FTN - Judge Philosophies

Home Contact Tournament Schedule Registration Entries Headquarters Postings Results

Judge Philosophies

Liu - Lincoln

n/a

CW - Clackamas

Adam Testerman - Wilson

Alex Dang - Cleveland

Allison Quarles - RPHS

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.

Amy Meabe - Wilson

Ana Conner - Cleveland

Andrew Riley - Lincoln

n/a

Andrew Nock - Sam Barlow

n/a

Baohua Niu - Lincoln

Benjamin Agre - Cleveland

Bill Messer - Lincoln

Brian Gutowski - West Linn

Cameron Nilles - Sam Barlow

I believe that the debaters ultimately frame the debate round. I am open to all types of arguments and styles of debate. Tell me explicitly how you want the round to be framed and weighed and then in the closing speeches debate that issue well. Speed is fine, be clear on the tags.<o:p></o:p> Topicality: It is a procedural and I will evaluate it first, unless otherwise told not to. Typically I believe there is some sort of T argument to be had in most debates, done well I can definitely pull the trigger on T. I also recognize its strategic advantages beyond just winning, so RVIs are not that compelling of arguments for me.<o:p></o:p> K: I am less likely to vote on the K because many times the debate degenerates into the K team having a non-specific link, and a poor alternative. I will default into a policy framework but if there is good argumentation not to then I can evaluate that.<o:p></o:p> DA/CP: This is a very effective way for the negative to gain leverage in the debate, use them well.<o:p></o:p> <span style="font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-fareast-font-family: "ï¼ï¼³ æ˜Žæœ";mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;mso-ansi-language:EN-US;mso-fareast-language: JA;mso-bidi-language:AR-SA">Theory: Most debates fall back onto reading shells and pre-written answers, if this is what you are going for make sure it is argued well, I am opening to hearing all theory arguments.

Carol Bellows - Tualatin

n/a

Carrie Strecker - Neah-Kah-Nie

n/a

Chelsea Hill - Bandon HS

n/a

Cheri Macfarlane - OCHS

n/a

Christine Thomas - RPHS

n/a

Clarissa Jones - Southridge

n/a

Darren Macfarlane - OCHS

n/a

Dave Schaefer - Nestucca

n/a

David Barringer - OCHS

n/a

David Yourish - Lincoln

n/a

Don Steiner - Wilson

Doug Lovett - Cleveland

Dwight Siewert - Westview

Dyllan Murphy - Silverton

n/a

Ell Olson - Lake O

n/a

Ellen Howard - Bandon HS

n/a

Era Lambert - Centennial

n/a

Eric Shilling - Cleveland

Gavin Knox - Silverton

n/a

Gus Garcia - Cleveland

Hiro Nukaga - Tigard

n/a

Janet Billups - Cleveland

Jen Loeung - Centennial

n/a

Jennifer Gruter - Clackamas

Jennifer Conner - Forest Grove

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.

Jenny Sasser - Cleveland

Jim Johnson - Centennial

n/a

Jimmy Nguyen - Westview

Joe Provencher - Lake O

n/a

John Nelson - Silverton

n/a

Jonathan Estey - Hood River

I expect debaters to speak clearly (CX debaters: if you spread, I will stop flowing), express themselves with minimal jargon, use clear roadmaps and signposting, and generally maintain the communicative and educational value of the debate. I expect arguments to be civilly presented, have clear organization & sructure, and use reasonable impacts (CX debaters: if you make an extinction impact, I will drop your ad/disad from the flow). I expect evidence to be concise, well-explained, and chosen carefully for its relevance to the debate (i.e. don't just read a bunch of long cards). I accept kritiks in Parli, LD, and CX, if and only if they are legitimate and worthwhile additions to the scope of the debate (rather than an attempt to weasel out of debating the actual topic). I accept unconditional counterplans and kritiks; I do not accept conditional ones -- if you introduceeither one as Neg, you should be prepared to defend it!

Julie Siewert - Westview

June Gerst - Century

n/a

Justin Wyle - Gresham

n/a

Kat Podlesnik - Hermiston

n/a

Kathy Nguyen - Southridge

n/a

Katy Walker - Century

n/a

Kayla Crook - Marshfield HS

n/a

Kehl van Winkle - Thurston

Keisha Shippey - Silverton

n/a

Kelly Court - SW Christian

Debate: I want to be able to flow your debate.  Speak clearly and not too fast.  If I can't keep up with you, you will not win.  Make sure to state your contentions clearly at the beginning and again as you move from point to point.  Be polite.  Pay attention while your opponents are speaking.  I like a clean well organized debate.  Have fun. Individual Events: Tournaments make for long days; I like to learn new things and to be entertained.  Please refrain from swearing in your presentations. It is seldom necessary.  I look forward to judging again this year.

Kevin Eighmey - NEHS

n/a

Kris Igawa - Beaverton

n/a

Kyle Vorderstrasse - Silverton

n/a

Larkin Madden - Bandon HS

n/a

Liz Fetherston - Thurston

You can find my philosophy and my decisions from last year in this google drive: tinyurl.com/debate-rfd TL;DR: I debate for UO. You won't go too fast or be too technical for me, but it's your game, so play it however you want.  I recommend you still read the part about impacts in the philosophy.   Please email me at thurstonforensics@gmail.com if you have further questions or need clarification.

Malcolm Hodge - Cleveland

Marcus Robinson - Tigard

n/a

Marilyn Czel - Centennial

n/a

Mary Gates - Lake O

n/a

Mary Lane - Bandon HS

n/a

Matt Yasuoka - Forest Grove

n/a

Matthew Lacy - Sam Barlow

Melanie Merryman - Nestucca

n/a

Melissa Lowry Sullivan - Southridge

n/a

Millena Collins - Centennial

n/a

Molly Schulze - Willamette

n/a

Ms. Custer - Clackamas

Nicholas Schnieder - BSH

n/a

Nishant Karandikar - Southridge

n/a

Patrick Leahy - SAHS

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

2012 Silverton Invitational