FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

- Lincoln

Policy Debate Paradigm I am the policy debate coach for Lincoln High School in Portland, OR.  I was a policy/LD debater for Lincoln High School and CEDA debater for The American University in Washington, DC. Upon graduation, I returned to coach the American CEDA program for three more years. After a long hiatus, I’ve been called back to the activity that I love.   Debate is awesome! But … it’s only as good as we, as a community, make it. I am coming back to the activity to make sure that it continues for future generations. Teams that disrespect their opponent, or this activity, will be dealt with severely on my ballot. Integrity is not something to trifle with for short-term strategic benefits.  <ol> <li>Stand during speaking times, unless you’re medically unable.</li> <li>Homophobic, racist, religiously intolerant, or sexist language and/or behavior will not be tolerated.</li> <li>Rudeness, dishonesty, cruelty and vulgarity devalues the activity.</li> <li>Have fun! Strive for creativity, humor, debate scholarship, humility, compassion, and being strategic.</li> </ol>   Stylistic Overview <ol> <li>CLASH!</li> <li>Quality over quantity. Just because I can handle a faster round doesn't mean that it impresses me.</li> <li>Smart analytics is always better than lazy warrantless evidence.</li> <li>Debates about evidence QUALITY and CONTEXT are to be encouraged!  </li> <li>I am ok with tag teaming during cross ex so long as it provides greater clarity and isn’t abused.</li> <li>So long as it’s not a new case, advantage/scenario or neg position. The negative and affirmative positions should be disclosed pre round, if asked.</li> <li>If asked, evidence must be made available to the opposition.</li> <li>Prep stops when the flash leaves your computer.</li> <li>Provide a clear decision-making calculus judge from the start throughout the round and please do all of the impact analysis for me.</li> <li> I believe one or two prestandards (a propri) arguments are sufficient, anything more and I lean towards abuse.</li> </ol>   Positions Kritiks I’m more than open to them. But know that I’d probably rather judge just about anything … than a postmodernism debate. Even if you argued this in front of me 5 times this season, debate a K as if I’ve never heard the topic before. Topicality/theory debates Slow down for clarity, these debates tend to be nuanced.  Try to limit these positions to only abusive situation Disadvantages Not shockingly, case specific disads are better than generic. Counterplans Competition is key. Aff leaning on Conditionality. Legit perms must include all of plan and part of the counter plan.   I will try to judge whatever you want, within reason, so long as you justify it.

Adil Alhjaj - Southridge

n/a

Ajit Deosthali - Westview

Alex Parini - Wilson

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.  What I like to see: • 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.  • 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.  • 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.  • 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.) • 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.  • 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. • 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.

Alexis Reynolds - Sprague

Allen Roush - Oak Hill

As of 2/16/15 this is "finished" (and riddled with conventions errors that I can't say that I especially care about) Feel free to E-mail me with questions about my philsophy or debate in general to aroush@uoregon.edu. I might even help you out with argumentation if you ask :)      Background: 3 Years of speech/debate in H.S. at Clackamas High School. 2 Years of CX, Attended Nationals in CX and broke deep at state both years I did it. I was partners with Alexander Parini. We;re good friends IRL, even thought I believe his debate philsophy makes him a dirty facist. (and yes, I have his conset to refer to him in this fashion)  Currently compete in NPDA Parli for the University of Oregon with Daniel Silberman. We just got our NPTE qual's too (woot!)  My thoughts on debate are fairly specific to CX. I do not know where I feel about the other events yet and will write seperate philsophies when I feel that I have figured out how I feel about args (LD will hopefully be figured out soon)    FIrst and foremost, I am a tab judge (unlike my slightly more facist H.S. Debate Partner). I do not believe that I should tell other competitors how to adapt to me. I believe that I, as the judge, should adapt and listen to whatever arguments are presented by the debaters. My only request is that debaters 1. Slow down a little bit on tags to make sure I flow them correctly (And not be mad if I have to ask for clarification after the speech)  2. Assume that I do not know the lit on your K/K Aff and be ready to explain the thesis, especially in the 2AC/2NC so that I can fairly evaluate them 3. Understand that I have not debated on the Ocean topic and am not super well read on the lit around it and to ask debaters to explain terms of art and acronyms accordingly.    I also realize that I have pre-concieved notions about what debate *should* look like based on my own experiences. While I try to divorce myself from letting these go into play while I judge, I do not believe that I can fully and compleatly divorce my way of thinking from how I judge a round. Thus, I believe it is my obligation to list some of my own positions and beliefs about arguments. I will list these thoughts for the benefit of the debaters that I judge so that they understand where I come from.  I might use discourse within the rest of this philsophy that implies that I especially want debaters to conform to how I think debate should operate. Please do not interpret what I say as such. I simply believe that explaining how I feel about positions is my ethical duty as a debate judge.    K: I didn't get to read them nearly as much as I would have liked to in High School. I enjoy the arguments, and think that most K's are legit. I dislike "you use the state" and link of omissions when ran by themselves without more specific links. I also dislike Utopian alt's like "Alternative is to destroy capitalism" (especially since most K's kritik Fiat in the first place). I am especially a fan of Foucault and Threat Con style args, as well as classic Marx.    Also, I want to hear some Ballot-Commidification bad args this year.    CP: I get surprsingly "debate conservative" with the CP. I think that the Delay, Consult, and Condo (as in, do plan on condition other party does XXX, not the status of Conditionality) CP's are usually not legit. I also tend to think that "Perm shields the link" makes most advantage CP's a waste of time, or at least suspect since they can frequently give the aff free solvency on their advantages with the perm. I think that Mutual Exclsuivity is the gold standard of competition in most circumstances but understand that this is nearly impossible on most affs. I advice aff teams to read theory vs CP's that they don't believe to be legit because I think that theory is the only thing that checks back against abusive stuff like this.    DA: Specificity of Links makes me more likely to assess the risk of the MPX. A spending DA with the link of just "You spend lots of money and that's bad because *insert some I/L story and Royal 10 to get a free nuclear war impact*" is not as strong as "We will isolate multiple links. 1. You spend 200 billion dollars which is a lot of money 2. There's no perception that said amount of money will be spent at all. and 3. Even if you win that there's perception that a large amount of money is spent like that, doing it outside of a standard Budget hearing in congress is especially bad Also, 4. We're on the brink! Some *insert Heritige Foundation BS article* says that spending EXACTLY 200 billion dollars will mean that buisness's will collapse." The second scenario has the benefit of not being answered with a link-thumper like "Well we spent 700 billion in 2009 for the economic recovery and nothing happend so you're DA is full of it."    I understand that having long and well thought out link/brink stories also shows how I feel about conditionality. I tend to like Depth over Bredth and enjoy nuances and specificity of the analysis within a position rather than the Bredth over Depth type strategicly kicking positions and using time-skews to win kind of rounds. I do not intrinsically believe that Bredth over Depth is bad, I just prefer Depth over Bredth.  I also believe that Terminal Impact Defense DOES exist and that this can be effectivly used vs "outlandish" impacts (such as Nuclear War or Warming). Feel free to make those arguments and implore me to vote on probability over magnitude. Politics DA's  Nice and generic. I went for these more than anything else in HS (And regret it). I (again) like link specificity and multiple levels of links. I also believe that ptx is one of the few ways for teams to do well in lay districts with topics that are aff sided (and this one sure as hell is). I do not like theory that says ptx is bad for this reason.  I think aff teams need to be more willing to use thumpers and "PC is wrong" rather than trying to win the often muddy debates of UQ. Also, impact turns are creative and especially pertinent to the bills that are currently being read in ptx (Keystone, TPP, Cuba).    Topicality  Not much to say here. I tend to automatically prefer USFG definitions on topics of the USFG unless told otherwise (I think a card from the Department of Transportation defeining Transportation Infrastructure is VERY strong rather than some person from MSNBC defining it in an article.)  I have no problems with RVI's (especially on K affs being hit by it). T's not a fun debate to have but key to check back a lot of squirely affs.  Aff's that are obviously extra-T or FX-T should read that both of those are good rather than trying to win a no-link arg that you're simply on the wrong side of.  I have trouble with Substantial T because the definitions of Substantial are almost never contextual and subjective af.    Theory  If you read no-neg fiat in any round I'm in I will automatically give you 0.5 more speaker points than I would have normally done.  I like theory debates. No real prefrences here except a slight disposition towards aff on questions of condo good or bad. Also, tell me to evaluate T or Theory first in rounds where they're both read.    Performance  Please no Perf-Cons... It makes it easier to engage and vote on a performance or performative act without questioning it's authenticity and possibly having to interviene.  I think Identity Politics (and this goes for the K) style args have more weight when ran uncondo for this exact reason.    How to get better speaker points: Make refrence to one or more of the following in your speech: Kill la Kill, Ghost in the Shell, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Space Dandy, Subbed anime being better than Dubbed, Video Games of any sort (but especially PC Master-Race stuff), Saying "Gut Check" in a snarky fashion, Comparing stock issues to a table being held up by legs, Thievery Corporation song lyrics, making bad puns related to the topic, being MLG and using fresh and Dank memes.  How to get better speaker points for real:  1. Conceding the round (for reasons related to a performance, K, etc), 2. Appealing to me to give better speaks for other reasons (Similar to the 0-6 TOC team with perfect 30's and the micropolitical impact of that), 3. Not using problematic discourse (Not gendering your opponenets etc).    Final Notes:  I may (inbetween speeches) ask to have tag lines clarified for my flow. I do not take prep time during this and believe that this is good for everyone involved.  I am fine with tag-team CX and will not penalize you under (almost) any circumstances for doing that.  I will not time flashing.  I will disclose all rounds at all non OSAA tournaments at the end of the round. For the slightly more facist types of tournaments, I will be willing to "discuss" the round with people right after turning in my ballot.  Finally, I might judge people I have competed against while I was debating. Despite any personal conflicts I might have with debaters in a round, I strongly believe that I am ethically obliged to evaluate the round as objectivly as possible and will do everything possible to not be influenced by any past history. AKA: If you're going to trash-talk a decision I make after the round because you feel that I have voted based on personal history rather than what happend in the round, Don't. I'm fine with you disliking me as a judge if you choose to go down that route. I am NOT fine with you believing that I made a decision based on personal conflicts-of-intrest. If I at some point believe that I might be at risk of making a decision like that, I will attempt to excuse myself from accepting that ballot in the first place.

Allison Quarles - RPHS

n/a

Amber Manning - Tigard

n/a

Ameena Amdahl-Mason - Clackamas

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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Andrew Morgan - Tillamook

n/a

Audrey Umber - Canby

n/a

Autumn Rouse - Sunset

Ben Hynes-Stone - Silverton

n/a

Benjamin Agre - Cleveland

Bill Allen - Tillamook

n/a

Brandon Johnson - SAHS

n/a

Brooke Abbruzzese - Lincoln

Carolyn Hill - Nestucca

n/a

Carrie Strecker - Neah-Kah-Nie

n/a

Casiopeia Friberg - OCHS

n/a

Chen Liu - Southridge

n/a

Christopher Keller - Liberty HS

n/a

Courtney Walsh - MHS

n/a

Dana Maben - Tillamook

n/a

Dave Schaefer - Nestucca

n/a

David Curry - Sprague

Don Steiner - Wilson

Eileen Stone - Cleveland

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!

Elizabeth Hulick - Sunset

Eric Abbruzzese - Lincoln

Erik Johannes - OES

n/a

Frank Selker - Lincoln

Henry Phipps - Lincoln

Holly Shilling - Cleveland

Jane Berry-Eddings - Sprague

Janet Satter - Tillamook

n/a

Jason Miller - Lake Oswego

n/a

Jaymie Leach - Redmond

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.

Joe Miller - Southridge

n/a

John Van Vleet - Wilson

John Stump - Cleveland

Jonathan Miller - Oak Hill

Kate Schweitzer - West Linn

Kathy Liu - Westview

Kathy Lloyd - Lake Oswego

n/a

Katie Kantrowitz - Silverton

n/a

Keith Eddins - Oak Hill

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.

Kelly Court - SW Christian

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. 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.

Ken Beare - Westview

Kim Hainley - Clackamas

Kimber Wassmer - Tillamook

n/a

Kris Igawa - Beaverton

n/a

Lindi Watson - Cleveland

Lisa Stewart - SW Christian

n/a

Lisa Reynolds - Lincoln

Lorraine Converse - West Linn

n/a

Mark Little - OES

n/a

Mary Stayer - Lake Oswego

n/a

Matt Schweitzer - West Linn

Matthew Compton - MHS

n/a

McMinnville Parent - MHS

n/a

Michael Curry - Sprague

For all forms of debate: BE NICE! Be nice to me. Be nice to your opponent. Be nice to your partner. There is no money on the table, so don't act like there is. Speech and Debate is one of the most important things you do as a human being. So help make this wonderful activity accessible to all! Public Forum 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. 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. Parliamentary Debate 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. LDV Debate 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.

Mitra Anoushiravan - Lake Oswego

n/a

Molly Schulze - Willamette

n/a

Nicholas Schnieder - BSH

n/a

Olivia Wall - Sprague

Patrick Johnson - Westview

Real world arguments win- theoretical/improbable impacts do not Comparative impacts critical for a win Topicality is legit, again, only for real world probability CLASH! and signpost where your arguments clash with opponents AND why your impact is more significant No tagteam when prohibited 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

Patrick Leahy - SAHS

n/a

Patrick Welch - BSH

n/a

Paul Altotsky - Tigard

n/a

Penny Serrurier - Lincoln

Peter Sprengelmeyer - South

Prafulla Deuskar - Sunset

Ramata Adebawo - Westview

Robyn Rose - Lake Oswego

n/a

SAHS Parent #1 - SAHS

n/a

SAHS Parent #2 - SAHS

n/a

Sarah Foster - Westview

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.

Scott Bailey - Tillamook

n/a

Srinivasaulu Gubba - Westview

Steve Barth - Marist

n/a

Stewart Reed - Southridge

n/a

Thomas Weiser - Sunset

Tom Lininger - South

Run anything.  I am a flow judge.  Speed is fine.  Have fun and don't be rude.  I have taught debate and other subjects (mostly law) at the University of Oregon.  I used to be a policy debater back in the day.

2015 OCHS Invitational