Judge Philosophies

zz-bye

n/a


Afina Neunzert - Tigard

n/a


Alex DeBruyne - Tigard

n/a


Allison Faherty - WHS

n/a


Allison Quarles - RPHS

n/a


Alma Baxter - Nestucca

n/a


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 - WHS

n/a


Anita Reddy - LOHS

n/a


April Bauguess - Roseburg

n/a


Carol Rentschler - LHS

n/a


Casey Wang - Cleveland


Doug McDonald - Summit

n/a


Drew Bauguess - Roseburg

n/a


Elie Adelman - Cleveland


Eric Fromm - Canby

n/a


Ethan Adelman-Sil - Cleveland


Gabe Pagano - Summit

n/a


Gena Dwyer - North

n/a


Glenn Graham - Southridge

n/a


Jackie Floyd - Nestucca

n/a


Jeff Zhu - Westview


Jeff Edelson - LHS

n/a


Jennifer Gruter - Clackamas


Jenny Owen - WHS

n/a


Jessica Horton - Neah-Kah-Nie

n/a


June Gerst - Century

n/a


Justin Lindemann - Woodburn

n/a


Kathleen Serven - Nestucca

n/a


Katy Walker - Century

n/a


Kelli McMellon - Nestucca

n/a


Kiefer Versteegh - SAHS

n/a


Lea Woods - Cleveland


Leslie Kowash - Cleveland


MIchael Grainey - Blanchet HS

n/a


Matt Hurliman - Nestucca

n/a


Matt Compton - Tigard

n/a


Melissa Lowry Sullivan - Southridge

n/a


Michelle Floyd - Nestucca

n/a


Mike Baranow - WHS

n/a


Natalie Goben - Canby

n/a


Patrick Leahy - SAHS

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


Patrick Gonzales - Cleveland


Peir Chu - Westview


Rick Morton - Neah-Kah-Nie

n/a


Ronit Zusman - LHS

n/a


Sam Sanchez - Southridge

n/a


Susan Wilderman - McKay

n/a


Tara Urner - Cleveland


Tarin Schalow - WHS

n/a