2019 NIET District 2 Qualifier

Mt Hood Community College - Mar 2 | Status: Completed

Profile Image
  Home   Contact Tournament   Schedule   Registration   Entries   Headquarters   Postings   Results

Judge Philosophies

Daniel Broyles - Pac U

n/a

Erika Hein - LCC

n/a

Evan Steele - OSU

n/a

Glenn John Cervantes - LCC

n/a

Jennifer Conner - Pac U

I am a communication judge that prioritizes persuasiveness. I do flow debates, but I will stop flowing if speakers speed or spread.

Jennifer Capell - LCC

n/a

Joe Gantt - Lewis & Clark

 

Lilly Huynh Broyles - Pac U

n/a

Mike Catlos - Lewis & Clark

 

Rebecca Pickner - LCC

Bio
I competed in collegiate forensics from 20162017, where I participated in debate, limited prep, plaftorm, and interp. Since my time as a competitor, I have remained actively involved with my former team as a judge and supportive role model and mentor. My academic journey has been focused in Psychology and the Art of Teaching. My background in both forensics and education informs my judging philosophy, with an emphasis on clarity, growth, and meaningful communication.

Debate (IPDA / Parli / LD)
I value the educational opportunities that stem from debate above all else. I prioritize rounds where I can clearly follow the argumentation and walk away with a deeper understanding of the topic.

What I look for in a successful debater:

  • Clear flow and organization: Roadmaps, taglines, and signposting are essential. I should always know where you are in your argument.

  • Evidence-based claims: Logic is important, but claims supported by clear, relevant evidence are significantly more persuasive.

  • Clarity over jargon: Given my strong IPDA background, I prefer arguments that are clearly explained without excessive jargon. Your goal should be to communicate effectively, not to overwhelm.

Ultimately, I reward debaters who engage directly with their opponents, explain their arguments thoroughly, and prioritize accessibility and education in the round.

Platform Events
Delivery and intentionality are key in platform speaking. While your speech may not have extreme peaks and valleys, strong vocal enunciation and clarity go a long way.

What I value:

  • Purposeful gestures and movement: Walking points and gestures should feel natural and enhance your message.

  • Intentional use of visual aids: If you include a visual element, it should clearly add to your speech rather than distract from it.

  • Time usage: I would rather see a speech go 510 seconds over time than fall significantly short of the expected length.

  • Substantive solvency: If your speech proposes solutions, I want to see realistic, well-developed impacts rather than surface-level ideas.

Limited Preparation Events (Impromptu / Extemp)
In limited prep events, organization and balance are essential.

My expectations:

  • Answer the prompt fully: Stay focused and ensure your response directly addresses the question.

  • Clear structure: A roadmap is important so I can easily follow your points.

  • Balanced development: Spend a relatively equal amount of time on each main point.

  • Fresh examples: If I have judged you before, I expect to hear new or expanded support. Recycling is acceptable, but growth is expected.

Interpretation Events
I appreciate performances that are intentional, dynamic, and thoughtfully constructed.

What I look for:

  • Strong attention grabber: Your introduction sets the toneuse it intentionally and make it count.

  • Purposeful use of research: Any research included should clearly support the thesis of your piece.

  • Emotional and tonal variation: Your performance should have peaks and valleys. I am not a fan of one-note pieces.

  • Content awareness: I believe trigger warnings are important and should be used thoughtfully. If you are unsure whether your piece requires one, consult a coach to ensure the audience and judges are properly prepared.

Ryan Rhoades - Carroll

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!


Una Kimokeo-Goes - Linfield

n/a