Judge Philosophies
Aaron Windish - SAHS
n/a
Adam Selker - Lincoln
Aidan Rivera - Sprague
Aidan Wall - Silverton
n/a
Allen Roush - Clackamas
Amber Harvey - Clackamas
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 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: 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: 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: 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.</p> <p>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.</p>
Andrew Riley - Lincoln
n/a
Andrew Huynh - Sprague
Angel Newman - Clackamas
Anushna Prakash - Westview
Arjun Kandaswamy - Westview
Ashley Versteeg - Silverton
n/a
Ashlynne Olsen - Wilson
Aujalee Fisher - Sprague
Austin Brooks - Sprague
Austin Carsh - Tigard
n/a
Ben Delsman - West Albany
Briana Mendenhall - Silverton
n/a
Bridger Lanning - Silverton
n/a
Chris Arreola - Sprague
Chris Silver - Sprague
Cindy Chou - Westview
Colton Gardner - Sprague
Danica Wilbanks - Sprague
Daniel Sacks - Tigard
n/a
Don Steiner - Wilson
Eli Allen - Corvallis
n/a
Elizabeth Timmons - Silverton
n/a
Emily Holland - Clackamas
Eric Dale - West Linn
Eric Clarke - Tigard
n/a
Erica Givans - BSH
n/a
Erick Lee - SAHS
n/a
Garrett Kelley - Hood River
Gary Cai - Sunset
Gautam Paranjape - Sunset
Gayatri Paranjape - Sunset
Georgia Armitage - Sprague
Grace Birkemeier - SW Christian
Houston Winslow - Silverton
n/a
Hunter Bosson - West Linn
Irene Rhee - Crescent Valley
n/a
JJ Caufield - Tigard
n/a
Jake Ruger - Sprague
Jan Bosson - West Linn
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.
John Giacoppe - Corvallis
n/a
Jonah Calhoun - Sprague
Jonathan Estey - Hood River
<p>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.</p> <p>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).</p> <p>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!</p>
Jonathan Sisley - Silverton
n/a
Jordan Rogers - SAHS
n/a
Joseph Erickson - West Linn
<p>Please talk pretty </p>
Josh Shequin - SAHS
n/a
Juan Andres Ortiz - RPHS
n/a
Julia Adebawo - Westview
Junha Park - Westview
Kate Goldsworthy - Sprague
Keegan Brooks-Phillips - RPHS
n/a
Kevin Chu - Clackamas
Kieran McCreedy - BSH
n/a
Kristina Landen - OCHS
n/a
Libby Morgan-Steiner - Wilson
Louiza Bovaeva - Clackamas
Maddox Patt - Silverton
n/a
Marjorie Sheiman - Lincoln
Marqueasha Rhodes - SAHS
n/a
Max Kessinger - SW Christian
Michael Teylan - La Salle Prep
n/a
Michaela Malos - Corvallis
n/a
Midnight Landry - OCHS
n/a
Morgan Custer - Clackamas
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>
Patrick Welch - BSH
n/a
Peter Perlot - SAHS
n/a
Quentin Michael - Sprague
Rebeca Ilisoi - Silverton
n/a
Sai Bandi - Westview
Sarah Foster - Westview
<p>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. </p>
Savannah Schiewe - Silverton
n/a
Shyan Akmal - Westview
Sophia Chen - Westview
Spencer Rasaka - Silverton
n/a
Srinivasa Pranav - Westview
Stephen McClanahan - Silverton
n/a
Syd Thomas - RPHS
n/a
Victoria Garcia - SAHS
n/a
Yussef Fakih - Tigard
n/a
Zac Sims - Tigard
n/a