Judge Philosophies
Alberto Rincon - Wilson
n/a
Amy Grondin - Sherwood
n/a
Andrew Morgan - Tillamook
n/a
Annette Freetag - Barlow
n/a
Ben Hynes-Stone - Silverton
n/a
Bharti Gupta - Westview
Cameron Nilles - OES
n/a
Chris Meyers - Sandy
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!
Dan Musser - OES
n/a
Dana Hawthorn - Tigard
n/a
Dave Schaefer - Nestucca
n/a
David White - Lake Oswego
n/a
Derenda Schubert - Barlow
n/a
Don Steiner - Wilson
Dwight Siewert - Westview
Eliza Haas - Sunset
https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Haas%2C+Elizabeth The above philosophy was written mainly for nat circuit LD, but most things will apply to most debates. I'm also totally good with a traditional, Oregon-style debate. If so, I look more at internal consistency of argumentation than I would with a more progressive debate. Read the paradigm, but feel free to ask me specific questions before the round if you have them!
Elizabeth Bush - Tigard
n/a
Elizabeth Howard - Barlow
n/a
Enshu Jain - Westview
n/a
Exel Stroschein - Wilson
n/a
Gail Lampros - Sherwood
n/a
Garrett Broberg - Lincoln
Garrett Broberg - Four-year competitor at El Dorado High School (Placerville California) competed primarily in Congress. 2016 California State Champion Presiding Officer, TOC semi-finalist, etc... I have however competed and judged all debate events (Nationals in PF) (Parli TOC Qualifier). LD– Speed: I am the last judge that will tell you “no spreading†as long as your opponents are okay with speed, go for it Topicality – As far as I am concerned, Topicality outweighs theory. T is needed in order to establish how we can create theoretical justification within the resolution. Theory – It’s fine but please slow down if you are giving several rapid-fire theory arguments that are not much more than tags. My default is the impact to a theory argument is to reject the argument and not the team. If you want me to put the round on it, I will, but I need more than "voter" when the argument is presented. I need clearly articulated reasons why the other team should lose because of the argument. Ks: I like them and I think they can be good arguments. I like specific links and am less persuaded by very generic links such as "the state is always X." Unless told otherwise, I see alternatives to K's as possible other worlds that avoid the criticism and not as worlds that the negative is advocating. With that in mind, I see K's differently than counterplans or disads, and I do not think trying to argue Kritiks as counterplans (floating PIC arguments for example) works very well, and I find critical debates that devolve into counterplan or disad jargon to be confusing and difficult to judge, and they miss the point of how the argument is a philosophical challenge to the affirmative in some way. Framework arguments on Ks are fine too, although I do not generally find persuasive debate theory arguments that Kritiks are bad (although I will vote on those if they are dropped). However, higher level debates about whether policy analysis or critical analysis is a better way to approach the world are fine and I will evaluate those arguments. Public Forum – There are a few things that I look for and require in PF. First and foremost: If it's in the final focus, it ought to be in the summary. I reserve the right to look at evidence to see if it comes from a credible source, or to see if it's been distorted, or simply to see if it says what I think I heard it say. Debaters should call out sketchy evidence, but I may call it out myself even if your opponents don't. I expect to hear some qualification for your author and the DATE (the year, at minimum) out loud. If you cite evidence simply as "according to Princeton," I will be very sad, and my sadness may affect your points. When evidence is called, prep time starts when the full text evidence is pulled up. Try to terminalize and specify impacts. "Helps the economy" (for instance) is not very impressive as an impact. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, DON’T HESITATE TO ASK!
Hannah Leslie - Gresham
n/a
Jan Atwill - OES
n/a
Jaymes Schmidt - Centennial
n/a
Jen Loeung - Centennial
n/a
Jen Card - Barlow
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.
Jeremiah Goetz - Barlow
n/a
Jim Johnson - Centennial
n/a
Jing Jiang - Lake Oswego
n/a
Joel Ayala - Sunset
John Casalino - OES
n/a
Julie Siewert - Westview
Julie Skarphol - Centennial
n/a
June Gerst - Century
n/a
Kaitlyn Metscher - Camas
I was a competitor in middle school, high school and college. I did public forum, and policy debate. If you want to talk fast then go for it. My biggest pet peeve is not having clear links, just saying that you pass plan or do X which causes Y. I need to know how you got from X to Y. I am open to any argument just tell me why it is relevant or important you stray from the norm in debate. I love unconventional argumentation i.e. telling me why democracy is bad or why genocide is good. That being said it must be done respectfully and with clear warrants.
Karen Armstrong - Glencoe Tide
Karen Alger - Barlow
n/a
Kate Moore - Franklin
n/a
Katie Kantrowitz - Silverton
n/a
Kjersti Sanders - Sandy
n/a
Kristen Shoenheinz - Barlow
n/a
M Griffiths - Lake Oswego
n/a
Marissa Yang Bertucci - Gresham
n/a
Mark Little - OES
n/a
Matt Schweitzer - West Linn
Mike Witteman - OES
n/a
Owen Dukelow - Tigard
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>
Rand McReynolds - Barlow
n/a
Ron Schubert - Barlow
n/a
Ron Seigler - Centennial
n/a
Sanjay Deshmukh - Sunset
Scot Klohe - Tillamook
n/a
Scott Stahl - Barlow
n/a
Shawn Hampton - CLHS
n/a
Stephen McClanahan - Silverton
n/a
Sue Jepson - Hood River
n/a
TJ Robertson - Barlow
n/a
Tammy Khazali - Sunset
Tanay Karnik - Sunset
Tony Brown - Barlow
n/a