Judge Philosophies
Caron Newman - Loggers
<p>I am first and foremost a communications judge. That means that eye contact, respect for your opponent while he/she is speaking - not talking to your partner (to me, that is rude), inflection, and rate of speech are important. Regardless of the type of debate, you must be clear and concise. I do not like spreading; what’s the point if no one can understand you? Remember, Aff must convince me there needs to be a change in CX. I don’t appreciate the neg wasting time on T if it’s not really an issue. The worst round I’ve ever judged spent 20 minutes arguing the definition of “its.” If you are not arguing the resolution, it’s very difficult for me to vote for you. For LD, I enjoy the philosophical portion as that was my minor in college. Try to stay away from policy jargon in LD; it doesn’t fit. For parli, I expect you to answer questions instead of avoiding them and filling time that could be better spent responding to your opponent. Finally, in all events, the cross weighs heavily in my decision-making. I appreciate insightful questioning and clear answers.</p> <p> </p>
Ellen Howard - Bandon HS
n/a
Jennifer Wagner - IVHS
n/a
Josh Sheirman - Marshfield HS
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>
Mark Stueve - Marshfield HS
n/a
Martha Street - NMHS
n/a
Matthew Eldridge - Butte Falls
n/a
Melissa Winters - North Bend
n/a
Michelle Kalpakoff - South Medford
n/a