2015 2015 Saints HS Invitational
Mt. Hood Community College - Feb 14 | Status: Completed
Judge Philosophies
Aleta Sanstrum - Centennial
n/a
Alex Parini - Wilson
<p>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. </p> <p>What I like to see:</p> <p>• 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. </p> <p>• 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. </p> <p>• 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. </p> <p>• 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.)</p> <p>• 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. </p> <p>• 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.</p> <p>• 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. </p> <p> </p>
Allison Quarles - RPHS
n/a
Ameena Amdahl-Mason - Clackamas
<p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p>
Austin Cha - Gresham
n/a
Ben Hynes-Stone - Silverton
n/a
Bethany Dozier - Wilson
Carrie Strecker - Neah-Kah-Nie
n/a
Dave Vancott - Hood River
n/a
David Schaffer - Neah-Kah-Nie
n/a
DeLona Campos-Davis - Hood River
n/a
Don Steiner - Wilson
Doug Erickson - West Linn
Elizabeth Cohen - Barlow
n/a
Elizabeth 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!
Gordana Dragosavac - Lincoln
Jason Miller - Lake Oswego
n/a
Jaymie Leach - Redmond
n/a
Jen Loeung - Centennial
n/a
Jennifer Clark - Hood River
n/a
Jennifer LeSieur - Clackamas
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.
Karen Cunningham - Barlow
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>
Kelly Court - SW Christian
<p>Debate: I want to be able to flow your debate. Speak clearly and not too fast. If I can't keep up with you, you will not win. Make sure to state your contentions clearly at the beginning and again as you move from point to point. Be polite. Pay attention while your opponents are speaking. I like a clean well organized debate. Have fun.</p> <p>Individual Events: Tournaments make for long days; I like to learn new things and to be entertained. Please refrain from swearing in your presentations. It is seldom necessary. I look forward to judging again this year.</p> <p> </p>
Kris Igawa - Beaverton
n/a
Larry Burke - Clackamas
Lisa Stewart - SW Christian
n/a
Marissa Bertucci - Gresham
n/a
Mr. Gurney - Centennial
n/a
Nagaraj Sathyanarayan - Sunset
Parent Lake O - Lake Oswego
n/a
Patrick Gonzales - Cleveland
Rachel Thompson - OCHS
n/a
Rachel Wilczewski - Barlow
n/a
Rachel Constans - Centennial
n/a
Rekha Rasiah - Sunset
Ryan Endsley - Barlow
n/a
Stacy Erickson - West Linn
Tracy Doebesh - Centennial
n/a
Trent Stewart - SW Christian
n/a