FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Adarsh Patra - Westview

Alana Bertram - Aloha

n/a

Alex Bernardo - Sprague

Alex Lianopoulos - Sprague

Allison Quarles - RPHS

n/a

Allison Faherty - WHS

n/a

Alyssa Razmus - Silverton

n/a

Alyssa Razmus - Blanchet HS

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.

Anna King - Sprague

Anushna Prakash - Westview

Ashley Leap - RPHS

n/a

Brian Gutowski - West Linn

Brooke Mischkot - Sprague

Caron Newman - Loggers

I am first and foremost a communications judge.  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.  Regardless of the type of debate, you must be clear and concise.  I do not like spreading; what’s the point if no one can understand you?  Remember, Aff must convince me there needs to be a change in CX.  I don’t appreciate the neg wasting time on T if it’s not really an issue.  The worst round I’ve ever judged spent 20 minutes arguing the definition of “its.”  If you are not arguing the resolution, it’s very difficult for me to vote for you.  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’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.  Finally, in all events, the cross weighs heavily in my decision-making.  I appreciate insightful questioning and clear answers.

Carson Patterson - Cleveland

Celina Patterson - Cleveland

n/a

Daniel Silberman - Sprague

David Curry - Sprague

Ellen Fields - Thurston

Frank Wang - Westview

Griffin Gonzales - Cleveland

Henry Fields - Thurston

Jason Miller - Glencoe

n/a

Jennifer Gruter - Clackamas

Jennifer Conner - Forest Grove

n/a

Joe Provencher - Lake O

n/a

John Watkins - Glencoe

n/a

Julie Nibler - Blanchet HS

n/a

June Gerst - Century

n/a

Ken Diener - Cleveland

Ken Beare - Westview

Kyle Webster - Cleveland

n/a

Leslie Kowash - Cleveland

Mark Reynolds - Cleveland

Michael Joseph - Cleveland

Monica Wright - Cleveland

Nizar Ajanovic - 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

2011 Sprague Invitational Debate