritz Gombart - South

Garrett Broberg - Lincoln

Garrett Broberg - Four-year competitor at El Dorado High School (Placerville California) competed primarily in Congress. 2016 California State Champion Presiding Officer, TOC semi-finalist, etc... I have however competed and judged all debate events (Nationals in PF) (Parli TOC Qualifier). LDâ€“ Speed: I am the last judge that will tell you â€œno spreadingâ€ as long as your opponents are okay with speed, go for it Topicality â€“ As far as I am concerned, Topicality outweighs theory. T is needed in order to establish how we can create theoretical justification within the resolution. Theory â€“ Itâ€™s fine but please slow down if you are giving several rapid-fire theory arguments that are not much more than tags. My default is the impact to a theory argument is to reject the argument and not the team. If you want me to put the round on it, I will, but I need more than "voter" when the argument is presented. I need clearly articulated reasons why the other team should lose because of the argument. Ks: I like them and I think they can be good arguments. I like specific links and am less persuaded by very generic links such as "the state is always X." Unless told otherwise, I see alternatives to K's as possible other worlds that avoid the criticism and not as worlds that the negative is advocating. With that in mind, I see K's differently than counterplans or disads, and I do not think trying to argue Kritiks as counterplans (floating PIC arguments for example) works very well, and I find critical debates that devolve into counterplan or disad jargon to be confusing and difficult to judge, and they miss the point of how the argument is a philosophical challenge to the affirmative in some way. Framework arguments on Ks are fine too, although I do not generally find persuasive debate theory arguments that Kritiks are bad (although I will vote on those if they are dropped). However, higher level debates about whether policy analysis or critical analysis is a better way to approach the world are fine and I will evaluate those arguments. Public Forum â€“ There are a few things that I look for and require in PF. First and foremost: If it's in the final focus, it ought to be in the summary. I reserve the right to look at evidence to see if it comes from a credible source, or to see if it's been distorted, or simply to see if it says what I think I heard it say. Debaters should call out sketchy evidence, but I may call it out myself even if your opponents don't. I expect to hear some qualification for your author and the DATE (the year, at minimum) out loud. If you cite evidence simply as "according to Princeton," I will be very sad, and my sadness may affect your points. When evidence is called, prep time starts when the full text evidence is pulled up. Try to terminalize and specify impacts. "Helps the economy" (for instance) is not very impressive as an impact. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, DONâ€™T HESITATE TO ASK!

Gene Mandell - Ashland

n/a

Gordon Watt - Lincoln

Gypsy Warrick - Marshfield HS

n/a

Harsha Hegde - Sunset

Jackson Wiley - Lincoln

Jane Berry-Eddings - Sprague

Jeff Puukka - Barlow

n/a

Jen Card - Barlow

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.

Joe Charter - Ashland

n/a

Joel Clements - MVHS

n/a

John Stump - Cleveland

John Staskal - Cleveland

Jon Jacob Moon - Wilson

n/a

Jonathan Lindren - Cleveland

Josh Scheirman - Marshfield HS

n/a

June Gerst - Century

n/a

Karen Hobbs - Summit

n/a

Kat Smith - Sprague

n/a

Katie Kantrowitz - Silverton

n/a

Katie Wilson - Lakeridge

n/a

Kayla Crook - Marshfield HS

n/a

Keith Eddins - Oak Hill

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.

Kristin Wilson - Barlow

n/a

Lee Anna Jones - Lincoln

Lisa Reynolds - Lincoln

MIchael Grainey - Blanchet HS

n/a

Mackenzie Stueve - Marshfield HS

n/a

Mario Marchand - SAHS

n/a

Mark Stueve - Marshfield HS

n/a

Mason Blohm - Marshfield HS

n/a

Mat Marr - Ashland

n/a

Matt Parrish - Grants Pass

n/a

Miles Stirewalt - Willamette

n/a

Mona Mensing - BSHS

n/a

Morgyn Sattenspiel - Sprague

Mr. Lewis - Cleveland

Myrna Bess - Marshfield HS

n/a

Nithya Sudhakar - Westview

n/a

Noah Hoffman - Lincoln

Olga Race - South

Pat Johnson - Lakeridge

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

Patrick Cannon - Lincoln

Patrick Leahy - SAHS

n/a

Peter Sprengelmeyer - South

Quinn Earle - Marshfield HS

n/a

Rachel Wilczewski - Barlow

n/a

Rob Moeny - N Val

n/a

Ross Burford - Summit

n/a

Ryder Canepa - Grants Pass

n/a

Sean Ma - Lincoln

Sebastian Ward - Sprague

n/a

Stephanie Sweet-Saxton - Marshfield HS

n/a

Stephen McClanahan - Silverton

n/a

Steve Barth - Marist

n/a

Stewart Reed - Southridge

n/a

Sunil Bharadwaj - Sunset

Suranjana Mukherjee - Westview

n/a

Susan Kirschner - Lincoln

Taylor Knudson - Cleveland

Tempest Heston - Barlow

n/a

Tori Marshall - Grants Pass

n/a

Veeresh Bukka - Westview

n/a

Venkata Kalapatapu - Westview

n/a

Winter Calkins - Marshfield HS

n/a

Zach Leavitt - Hood River

n/a

2016 Jerry Hudson Forensics Tournament