2014 Silverton Novice Tournament
Silverton High School - Oct 11 | Status: Completed
Judge Philosophies
zz-bye
n/a
- Lincoln
<p>Policy Debate Paradigm</p> <p>I am the policy debate coach for Lincoln High School in Portland, OR.</p> <p> I was a policy/LD debater for Lincoln High School and CEDA debater for The American University in Washington, DC. Upon graduation, I returned to coach the American CEDA program for three more years. After a long hiatus, I’ve been called back to the activity that I love.</p> <p> </p> <p>Debate is awesome! But … it’s only as good as we, as a community, make it. I am coming back to the activity to make sure that it continues for future generations. Teams that disrespect their opponent, or this activity, will be dealt with severely on my ballot. Integrity is not something to trifle with for short-term strategic benefits. </p> <ol> <li>Stand during speaking times, unless you’re medically unable.</li> <li>Homophobic, racist, religiously intolerant, or sexist language and/or behavior will not be tolerated.</li> <li>Rudeness, dishonesty, cruelty and vulgarity devalues the activity.</li> <li>Have fun! Strive for creativity, humor, debate scholarship, humility, compassion, and being strategic.</li> </ol> <p> </p> <p>Stylistic Overview</p> <ol> <li>CLASH!</li> <li>Quality over quantity. Just because I can handle a faster round doesn't mean that it impresses me.</li> <li>Smart analytics is always better than lazy warrantless evidence.</li> <li>Debates about evidence QUALITY and CONTEXT are to be encouraged! </li> <li>I am ok with tag teaming during cross ex so long as it provides greater clarity and isn’t abused.</li> <li>So long as it’s not a new case, advantage/scenario or neg position. The negative and affirmative positions should be disclosed pre round, if asked.</li> <li>If asked, evidence must be made available to the opposition.</li> <li>Prep stops when the flash leaves your computer.</li> <li>Provide a clear decision-making calculus judge from the start throughout the round and please do all of the impact analysis for me.</li> <li> I believe one or two prestandards (a propri) arguments are sufficient, anything more and I lean towards abuse.</li> </ol> <p> </p> <p>Positions</p> <p>Kritiks</p> <p>I’m more than open to them. But know that I’d probably rather judge just about anything … than a postmodernism debate. Even if you argued this in front of me 5 times this season, debate a K as if I’ve never heard the topic before.</p> <p>Topicality/theory debates</p> <p>Slow down for clarity, these debates tend to be nuanced. Try to limit these positions to only abusive situation</p> <p>Disadvantages</p> <p>Not shockingly, case specific disads are better than generic.</p> <p>Counterplans</p> <p>Competition is key. Aff leaning on Conditionality. Legit perms must include all of plan and part of the counter plan.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>I will try to judge whatever you want, within reason, so long as you justify it.</em></strong></p>
zz-bye
n/a
Aakash Kurse - Westview
Aaron Knutson - Silverton
n/a
Aaron Windish - SAHS
n/a
Abha Joshi - Westview
Abhinav Brahmaroathu - Sunset
Adelaide Beeman-White - Wilson
Akshat Nema - Westview
Alex Parini - Wilson
<p>I'm a Neo-Communication judge. What exactly does that mean? Think of me as a modern version of your classic communication and stock issue judge. </p> <p>What I like to see:</p> <p>• Real world policy making. The Aff should tell me how the state can make a difference. If you're running a Kritikal Affirmative then it needs to be run well. Dancing during the 1AC while telling me the state is prejudice is not enough to get my ballot. </p> <p>• Solid link chains. Any argument-whether it's on the Aff or Neg-needs a clear story. Generic links can get you there if the warrants are strong. </p> <p>• Clash. Both teams need to engage on some level. I'm ok with a framework debate so long as both teams actually engage each other's arguments. </p> <p>• Line-by-line. Please go down the flow and tell me where you're going. Nothing sucks more then losing a round because the judge (me) flowed your argument in the wrong spot and couldn't extend it over. (I'll try my best to give you the benefit of the doubt, but don't put me in that position.)</p> <p>• Logic. Don't be afraid to "step outside the box". If you know something is BS call it out. Just because you don't have a card against them doesn't mean you should ignore their argument. </p> <p>• Impact calculus. Weigh your impacts against your opponent's. Don't let me decide morality comes before nuclear war or vice versa. Convince me (with logic) which impacts are a priori.</p> <p>• Tell me why you won the debate. When I'm writing the RFD on the ballot I should use a line the 2A/NR used in their final speech. </p> <p> </p>
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>
Ashley Versteeg - Silverton
n/a
Ashwin Bhat - Sunset
Ashwin Datta - Glencoe
n/a
Austin Carsh - Tigard
n/a
Ben Delsman - West Albany
Benedicte Hamilton - Wilson
Bianca Pak - Sunset
Brad Subramaniam - Lincoln
Brandon Roth - Sprague
Brandon Johnson - SAHS
n/a
Briana Mendenhall - Silverton
n/a
Bridger Lanning - Silverton
n/a
Colin Gesik - Sprague
Connie Wang - Westview
Courtney Angeli - Lincoln
Daniel Sacks - Tigard
n/a
Delan Huang - Tigard
n/a
Don Steiner - Wilson
Dyllan Murphy - Silverton
n/a
Elley Wolf - Canby
n/a
Emily Smith - Glencoe
n/a
Emily Holland - Clackamas
Ethan Judd - Tigard
n/a
Farah Alkayed - Lake Oswego
n/a
Haley Inman - Glencoe
n/a
Hannah Borel - Wilson
Hunter Buen - Century
n/a
Isaac Beale - Tigard
n/a
JJ Caufield - Tigard
n/a
Jamie Robertson - Canby
n/a
Jan Bosson - West Linn
Jennifer LeSieur - Clackamas
Jenny Rooper - Silverton
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.
John Watkins - Glencoe
n/a
Joseph Erickson - West Linn
<p>Please talk pretty </p>
Juan Andres Ortiz - RPHS
n/a
Julia Adebawo - Westview
Julie Golan - Silverton
n/a
June Gerst - Century
n/a
Kasey Yoke - Tigard
n/a
Kassi Young - OCHS
n/a
Katherine Beare - Westview
Kathryn Magee - Clackamas
Kathy Guo - Westview
Katy Walker - Century
n/a
Keegan Brooks-Phillips - RPHS
n/a
Kelly Reeves - SW Christian
n/a
Kelsey Bruce - Century
n/a
Kevin Chu - Clackamas
Kunal Bhattacharjee - Westview
MacKenzie Baughman - Canby
n/a
Maren Frohlick - Glencoe
n/a
Maricella Magdaleno - Glencoe
n/a
Marie Escapita - Canby
n/a
Marie Piatski - Tigard
n/a
Mary Stayer - Lake Oswego
n/a
Max Kessinger - SW Christian
Meghan Ng - La Salle Prep
n/a
Melly Kazel - Silverton
n/a
Min Park - Lake Oswego
n/a
Molly Lavelle - OCHS
n/a
Myriam Yao - La Salle Prep
n/a
Nathalia Sotile - Glencoe
n/a
Nidhi Pai - Glencoe
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>
Patrick Leahy - SAHS
n/a
Paul Altotsky - Tigard
n/a
Prajwal Sharma - Sunset
Pranav Sharan - Lake Oswego
n/a
Rachel Stadeli - Silverton
n/a
Reagan Schiewe - Silverton
n/a
Richard Zhang - Sunset
Ritwika Petluri - Sunset
Robert Smith - SW Christian
n/a
Rohan Bharadwaj - Sunset
Ruth Reding Hoffart - Canby
n/a
Ryan Barger - Glencoe
n/a
Ryann Drougas - OCHS
n/a
Sahana Krishna - Westview
Sameer Adhikari - Westview
Sanders Li - Lake Oswego
n/a
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>
Sarah Mische - La Salle Prep
n/a
Seth Sherrod - SAHS
n/a
Silu Men - Sunset
Simon Linnebach - Silverton
n/a
Sophia Tzeng - Catlin Gabel
n/a
Sruthi Eapen - Sunset
Stanley Sun - Westview
Stephen McClanahan - Silverton
n/a
Taylor Bosson - West Linn
Theron Benedict - SAHS
n/a
Tina Hogstrom - Sprague
Tina Lam - Catlin Gabel
n/a
Trace Jansen - West Albany
n/a
Umair Khan - Century
n/a
Urvi Joshi - Sunset
Victoria Garcia - SAHS
n/a
Wendy Roman - Century
n/a
Wes Milligan - Lincoln
Yussef Fakih - Tigard
n/a
Zac Cole - Century
n/a