FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Marineau - Wilson

n/a

Alex Lianopoulos - Sprague

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.

Anthony Ross - SAHS

n/a

Aujalee Fisher - Sprague

Austin Jones - Southridge

n/a

Ben Hynes-Stone - Silverton

n/a

Bradley Sands - Sprague

n/a

Brandon Johnson - SAHS

n/a

Brooke Mischkot - Sprague

Cameron Nilles - OES

n/a

Cary Doyle - Corvallis

n/a

Cecilia Mihaylo - SAHS

n/a

Chandrika Nimmagadda - Sunset

n/a

Charlie Brothersen - West Linn

n/a

Colette Cyr - Westview

n/a

Curtis Tsai - OES

n/a

Dalton Hellman - Westview

I look forward to judging rounds for everyone. Below is some of my judging philosophy. As always, feel free to ask specific questions in round if you have them. Background: 4 years competing in speech and debate in high school (Canby) 4 years competing in college (Mt. Hood CC and Boise State Univ.) Debated almost every format and will judge any format of debate. How I view rounds: The start of the round is your space. Use it how you want to. I have clean pieces of paper in front of me at the start of the round and that is how I judge. If you tell me something, it is on my paper. I will evaluate a round how you tell me to. I believe the debate space is yours to use how you want. I will listen to almost any argument and would consider myself pretty progressive for debate. I am alright with you running: Kritiks Plans Counter Plans Theory I am fine with speed. I feel like I keep up with almost anyone. If you are going fast and aren't clear then I will either stop writing or say clear. In the end, I want to see a good round with clash and lots or arguments. I evaluate theory first and foremost unless you tell me otherwise and then go to offensive arguments before defensive. As I said, if you have specific questions feel free to ask me. Thanks!

Dana Hawthorn - Tigard

n/a

Devon O'Donnell - Sprague

Don Steiner - Wilson

Ed Dennis - Westview

n/a

Emma Rosander - SAHS

n/a

Hannah Mathieson - Lake Oswego

n/a

Jennifer LeSieur - Clackamas

Jin Yang - Sunset

n/a

Jue Shi - Sunset

n/a

Julie Solomon - OES

n/a

Kate Moore - Franklin

n/a

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.

Laurel Eddins - Oak Hill

Lisa Casalino - OES

n/a

Lisa Hawking - Cleveland

Liz Weiler - Cleveland

n/a

MIchael Grainey - Blanchet HS

n/a

Matt Karlsen - Cleveland

Miles Stirewalt - Willamette

n/a

Nong Jin - Sunset

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

Prasad Sammidi - Westview

n/a

Radhika Sriram - Crescent Valley

Ravindra Venigalla - Sunset

n/a

Robyn Rose - Lake Oswego

n/a

Rohan Hiatt - Sunset

Sadie Efraimson - SAHS

n/a

Sanjay Deshmukh - Sunset

Satish Balusa - Sunset

Sean McKean - Thurston

Experience Policy Debate (2009-2013): Tualatin High School Parli (2013- Current): University of Oregon Coach at Thurston High School. General Overveiw: I tend to be down with anything you want to read in front of me, I believe that it is my job to adapt to you and the arguments you want to read not your job to adapt to me. I am not going to tell you what to or not to read in front of me or reject your arguments on face. I tend to prefer more technical debates where you explain to me how all of the relevant arguments interact at the end of the round over just extending them and making me try to figure it out myself at the end. I want to be able to write my RFD at the end of the round by sticking as much as possible to the flow without having to insert my own analysis, this means I want you to write my RFD for me, tell me why I should vote a particular way at the end of the round. I am fine with speed/ tag-team cross-ex, for paper-less I stop prep when the USB is removed from your computer. Now on to some more specific stuff, Impacts are the big one for me, I don't care what impacts you are reading or what framework (Ontology, Methodology, Util, ect.) you are using, but I NEED you to explain to me the interaction between your impacts and theirs, I don't want to have to be the arbritrator of what impacts outweigh each other at the end of the round without any analysis from you. This is especially important if your impacts operate within different frameworks, I don't know how to weigh extinction v value to life debates if you don't explain to me how one outweighs the other. If I am not provided with an alternative framework I default to utilitarianism. Theory/ T: I read a lot of theory in high school, and still do some in college so I am pretty much able to follow what is going on in complex theory debates, although I would prefer that you slow down a bit when spreading theory since it is more condensed and harder to flow. I evalutate theory just like any other argument, which means I am probably more likley to vote on it than most judges if you go for it correctly, using an offense/ defense paradigm. In order to win theory in front of me you are going to need to impact it out and explain what it means for the round. (IE just because they dropped your Consult CP's are illegit argument doesn't mean you insta-win if you don't give me some reason why that theory argument results in a ballot, not just me dropping the CP). CP's: I don't believe in judge conditionality, that means that if you go for the CP in the 2NR I won't kick it for you if the aff wins a perm or a DA to the CP. Besides that I am down with whatever CP you want to read, I think that competing through net benefits is just as legit as being mutually exclusive. I default aff on presumption if the debate comes down to CP v plan, you need to win that your CP is for some reason better than the plan not just that it solves equally as well. K's: I am down with whatever K you want to throw at me, and am somewhat versed in the lit, but don't just assume that I have read every book written by your K author and am some sort of scholar on the subject. When in doubt default to explaining what your argument is saying rather than just giving me tag line extensions. I tend to prefer more specific links to the aff and explanations of how the K works with the aff than simply "they use the state," but that does not mean I won't listen to your more generic K's. I prefer a good explanation of what your alternative does over simply reading the tag line and telling me it solves. K affs: Most of what I said above applies here, I am down with reading kritikal affs and I think that reading non-topical affs or affs without a plan text can be a defendable position. I do think that the aff needs some kind of advocacy statement, if it isn't a plan text, that tells me what I am voting for. DA's: DA's are DA's there isn't much more to say, either read them with a CP or explain how they interact with case.   If you have any more specific questions, or are confused by this feel free to ask me questions in round.

2016 Sprague Invitational Debate