Judge Philosophies
Amanda Cagle - Lincoln
Amy Moss Strong - Bandon HS
n/a
Amy Laws - Ashland
n/a
Annalee Nock - Barlow
n/a
Anne Bridgman - Oak Hill
Annette Wade - Lincoln
BARB GARDENER - BUDC
n/a
Beau Woodward - Lakeridge
n/a
Ben Knobel - Coquille
n/a
Bin He - Lincoln
Brandon Johnson - SAHS
n/a
Cameron Nilles - OES
n/a
Caron Newman - BF
n/a
Cassie Hogland - Barlow
n/a
Catie Easter - Barlow
n/a
Chris Hogan - Marshfield HS
n/a
DAVE HENSHAW - BUDC
n/a
Dan Ryan - Jesuit
n/a
Daniel Houghtaling - Marshfield HS
n/a
David Jung - BC ACADEMY
n/a
Deborah Nicholls - El Dorado
<p>5th year Coach at El Dorado in Placerville California. I have judged every event at every level of competition. </p> <p>I love a good debate.When it comes to progressive stratagies( therory, K etc....) I am fine with them but slow down so I can get on the flow. A certain level of agressiveness is appreciated but rudeness is not. I do not like spreading, tag teaming, and or off time road maping. Please do not hesitate to ask any questions.</p>
Diane Roza - SMHS
n/a
Divya Prakash - Westview
Don Steiner - Wilson
Doug Sam - Cleveland
Eli Morgan-Steiner - Wilson
Emily Madden - Grants Pass
n/a
Emily Tribble - Westview
Eric Lowe - Wilson
n/a
Frank Mukaida - Marshfield HS
n/a
Geoff Lin-Cereghino - SMHS
n/a
Haley Guise - Ashland
n/a
Heidi Way - Grants Pass
n/a
Heidi Ford - Ashland
n/a
Holly Kilpatrick - Ashland
n/a
Ingrid Skoog - Oak Hill
Jack Hobbs - Summit
n/a
Jamaica Jones - Barlow
n/a
Janet Billups - Cleveland
Jen Card - Barlow
n/a
Jennifer Wagner - IVHS
n/a
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.
Jim Dewson - Cleveland
Joe Ryan - Jesuit
n/a
John Stump - Cleveland
Jordan Bohnlein - MVHS
n/a
Joseph Yaconelli - Ashland
n/a
Josh Scheirman - Marshfield HS
n/a
Karen Hobbs - Summit
n/a
Karen Armstrong - Glencoe Tide
Kathryn Liu - Lincoln
Katie Wilson - Lakeridge
n/a
Kayla Crook - Marshfield HS
n/a
Keegan Williams-Thomas - Cleveland
Kehl Van Winkle - Cleveland
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>
Kelsey Knobel - Coquille
n/a
Krishna Malladi - Westview
Kristen Sproul - Oak Hill
LAURA LIVINGSTON - BUDC
n/a
Lance Haberly - Siuslaw High
n/a
Laura Harvey - Jesuit
n/a
Laura Cowin - BSH
n/a
Lee Anna Jones - Lincoln
Lisa Reynolds - Lincoln
Liz Van Winkle - Cleveland
Luke Kuykendall - BF
n/a
Marissa Bertucci - Gresham
n/a
Mark Little - OES
n/a
Matt Enmark - Rio
n/a
Matt Karlsen - Cleveland
Matthew Johnson - Rio
n/a
Matthew Pyrc - Jesuit
n/a
Meena Mishra - Westview
Melaura Wittemeyr - Lincoln
Mike Freeman - Marshfield HS
n/a
Miles Stirewalt - Willamette
n/a
Nathan Helland - North Bend
n/a
Pamela Wolocsz - Ashland
n/a
Pat Johnson - Lakeridge
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 Cannon - Lincoln
Patrick Welch - BSH
n/a
Paul Altotsky - Tigard
n/a
Rachel Wilczewski - Barlow
n/a
Rob Bingham - Ashland
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>
Roger Williams-Thomas - Cleveland
Rose Wilson - Tillamook
n/a
Ross Burford - Summit
n/a
Ryan Endsley - Barlow
n/a
Sailee Clemens - Marshfield HS
n/a
Shawn Hampton - CLHS
n/a
Sophia Kim - BC ACADEMY
n/a
Srimanth Chinnam - Lincoln
Stephanie Gordon - Bandon HS
n/a
Stephen Kafoury - Cleveland
Steve Barth - Marist
n/a
Steve Barth - JCHS
n/a
Summer Ashley - Grants Pass
n/a
Susan McLain - Glencoe Tide
<p>I love all types of debate. CX, PF, PARLI, AND LD. I am a real world Policy Maker. I am always looking for good solid critical thinking, support ideas or evidence as per event style and type. I believe debate is a persuasive speaking event with strong developed arguments. I am happy to answer questions before round starts.</p> <p>Individual Events are all unique and interesting! I like to judge a variety of events! My extemp, impromptu, radio, oratory and interp speakers have all had strong showings over the years. I have coached for 43 years. Susan McLain</p>
Tori Marshall - Grants Pass
n/a
Tracy Muday - Marshfield HS
n/a
Trenten Gagnon - Bandon HS
n/a
Tristan Bentzinger - BF
n/a
Tyler Curtis - Bandon HS
n/a
Victoria Garcia - SAHS
n/a