FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Alan Joynson - Tillamook

n/a

Alex Sisca - West Linn

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 Riley - Lincoln

n/a

Andrew Morgan - Tillamook

n/a

Anna YOUNG - Centennial

n/a

Audrey Umber - Canby

n/a

Ben Mann - Wilson

Hey there! I’m the Assistant Speech and Debate Coach at Wilson High School.   I competed in high school for a year at West Linn mainly focused on LD and IEs (Oratory, Impromptu, Radio, Prose, etc). Afterwards, I judged off and on at high school tournaments for the past three years. Currently, I’m a senior at Lewis & Clark College competing in college parliamentary debate and IEs along with coaching Wilson.   Regardless of the event, I fundamentally believe you should compete in whatever way you feel most comfortable and I should adapt to you rather than the other way around. In debate, I generally value substance over style (the arguments you make over the way you deliver them). IEs are more of a balance between the strength of the piece and delivery. While I try to be as open as possible, I do have tendencies for specific debate formats which are as follows:   CX Speed is fine, just give me a little pen time between positions to finish flowing. Slow down with plan/counterplan/alt texts. Prep time starts once you’ve put in the flash drive. Theory is fine – I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. K’s are good and I’m familiar with a lot of the classics (Cap, Nietzsche, Fem, etc) but explain obscure ones to me a little more. I’m neutral on most theory (condo, PICs, delay, framework, etc) and open to arguments on both sides as long as they have voters. Counterplans don’t need to be textually competitive or mutually exclusive if you show how they compete through net-benefits as the best policy option. I don’t need to see evidence unless you cite something that sounds blatantly counterfactual. Theory as an RVI is an uphill battle for my ballot.   LD Make sure to ground your contentions and rebuttals in your value and criterion. Some of the strongest LDers either explain why their value/criterion outweighs or explain why affirming or negating the resolution is preferable regardless of the value/criterion. Warrants, empirics, and logic get you far with me.   Parli Most things said in CX apply here: I default to net-benefits, counterplans, kritks, and theory are fine (I default to competing interpretations and am neutral on theory). Though I’m not outright against fact and value debates, I strongly feel policy provides the greatest fairness and education and that a policy lens can be extracted from value and fact-oriented resolutions. If you’re affirmative on a policy topic, PLEASE read a plan text.   Public Forum Of course, I value delivery more in this event. Aff should provide a clear weighing mechanism for the round and structured contentions will get you far with me. Please be respectful during crossfire.   If you have any questions about my judging philosophy, feel free to email me at <a href="mailto:mannb@lclark.edu">mannb@lclark.edu</a>. Happy competing!

Benjamin Agre - Cleveland

Brian Mann - Southridge

n/a

Brianne Williams - Cleveland

Carolyn Hill - Nestucca

n/a

Chris Selker - Lincoln

Clarissa Jones - Southridge

n/a

Colleen Neary - Nestucca

n/a

Dave Schaefer - Nestucca

n/a

Don Steiner - Wilson

Dwight Siewert - Westview

Eric Samuelson - Lake Oswego

n/a

Evan Ford - Cleveland

Heidi Graumann - Westview

Jan Bosson - West Linn

Janet Billups - Cleveland

Jason Miller - Glencoe

n/a

Jaswinder Guliani - Southridge

n/a

Jen Loeung - Centennial

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.

Jill Angle - Sandy

n/a

Jimmy Nguyen - Sunset

John Lin - Sunset

Julie Siewert - Westview

June Gerst - Century

n/a

Justin Wyle - Gresham

n/a

Justin Munoz - Tigard

n/a

Katy Walker - Century

n/a

Kyle Charlson - Cleveland

Mackenzie Cook - Tillamook

n/a

Matt Compton - Tigard

n/a

Meena Mishra - Westview

Micah Eulberg - Century

n/a

Olivia Hering - Glencoe

n/a

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 Gonzales - Cleveland

Ramesh Sakala - Sunset

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.

2013 Sam Barlow Invitational