Judge Philosophies
April Silva - LCC
n/a
Ashley Tippins - Whitman
Beau Woodward - UP
n/a
Billy Cooley - LCC
n/a
Cody Lawrence - LCC
n/a
Dalton Richardson - Oregon
If you have questions, feel free to email me at drichard@uoregon.edu or find the Oregon prep room.
I’ve been involved in debate in some capacity, either as a competitor or a coach/critic, for the past eight years. Across my time with debate, I’ve read and judged nearly every genre of argument and feel comfortable evaluating any type or style of debate. I find tech to be the easiest mechanism through which I can evaluate arguments, but this does not mean that truth is absent from my decision calculus. Speed isn’t an issue, but clarity feels increasingly rare in debate. Furthermore, you shouldn’t make any assumptions about my personal knowledge – I won’t backfill warrants you don’t read nor will I automatically vote for you because you read an argument that stems from an ideology I occupy. Finally, I best understand debate as a game where arguments act as pieces with which debaters can make various moves in an attempt to capture my ballot.
I need pen time. Read texts/interps twice, and if you want me to get them down word for word then give me a copy. Just because we have flex time doesn’t absolve you from having to write texts/interps for your opponents – I’m tired of flex time starting after minutes of writing texts that could have easily been written prior to the round. Your perm should identify what the non-competitive portions of the counterplan/alternative are if the negative has failed to do so, and they are not advocacies.
Framework/Theory
Absent an alternative, I default to a net benefits framework operationalized under an offense/defense paradigm. Framing is particularly important as it helps me to better understand which impacts I should prioritize or resolve with my ballot; as a result, role of the ballot claims often feel unnecessary when they are just intertwined with framework. If you like going for role of the ballot arguments as part of your strategy then don’t let me stop you, but they rarely seem to develop into anything substantive beyond the constructives (but I’d love to be proven wrong about this, as I think there are interesting debates to be had about the purpose of the ballot). I have yet to see many debates that center on AFC, but my gut reaction is that being affirmative doesn’t mean your framework choice is incontestable.
Framework and topicality are most persuasive to me when they answer the question “Should this particular affirmative have been read?” rather than nebulous justifications for the way debates ought occur. Therefore, comparative analysis is necessary – compare the world of the negative’s interpretation with that of the affirmative’s interpretation with regard to the impacts of the position. Specifically, show me how the standards of your interpretation best resolve the impacts of fairness and/or education. On the flip side, conditionality bad and other forms of theory feel more designed to punish actions that have occurred in the round with the intent to stop those actions from occurring in the future. Overall, I don’t have any strong feelings regarding conditionality, so I can be equally persuaded to vote either way. I’m much more hesitant to vote on other types of theory, such as “you must give us your interp within X minutes” or “you cannot read two theory positions” as they often end up unnecessarily convoluted and seem to skirt the overall substance of debate.
Disadvantages
Disads are great. I read them a lot as a debater, and I enjoy specific link level analysis as well as impact interaction that begins in the first neg speech. Tell me how your impact scenario complicates the aff’s scenarios and what that means for the progression of the debate. Offense is often underutilized on disadvantages, likely because it’s easier to think of defense rather than offense; as a result, accurate offense read on disads will be rewarded with higher speaker points.
Counterplans
I assume all counterplans to be conditional unless otherwise stated. I have a special place in my heart for advantage counterplans and PICs. I have a high threshold for "cheating" counterplans, such as delay, veto, plan is a secret, and other positions like that. I believe multiple contradictory counterplans to be abusive but I can be persuaded otherwise.
Kritiks
I enjoy good kritik debate, as those were the debates I most often found myself in as a debater. I also feel that these types of debates often suffer greatly from shadow extensions and a general lack of warrants, particularly when comparing the world of the alternative to the world of the aff's advocacy. Specific link analysis is your best friend in this debate, as I believe there are situations in which the link to the K is tenuous at best or nonexistent at worst. K vs K debates often come down to root cause claims, so ensure that you have a robust defense of your impact controlling the root cause debate and explain how your impacts frame other impacts. Finally, if you enjoy framing your opponent out, tell me why your framing means I don't even evaluate the aff/K beyond just mentioning that it does. I find that debaters often rely on claiming they've framed out their opponents without actually telling me how they do or what it means for my evaluation of the debate.
I am most familiar with Marxism, CRT (specifically afropessimism), queer theory, biopolitics, and anthro literature, but have some knowledge of postmodern theorists like Deleuze and Guattari, Foucault, and others. I hate hate hate psychoanalysis for a litany of reasons. I enjoy innovate and non-traditional kritikal strategies and arguments. Even though I am open to arguments about the harmful nature of flow-centric debate, I find it hard to separate my decision from the flow and need very well impacted out justifications for ignoring the flow.
A Final Note
Debate has been incredibly important to me, and I take my job as a critic very seriously. I enjoy educating students and helping them become better debaters. If you have questions, ask and I will try my best to explain my response in a way that is accessible to you. Simultaneously, I do not respond well (read, at all) to abrasive or intentionally inflammatory communication post round.
If you made it this far in my philosophy, make a cool reference about sharks, Nintendo, or Pokémon and I'll add an extra point to your speaks.
Daniel Broyles - Pac U
n/a
Erik Miller - LCC
n/a
Evan Steele - OSU
n/a
Hannah Tabrizi - VSU
n/a
Hannah Tabrizi - VSU
n/a
Jennifer Conner - Pac U
n/a
Jennifer Capell - LCC
n/a
Joanna Mosser - LCC
n/a
Joe Gantt - Lewis & Clark
John Capell - LCC
n/a
Kelsey Townsend - VSU
n/a
Kinny Torre - WWU
TL;DR Do your shit but not at the expense of excluding your opponents* Hello! Background Info: been doing this for too long I debated for 3 years doing policy in Washington State (lol) and 4 years of parli at Western. Iâm starting my 3rd year of coaching at Western but Iâve coached policy, LD, and PF.
*Iâll start of by saying that I stayed in this activity because I found this activity to be both fun and educational. Itâs therefore important to recognize find that diversity can be dangerous if it allows for people to advance an agenda that hurts marginalized individuals. Like obvi you shouldnât be a nazi but itâs more than just that; speed and frivolous theory should not be a weapon used against novices because of its exclusionary nature. You donât need to go to many tournaments to understand that this format is dying so perhaps we should take measures to prevent its death.
Beyond that, run whatever argument you want at whatever speed or method you wish. The only exception is that there must be a winner/loser at the end of the debate AND the debate must follow speech times and order. Iâll do my best to evaluate the debate as fairly as possible. This means that Iâll entertain framework arguments against nontopical affs. Delays CPs with tix DAs are cool. Same with floating PICs and Consult nature CPs. Please run all of the weird and untraditional arguments as well as the Heg DA in front of meâI just want a good debate!!! The important part is that you tell me what the key issues are and how to I prioritize them. Some random particularism:
â?¢ Itâs probably not a good idea to run frivolous theory shells in front of me. Especially MG theory since I donât understand how to judge a theory shell that always gets golden responses. Since the MO needs to deploy offense against the interp or at the very least a net-benefit to their own, then the PMR would always win with the impact-turn. Like I get why MG theory is strategically viable and even a necessity sometimes; however, the more silly or ubiquitous the shell(s) become, the higher a chance that Iâll default Neg.
â?¢ Donât start at your full speed. I know that youâre fast and that you want to awe your judge and overwhelm your opponents with your sicknasty blocks but you should give me like 10 seconds to adjust your voice.
â?¢ Repeat interp texts twice or pass a text to your opponents.
â?¢ Give a perm text. âPerm Do Bothâ? on rejection alts as well as âall noncompetitive parts of the alternativeâ? ARE NOT PERM TEXTS.
â?¢ Donât Point of Order more than 3 times; I promise I'm flowing and is usually unnecessary.
Lauren Knoth - WWU
Liz Engel - LCC
n/a
Louis Petit - UNT
Mark Porrovecchio - OSU
n/a
Mike Eaves - VSU
Procedurals:
T-I have no artificial threshold on topicality. I will vote on abuse. Typically, cross x checks back on T.
Ks-framwork is paramount and the alternative. Please do not run "Vote Neg" as the sole alternative. There
should be more thought on the alt.
Speed. I have a high school and college policy background. I coached CEDA from 93-00 and coach NPDA, parli style
from 01-present
Counterplans--PICS are fine. Agent CPS are fine. In the end, I am tabula rasa and will default to impact calc to resolve plan debate
Das--uniqueness is key. Internal links are important. Please watch double turning yourself in the 2AC. I do not like performative contradictions and will vote against them
Performance/Project-I am progressive and liberal here. Run it and defend it. If you are on the other side, debate it straight up. A counter-performance is a legit strategy.
Have fun. I dislike rude debaters. I will vote on language abuse if a team calls it (ex: sexist, racist, etc lang)
Mike Catlos - Lewis & Clark
Morgan Cheramie - UNT
Rebecca Pickner - LCC
n/a
Renny Herbert - WWU
Sean McKean - Oregon
Experience: 4 years policy debate at Tualatin High School, 4 years NPDA/NPTE experience at the University of Oregon. 3 years high school coaching experience at Thurston High School. Current NPDA/NPTE coach at Oregon.
Quick in prep version: In general I am down with just about anything,
however I would much rather hear a good disad than some only tag lines
and a bad alternative kritik. Theory was my jam when I was debating, so
if you want to read it go ahead, however, I’m not going to vote for you
just because you read it, while my threshold is probably lower than most
judges I like to pretend I’m not a hack 
.
Longer (probably unnecessary) version
General Overveiw:
My ideal debate is a strategic topical aff v some CPs and a DA or a topic K. That being said, I tend to be down with anything you want to read in front of me, I believe that it is my job to adapt to you and the arguments you want to read not your job to adapt to me. I am not going to tell you what to or not to read in front of me or reject your arguments on face. I tend to prefer more technical debates where you explain to me how all of the relevant arguments interact at the end of the round over just extending them and making me try to figure it out myself at the end. I want to be able to write my RFD at the end of the round by sticking as much as possible to the flow without having to insert my own analysis, this means I want you to write my RFD for me, tell me why I should vote a particular way at the end of the round.
Impact framing is a lost art, it’s not helpful to just inform me that both teams do, in fact, have impacts. I want to hear how I should evaluate those impacts against each other, ie. Do I care more about fairness or education on the theory flow, is timeframe or magnitude more important, can I even evaluate arguments rooted in some kind of epistemology?
More specific stuff:
Theory/ T 
:
I read a lot of theory when I was debating so I am pretty much able to
follow what is going on in complex theory debates, although I would
prefer that you slow down a bit when spreading theory since it is more
condensed and harder to flow. I evaluate theory just like any other
argument, which means I am probably more likley to vote on it than most
judges if you go for it correctly. In order to win theory in front of me
you are going to need to impact it out and explain what it means for
the round. (IE just because they dropped your Consult CP's are illegit
argument doesn't mean you insta-win if you don't give me some reason why
that theory argument results in a ballot, not just me dropping the CP).
I find myself voting a lot this year on teams forgetting to read a
counter interp. If I am judging in a competing interps paradigm, which
is usually how these things shake out, and there is not either an interp
or a counter-interp that you meet I will vote against you regardless of
the rest of the flow, as there is not an interp for me to stick your
offense to. I think that this is a pretty common way of evaluating
theory but I feel it is worth flagging explicitly in my philosophy given
that I find myself voting on this a lot.
Framework 
:
Framework was my go-to when debating the K aff. That doesn’t mean that
you necessarily shouldn’t or can’t read a K aff in front of me, just be
aware than I’m not going to be one of those judges that just ignores the
argument for some vague political reason.
K affs 
:
I would prefer that if you are going to read an aff that isn’t topical
that you have some good justification for doing so, I am not really
interested in your “I read a cool book and here is my book report”
project.
Ks 
:
I am down with the K, however there are some recent trends in the
kritik that I feel need some addressing here. First, Marx was my bread
and butter and I am fairly deep in that literature, but outside of that
and maybe Heidegger you should not assume that I am incredibly well read
in your lit base. That doesn’t mean that you can’t read your K in front
of me, it just means that you are going to need to do some more
explaining. Second, there has been a tendency of K’s becoming just a
list of tag lines, that then get extended as arguments later in the
debate. If your K sounds like this I am probably going to give the other
team a lot more leeway in reading new arguments when your K finally
becomes something in the block.
CP/ DA 
: Ayyyyyyyyy
Sean McKean - Oregon
Experience: 4 years policy debate at Tualatin High School, 4 years NPDA/NPTE experience at the University of Oregon. 3 years high school coaching experience at Thurston High School. Current NPDA/NPTE coach at Oregon.
Quick in prep version: In general I am down with just about anything,
however I would much rather hear a good disad than some only tag lines
and a bad alternative kritik. Theory was my jam when I was debating, so
if you want to read it go ahead, however, I’m not going to vote for you
just because you read it, while my threshold is probably lower than most
judges I like to pretend I’m not a hack .
Longer (probably unnecessary) version
General Overveiw:
My ideal debate is a strategic topical aff v some CPs and a DA or a topic K. That being said, I tend to be down with anything you want to read in front of me, I believe that it is my job to adapt to you and the arguments you want to read not your job to adapt to me. I am not going to tell you what to or not to read in front of me or reject your arguments on face. I tend to prefer more technical debates where you explain to me how all of the relevant arguments interact at the end of the round over just extending them and making me try to figure it out myself at the end. I want to be able to write my RFD at the end of the round by sticking as much as possible to the flow without having to insert my own analysis, this means I want you to write my RFD for me, tell me why I should vote a particular way at the end of the round.
Impact framing is a lost art, it’s not helpful to just inform me that both teams do, in fact, have impacts. I want to hear how I should evaluate those impacts against each other, ie. Do I care more about fairness or education on the theory flow, is timeframe or magnitude more important, can I even evaluate arguments rooted in some kind of epistemology?
More specific stuff:
Theory/ T :
I read a lot of theory when I was debating so I am pretty much able to
follow what is going on in complex theory debates, although I would
prefer that you slow down a bit when spreading theory since it is more
condensed and harder to flow. I evaluate theory just like any other
argument, which means I am probably more likley to vote on it than most
judges if you go for it correctly. In order to win theory in front of me
you are going to need to impact it out and explain what it means for
the round. (IE just because they dropped your Consult CP's are illegit
argument doesn't mean you insta-win if you don't give me some reason why
that theory argument results in a ballot, not just me dropping the CP).
I find myself voting a lot this year on teams forgetting to read a
counter interp. If I am judging in a competing interps paradigm, which
is usually how these things shake out, and there is not either an interp
or a counter-interp that you meet I will vote against you regardless of
the rest of the flow, as there is not an interp for me to stick your
offense to. I think that this is a pretty common way of evaluating
theory but I feel it is worth flagging explicitly in my philosophy given
that I find myself voting on this a lot.
Framework :
Framework was my go-to when debating the K aff. That doesn’t mean that
you necessarily shouldn’t or can’t read a K aff in front of me, just be
aware than I’m not going to be one of those judges that just ignores the
argument for some vague political reason.
K affs :
I would prefer that if you are going to read an aff that isn’t topical
that you have some good justification for doing so, I am not really
interested in your “I read a cool book and here is my book report”
project.
Ks :
I am down with the K, however there are some recent trends in the
kritik that I feel need some addressing here. First, Marx was my bread
and butter and I am fairly deep in that literature, but outside of that
and maybe Heidegger you should not assume that I am incredibly well read
in your lit base. That doesn’t mean that you can’t read your K in front
of me, it just means that you are going to need to do some more
explaining. Second, there has been a tendency of K’s becoming just a
list of tag lines, that then get extended as arguments later in the
debate. If your K sounds like this I am probably going to give the other
team a lot more leeway in reading new arguments when your K finally
becomes something in the block.
CP/ DA : Ayyyyyyyyy
Selena Hansen - LCC
n/a
Shannon Valdivia - Mt. Hood CC
I have been coaching for 25 years. I was a CEDA-Value debater as a competitor and have coached NPDA, BP and IPDA.
I value substance AND delivery! You won't get my ballot by just talking pretty.
I want to see a clear framework set up with your resolutional analysis. I want a clear CRITERIA so you can tell me what lens am I to look at your arguments. I expect that if it is a value, policy or fact based resolution - that the case structure will resemble the resolution you've been given - not what you want to turn it into.
I expect competitors to be kind and respectful to each other - in every aspect of the debate - from saying hello, to how you ask questions in CX.
On the Neg. Please give me a Negative philosophy so I know how you are looking at the resolution. If you need to give counter definitions, values, criterias - then I need to know WHY you are doing this and HOW your offering is BETTER than the AFF. Please make sure you are linking your off case arguments to case so that I know which part of the case you are attacking. SIGNPOSTING IS IMPORTANT!
SPEED KILLS: I know that the times in this style of debate can be challenging....but instead of speeding - try word economy! Speed will impact your speaker points.
Bottom line: In the words of my late mother - PERSUADE ME!
Skyler Gregory - LCC
n/a
Stefanie Neill - LCC
n/a