Judge Philosophies
Alberto Rincon - Wilson
n/a
Amanda Marshall - MHS
n/a
Audrey Umber - Canby
n/a
Austin Ewing - HiredJudge
n/a
Badrinarayan Rajagopal Dhandapani - Westview
Balaji Narayanan - Westview
Chelsey Williams - HiredJudge
n/a
Courtney Walsh - MHS
n/a
Courtney Welch - HiredJudge
n/a
Dave Schaefer - Nestucca
n/a
David Barringer - OCHS
n/a
David Bone - OCHS
n/a
DeLona Campos-Davis - Hood River
n/a
Debbie Groff - Canby
n/a
Don Steiner - Wilson
Earl Pettit - Monument
n/a
Eli Morgan-Steiner - Wilson
Eliza Haas - Sunset
https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Haas%2C+Elizabeth The above philosophy was written mainly for nat circuit LD, but most things will apply to most debates. I'm also totally good with a traditional, Oregon-style debate. If so, I look more at internal consistency of argumentation than I would with a more progressive debate. Read the paradigm, but feel free to ask me specific questions before the round if you have them!
Emily Tribble - Westview
Erik Miller - HiredJudge
n/a
Jennifer Clark - Hood River
n/a
Jennifer Conner - Forest Grove
n/a
Jessica Gimarc-Savini - HiredJudge
n/a
John Watkins - Glencoe Tide
n/a
Jonathan Whittle - Westview
Judith Miller - HiredJudge
n/a
June Gerst - Century
n/a
Kaitlin Gilbert - HiredJudge
n/a
Karen Murphy - Hood River
n/a
Karen Armstrong - Glencoe Tide
Katherine Cowan - MHS
n/a
Keith Eddins - Oak Hill
<p>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.</p>
Kris Igawa - Beaverton
n/a
Marcy Landis - MHS
n/a
Mariane Drygas Pope - MHS
n/a
Matthew Compton - MHS
n/a
McMinnville Parent - MHS
n/a
Nagaraj Sathyanarayan - Sunset
Nick Mauer - HiredJudge
n/a
Nickolas Morse - HiredJudge
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>
Rachel Thompson - OCHS
n/a
Sandeep Jain - Westview
Shaohui Chen - Sunset
Shilpa Karnik - Sunset
Sudhakar Srinivasan - Westview
Sue Jepson - Hood River
n/a
Susan McLain - Glencoe Tide
<p>I love all types of debate. CX, PF, PARLI, AND LD. I am a real world Policy Maker. I am always looking for good solid critical thinking, support ideas or evidence as per event style and type. I believe debate is a persuasive speaking event with strong developed arguments. I am happy to answer questions before round starts.</p> <p>Individual Events are all unique and interesting! I like to judge a variety of events! My extemp, impromptu, radio, oratory and interp speakers have all had strong showings over the years. I have coached for 43 years. Susan McLain</p>