Judge Philosophies
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>
Andrew Nock - Barlow
n/a
Andrew Morgan - Tillamook
n/a
Audrey Umber - Canby
n/a
Autumn Rouse - Sunset
Ben Mann - Wilson
<p>Hey there! I’m the Assistant Speech and Debate Coach at Wilson High School.</p> <p> </p> <p>I competed in high school for a year at West Linn mainly focused on LD and IEs (Oratory, Impromptu, Radio, Prose, etc). Afterwards, I judged off and on at high school tournaments for the past three years. Currently, I’m a senior at Lewis & Clark College competing in college parliamentary debate and IEs along with coaching Wilson.</p> <p> </p> <p>Regardless of the event, I fundamentally believe you should compete in whatever way you feel most comfortable and I should adapt to you rather than the other way around. In debate, I generally value substance over style (the arguments you make over the way you deliver them). IEs are more of a balance between the strength of the piece and delivery. While I try to be as open as possible, I do have tendencies for specific debate formats which are as follows:</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>CX</strong></p> <p>Speed is fine, just give me a little pen time between positions to finish flowing. Slow down with plan/counterplan/alt texts. Prep time starts once you’ve put in the flash drive. Theory is fine – I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. K’s are good and I’m familiar with a lot of the classics (Cap, Nietzsche, Fem, etc) but explain obscure ones to me a little more. I’m neutral on most theory (condo, PICs, delay, framework, etc) and open to arguments on both sides as long as they have voters. Counterplans don’t need to be textually competitive or mutually exclusive if you show how they compete through net-benefits as the best policy option. I don’t need to see evidence unless you cite something that sounds blatantly counterfactual. Theory as an RVI is an uphill battle for my ballot.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>LD</strong></p> <p>Make sure to ground your contentions and rebuttals in your value and criterion. Some of the strongest LDers either explain why their value/criterion outweighs or explain why affirming or negating the resolution is preferable regardless of the value/criterion. Warrants, empirics, and logic get you far with me.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Parli</strong></p> <p>Most things said in CX apply here: I default to net-benefits, counterplans, kritks, and theory are fine (I default to competing interpretations and am neutral on theory). Though I’m not outright against fact and value debates, I strongly feel policy provides the greatest fairness and education and that a policy lens can be extracted from value and fact-oriented resolutions. If you’re affirmative on a policy topic, PLEASE read a plan text.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong>Public Forum</strong></p> <p>Of course, I value delivery more in this event. Aff should provide a clear weighing mechanism for the round and structured contentions will get you far with me. Please be respectful during crossfire.</p> <p> </p> <p>If you have any questions about my judging philosophy, feel free to email me at <a href="mailto:mannb@lclark.edu">mannb@lclark.edu</a>. Happy competing!</p>
Bob Frentress - Cleveland
Carl Crowell - Sprague
Carolyn Hill - Nestucca
n/a
Casiopeia Friberg - OCHS
n/a
Cassie Passon - OCHS
n/a
Cindy Foster - Aloha1
n/a
Clarissa Jones - Southridge
n/a
Courtney Walsh - MHS
n/a
Crystal Haenggi - Tillamook
n/a
Célina Patterson - Cleveland
Dakota Winslow - Silverton
n/a
Darby Ipock - Lincoln
Dave Schaefer - Nestucca
n/a
Dave Flagan - Redmond
n/a
Don Steiner - Wilson
Dwight Siewert - Westview
Erik Pringle - SW Christian
Faith Kempf - HCS
Genevieve Athens - Cleveland
Hiro Nukaga - Tualatin
n/a
Ilima Considine - Southridge
n/a
Jakob Gowell - MHS
n/a
Jan Bosson - West Linn
Jane Berry-Eddings - Sprague
Jason Miller - Glencoe
n/a
Jennifer Conner - Forest Grove
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.
Jimmy Nguyen - Westview
John Gilligan - West Linn
John Nelson - OCHS
n/a
Jonathan Estey - Hood River
<p>I expect debaters to speak clearly (CX debaters: if you spread, I will stop flowing), express themselves with minimal jargon, use clear roadmaps and signposting, and generally maintain the communicative and educational value of the debate.</p> <p>I expect arguments to be civilly presented, have clear organization & sructure, and use reasonable impacts (CX debaters: if you make an extinction impact, I will drop your ad/disad from the flow). I expect evidence to be concise, well-explained, and chosen carefully for its relevance to the debate (i.e. don't just read a bunch of long cards).</p> <p>I accept kritiks in Parli, LD, and CX, if and only if they are legitimate and worthwhile additions to the scope of the debate (rather than an attempt to weasel out of debating the actual topic). I accept unconditional counterplans and kritiks; I do not accept conditional ones -- if you introduceeither one as Neg, you should be prepared to defend it!</p>
Judy Davis - Barlow
n/a
Julie Siewert - Westview
Kari Hampton - Barlow
n/a
Kathleen Kessinger - SW Christian
Kathy Yoke - Tigard
n/a
Katie Kantrowitz - Silverton
n/a
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
Kristin Wilson - Barlow
n/a
Larry Burke - Clackamas
Lee Anna Jones - Lincoln
Leslie Dailey - Cleveland
Lisa Kaplan - Cleveland
Lisa Stewart - SW Christian
n/a
Logan Gilstrap - OCHS
n/a
M Griffiths - Lake Oswego
n/a
MIchael Grainey - Blanchet HS
n/a
Mackenzie DeLong - Aloha1
n/a
Mark Zimtbaum - Franklin
n/a
Mary Stayer - Lake Oswego
n/a
Matt Compton - Tigard
n/a
Matthew Yasuoka - Forest Grove
n/a
Melissa Lowry Sullivan - Southridge
n/a
Melissa Wyman - Cleveland
Melissa Bickle - Hood River
n/a
Michael Curry - Sprague
<p>For all forms of debate: <strong>BE NICE!</strong> Be nice to me. Be <strong>nice</strong> to your opponent. Be <strong>nice</strong> to your partner. There is no money on the table, so don't act like there is. <em><strong>Speech and Debate is one of the most important things you do as a human being.</strong></em> So help make this wonderful activity accessible to all!<br /> <br /> <strong>Public Forum</strong><br /> I expect cases to reflect the speaking expectations of event. 4 minutes of information presented in 4 minutes of time. I see my role as evaluating what you feel is important and would be worth speaking about, listening, and learning about. That being said, I do need clear signposting. The cleaner my flow, the more legitimate decision I can make. I expect to see impacts accessed in the round. If I have my way, all I have to do is look at the flow and weigh Aff world versus Neg world.<br /> I would like to make my decision solely off of the arguments first. If necessary, I may have to fill in some gaps . . . but I'd like to avoid this. If the debate is very messy on the flow, or lacks impacts, then and only then would I look to speaking style as a way to render a decision.<br /> <br /> <strong>Parliamentary Debate</strong><br /> In a parli round I see my role as a non-intervening policy maker who is accustomed to, but doesn't necessarily require, stock issues as a part of the presentation. It's weird I know, but I don't think any one judge fits squarely into any one paradigm. More importantly, I would like to base my decision on the best arguments in the round. My need for some stock issues is more an acknowledgement that there should be some common expectation amongst the debaters about what to run. I do tend to policy make more often then stock issue, but I do presume Neg to an extent. Still, a bad Neg case will always lose to a better Aff, even if the Aff doesn't fulfill all its burdens. Unlike many of my Oregonian peers, I am very much in favor of teaching policy and theory arguments in parli debate. For me, especially considering that Neg's prep time is almost useless, providing the Neg with offensive opportunities is necessary. I do expect off case arguments to be run correctly. The #1 reason why I rarely vote (for example) on T is because elementary facets of the shell are missing, lack of impacts, or a general misunderstanding of what the argument even is. If you have me for a judge, don't run off case just for its own sake. I have a high threshold for pulling the trigger on a procedural, or a K. So be wise in these arguments' applications. My opinion on speed is the same for Parli as it is for Public Forum in one area. I expect both first constructives to be delivered at a reasonable speed. If I have a clean flow at the beginning, then I can place responses properly once the pace picks up. I still don't want spreading, but I get it that the Aff needs to move at a quick pace in order to cover the flow prior to and after the Neg block. I expect arguments that are complete. Good link stories. Weighable impacts. Voting issues in the rebuttals. No tag teaming when questions are presented. Also, THERE IS NO RULE IN OREGON ABOUT ONLY HAVING 3 QUESTIONS!!! If you say "I'll take the first of three questions," I will weigh that against you. Take the questions if the opponent has been asking good questions. I won't blame you if you don't because the questions haven't been probing. Ideally, I want to weigh the round on impacts. I like comparing Aff and Neg worlds. If necessary, I may have to fill in some gaps in order to render a verdict . . . but I'd like to avoid this. If the debate is very messy on the flow, or lacks impacts, then and only then would I look to speaking style as a way to render a decision.<br /> <br /> <strong>LDV Debate</strong><br /> In an LD round I see my role as a non-intervening judge who wants to leave the direction of the round open as much as possible to what the debaters bring to the table. LDV is wide open for me in many regards. In Oregon, I value the V/C debate and would love all communication at a reasonable speed. Yet, we travel to some circuit tournaments on the West Coast, so of course I enjoy seeing the diversity of policy and framework arguments. So here's what would make my decision more legitimate. In regards to the case, run what you believe is worth speaking about, listening about, and learning about. Chances are really good that you know some stuff I don't. You are really focusing on this topic, and I have to teach classes, grade assignments, and raise my two sons. So you have the information advantage. You are going to have to educate me and sell me on whatever you are running. One point that is very important: I'm a smart guy. I'll get it only if you are proficient at delivering it. If I "didn't understand" your position, it's probably because you failed to adequately explain it. I do need clear signposting. I do need the constructives to be at medium speed. I find most people who spread are bad at it for a number of reasons. But the impact is devastating: I will have a messy flow. If you can give me a clear beginning, then you can pick up the pace in the rebuttals, and I can flow it better. I like to compare Aff and Neg worlds. I like to do this weighing with impacts. I would like to be able to base my decision off of the flow. If necessary, I may have to fill in some gaps in order to render a verdict . . . but I'd like to avoid this. If the debate is very messy on the flow, or lacks impacts, then and only then would I look to speaking style as a way to render a decision.</p>
Michelle Jenck - Tillamook
n/a
Olivia Hering - Glencoe
n/a
Patrick Johnson - Westview
<p>Real world arguments win- theoretical/improbable impacts do not</p> <p>Comparative impacts critical for a win</p> <p>Topicality is legit, again, only for real world probability</p> <p>CLASH! and signpost where your arguments clash with opponents AND why your impact is more significant</p> <p>No tagteam when prohibited</p> <p>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</p>
Patrick Leahy - SAHS
n/a
Patrick Welch - BSH
n/a
Patrick Cannon - Lincoln
Paul Altotsky - Tigard
n/a
Riley Johnston - Silverton
n/a
Robert Crawford - PEHS
<p> In all events, I expect adherance to classic public speaking values--crisp enunciation and good projection, eye contact, confident posture and controlled movement, and a sense of sincere commitment to the truth, whether the truth of your position in debate events or the truth of your selection in IE's.</p> <p> I judge Public and Public Forum debate forms. In both, I am a "communications" judge. I feel the opportunity to speed-read briefs, rattle away in arcane debate jargon, and demand specific outcomes from judges is offered in OTHER debate forms, so in these I expect attention to oratorical skills, the art of persuasion, and cogent argument centered on a common-sense interpretation of the resolution. I expect full engagement with that common-sense interpretation on both sides, rather than evasive attempts to shift the ground under the judge's feet--this means clarity and clash.</p>
Robert Reusser - Sunset
Robyn Rose - Lake Oswego
n/a
Rose Wilson - Tillamook
n/a
Sarah Foster - Westview
<p>This is your round. Do what you want to do in all debates. I will believe anything that you want me to but you have to make me believe it. Sign post well. I NEED to know where you are going so that I don't fall asleep. </p>
Sharon Beinlich - Lincoln
Sheila Thieme - Southridge
n/a
Stacy Bender - Barlow
n/a
Star Kacmarsky - Tillamook
n/a
Stephen McClanahan - Silverton
n/a
Steve Barth - Marist
n/a
Suhas Kurse - Westview
Susan McLain - Glencoe
n/a
Todd Bofferding - HCS
n/a
Tracy Tingwall - Lake Oswego
n/a
Trent Stewart - SW Christian
n/a
Wendy Gallamore - Southridge
n/a
Whitney Johnson - Tualatin
n/a
Yanwen Chen - Southridge
n/a
Ye Li - Westview
laurie thom - Redmond
n/a