Judge Philosophies

Allen Roush - Sprague


Allen Roush - Clackamas


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&nbsp;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: &nbsp;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:&nbsp;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:&nbsp;&nbsp;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&#39;s definition is extremely skewed.</p> <p>PF: I don&#39;t flow PF, because I don&#39;t believe it is intended to be flowed in the same way as other debates. Otherwise, everything above applies.</p>


Amy Meabe - Wilson


Andrew Riley - Lincoln

n/a


Caron Newman - Loggers

<p>I am first and foremost a communications judge. &nbsp;That means that eye contact, respect for your opponent while he/she is speaking - not talking to your partner (to me, that is rude), inflection, and rate of speech are important. &nbsp;Regardless of the type of debate, you must be clear and concise. &nbsp;I do not like spreading; what&rsquo;s the point if no one can understand you? &nbsp;Remember, Aff must convince me there needs to be a change in CX. &nbsp;I don&rsquo;t appreciate the neg wasting time on T if it&rsquo;s not really an issue. &nbsp;The worst round I&rsquo;ve ever judged spent 20 minutes arguing the definition of &ldquo;its.&rdquo; &nbsp;If you are not arguing the resolution, it&rsquo;s very difficult for me to vote for you. &nbsp;For LD, I enjoy the philosophical portion as that was my minor in college. Try to stay away from policy jargon in LD; it doesn&rsquo;t fit. For parli, I expect you to answer questions instead of avoiding them and filling time that could be better spent responding to your opponent. &nbsp;Finally, in all events, the cross weighs heavily in my decision-making. &nbsp;I appreciate insightful questioning and clear answers.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p>


Cherie Gullerud - Corvallis

n/a


Cherie Gullerud - Crescent Valley


Connor Churchill - Sprague


Devon O&#039;Donnell - Sprague


Don Steiner - Wilson


Elaine Gesik - Sprague


Eric Samuelson - Lake Oswego

n/a


Jason Miller - Glencoe

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.


John Nelson - Sprague


June Gerst - Century

n/a


Justin Munoz - Tigard

n/a


Katy Walker - Century

n/a


Kehl van Winkle - Thurston


Liz Fetherston - Thurston

<p>You can find my philosophy and my decisions from last year in this google drive: tinyurl.com/debate-rfd</p> <p>TL;DR: I debate for UO. You won&#39;t go too fast or be too technical for me, but it&#39;s your game, so play it however you want.&nbsp; I recommend you still read the part about impacts in the philosophy.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Please email me at thurstonforensics@gmail.com if you have further questions or need clarification.</p>


MIchael Grainey - Blanchet HS

n/a


Meena Mishra - Westview


Melissa Lowry Sullivan - Southridge

n/a


Nate Kosboth - Sprague


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&#39;m judging, if you have firmly established your contentions and have time, then spreading ok w/o speed</p>


Paul Altotsky - Tigard

n/a


Peter Serrurier - Lincoln


Robyn Helwig - Sprague


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&#39;t fall asleep.&nbsp;</p>


Srinivasaulu Gubba - Westview


Susan McLain - Glencoe

n/a


Tracy Habecker - South


Trevor Ferris - Sprague