FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

VanDerMeide - MHS

n/a

Aaron Busse - Century

n/a

Adam Dale - West Linn

Amanda Victor - OCHS

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.

Amie Edberg - Southridge

n/a

Audrey Umber - Canby

n/a

Autumn Rouse - Sunset

Beth Karecki - HiredJudge

n/a

Carol Ackerson - HiredJudge

n/a

Cassie Passon - OCHS

n/a

Cherie Gullerud - Crescent Valley

Chris Finley - Century

n/a

Clarissa Jones - Southridge

n/a

Courtney Walsh - MHS

n/a

Craig Stoehr - Southridge

n/a

Debra Hall - Lincoln

Don Steiner - Wilson

Ellen Howard - Bandon HS

n/a

Frances Merriam - Bandon HS

n/a

Gillberto Galvez - Hood River

n/a

Hampus Hammarlund - Glencoe

n/a

Hiro Nukaga - Tualatin

n/a

Jaben Carsey - Southridge

n/a

James Denman - Lincoln

Jan Bosson - West Linn

Jason Miller - Glencoe

n/a

Jen Dahle - North Bend

n/a

Jennifer Conner - Forest Grove

n/a

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.

Jessica Wagar - Hood River

n/a

Jimmy Nguyen - Westview

John Nelson - HiredJudge

n/a

John Gilligan - West Linn

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!

Josh Scheirman - North Bend

n/a

Judith Miller - HiredJudge

n/a

June Gerst - Century

n/a

Justin Crow - West Albany

I am a tabula rasa judge. TOPICALITY: I don't like when AFF teams are abusive with definitions, and I don't like when NEG teams claim abuse or run T when it is not called for. Reserve T for those times when it is appropriate; don't run it every round. Here's a good example of abusive definitions in parli: For the topic R, THS significantly increase space exploration, the AFF defines the term "space exploration" as "offshore drilling in the Pacific Ocean." They justify this definition by saying "there's a lot of open space out there in the ocean, and it should be explored for energy and financial gain." If the AFF defines it this way, I assume the AFF either does not understand the resolution statement or is purposefully defining it in such a way that (1) caters to their own strength -- previous knowledge about the Pacific Ocean or (2) is unpredictable by the NEG, thus giving the AFF team an advantage. The key to avoiding T and the key to living up to your responsibility as the AFF team is to pass the predictability and fairness tests with your definition of terms. Like a tennis player who fairly calls lines, was the intention behind the definition in good spirits? If you take a poll of 100 debaters at the tournament and ask them to define the term in question, will any of them be in the ballpark of your definition? Also, be careful of definitions or plan texts that are too narrow or too broad (topicality and extra-topicality).   I am fine with CP, Disads, and K (though I don't really like K). Unless I give you a hand signal to slow down, I am fine with speed. As a courtesy to your opponents and me, please clearly label your contentions with brief taglines. (For example, "Contention 1: COST. The cost of implementing such a  plan..." DON'T REPEAT YOUR FLOW TO FILL TIME. Weigh, clash, give examples / metaphors, but don't repeat your case. If I have it on my flow, and you are repeating what I already have on my flow, what is the point of your speaking? Use htose precious minutes more constructively! If a team says "They did not ___ therefore we win the round" that is not necessarily so. It may be an a priori argument, it may not. Teams that argue something is a priori when it isn't annoy me because (similar to T) I don't know if they just don't know the rules or if they are trying to manipulate me into giving them a ballot. I once heard in a parli round, "Our opponents did not run a criterion to support their value; therefore, we win the round." That is just not true.  For voters, clearly weigh for me WHY you win. This often comes down to clearly stating and weighing impacts or otherwise stating why the better debating was performed by your team. If policy, many arguments for me will come down to evidence weighing. You both have data to back up your side of a particular point, but one team uses a solid Harvard study while the opposing team uses a study from crazyjoemanifesto.com or, worse yet, "my uncle says that..." In this case, all other things being equal, the team citing the Harvard study would likely win on that point.

Justin Wiley - HiredJudge

n/a

Kathleen Kessinger - SW Christian

Kathy Yoke - Tigard

n/a

Katie Kantrowitz - Silverton

n/a

Keith Eddins - Oak Hill

I prefer and default to a policymaker paradigm in CX policy debate.  In current jargon, I reside in the truth-over-tech world.  That said, I try to evaluate the round from (almost) any framework on which the debaters agree.  If they cannot or do not agree, I will do my best to adjudicate the framework issue, as well, based on the arguments presented in the round. Regardless, I believe AFF cases should have a plan, not just a generalized statement of intent.  I still consider inherency an issue that must be addressed by the AFF, and I think solvency should be demonstrated in the 1AC.  In my mind, the notion of presumption favoring the status quo (and, thus, the NEG) continues to exist.  That said, if AFF presents a prima facie case and NEG chooses not to contest it, presumption essentially shifts to AFF, and NEG better have some pretty persuasive off-case positions.  I am liberal on T (at least from an affirmative perspective).  But if NEG presents a strong T argument that AFF fails to rebut effectively, I will treat T as an a priori voting issue. In NEG terms, a well-constructed, logical, evidence-based DISAD remains the most persuasive argument against an AFF plan.  It need not result in nuclear war or the end of the world.  In fact, I find most DISADs more persuasive when not taken to the ultimate extreme.  Ks are fine arguments provided you really understand and explain them.  But you need to present them in terms I can understand; while I know my Marx, Engels, and Lenin quite well, I would never even pretend to comprehend French post-modernist philosophy (to use one example).  CPs should offer sufficient detail to be fully evaluated and include evidence-based solvency arguments. As for other forms of debate, I will gladly evaluate an LD round from either a value or policy perspective depending on the nature of the resolution and the results of any framework debate.  Plans, Ks, and CPs are fine in LD.  In Parli, I am also quite comfortable with plans, Ks, and CPs, but they are not necessary.  However, I will discount arguments in Parli that are based on a gross factual misstatement (even if the other team fails to challenge it).  In Public Forum, I am looking for solid evidence-based argumentation and real clash (too often the clash is missing in PF debate). In each of these forms of debate I am a flow judge.  But for me to flow your arguments effectively, I need good signposting and clearly stated tag lines.  Remember: I neither receive nor do I want a flashed version of your speech.  Your best arguments may prove meaningless if you fail to tell me where to record them on the flow.

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.

Lance Haberly - Siuslaw High

n/a

Lisa Reynolds - Lincoln

Logan Gilstrap - OCHS

n/a

MIchael Grainey - Blanchet HS

n/a

Mamta Sharma - Westview

Mark Little - OES

n/a

Matt Compton - Tigard

n/a

Matthew Yasuoka - Forest Grove

n/a

Meena Mishra - Westview

Melissa Lowry Sullivan - Southridge

n/a

Michael Pfeffer - HiredJudge

n/a

Michael Timmons - Silverton

n/a

Monty Edberg - Southridge

n/a

Nick Carleson - Century

n/a

Nick Mauer - HiredJudge

n/a

Olivia Hering - Glencoe

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

Patrick Carrico - Clackamas

Paul Altotsky - Tigard

n/a

Peter McGraw - HiredJudge

n/a

Ray Streinz - Wilson

Riley Johnston - Silverton

n/a

Robert Reusser - Sunset

Rosanne Parry - Southridge

n/a

Sarah Foster - Westview

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.

Sheila Thieme - Southridge

n/a

Srinivasaulu Gubba - Westview

Stephen McClanahan - Silverton

n/a

Steve Thieme - Southridge

n/a

Susan McLain - Glencoe

n/a

Terimarie Straley - Bandon HS

n/a

Trisha Makela - North Bend

n/a

Tyler Wiprud - Bandon HS

n/a

Usha Vemuri - Westview

Whitney Johnson - Tualatin

n/a

Wlnsvey Campos - Bandon HS

n/a

Yanwen Chen - Southridge

n/a

Ye Li - Westview

Yerim Park - Southridge

n/a

2014 Singletary High School Tournament