FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alberto Rincon - Wilson

n/a

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.

Anne Badgley - Lincoln

n/a

Anurag Singhal - Westview

Audrey Umber - Canby

n/a

Austin Ewing - MHS

n/a

Beau Woodward - Lakeridge

n/a

Benjamin Agre - Cleveland

Bethany Dozier - Wilson

Bina Mehta - Lincoln

Brian Malan - Gresham

n/a

Brittany Brock - DDHS

n/a

Cary Doyle - Crescent Valley

Changmin Park - Westview

Courtney Walsh - MHS

n/a

Cynthia Hung - Cleveland

Dave Schaefer - Nestucca

n/a

David Augustine - Lincoln

DeLona Campos-Davis - Hood River

n/a

Debbie Groff - Canby

n/a

Eileen Stone - Cleveland

Eli Morgan-Steiner - Wilson

Erin Bray - DDHS

n/a

Eva Knowles - DDHS

n/a

Heidi Sivers-Boyce - Wilson

Jacob Buck - MHS

n/a

Jason Miller - Lake Oswego

n/a

Jen O'Conner - Cleveland

Jennifer Clark - Hood River

n/a

Jennifer Felberg - Wilson

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.

John Stump - Cleveland

Jordan Witt - Canby

n/a

Judge 3 - Southridge

n/a

Julie Siewert - Westview

Kaitlin Gilbert - MHS

n/a

Kathy Wolff - Cleveland

Ken Teschner - Tigard

n/a

Kris Igawa - Beaverton

n/a

Laura Foran - Wilson

n/a

Lisa Sloan - Wilson

n/a

M Griffiths - Lake Oswego

n/a

Marie Krueger - Nestucca

n/a

Matthew Compton - MHS

n/a

Meg Holden - Lincoln

n/a

Michael Theofelis - DDHS

n/a

Michael Doran - La Salle Prep

n/a

Nalini Agarwal - Westview

n/a

Nancy Silverman - Westview

Nilesh Jain - Westview

Patrick Gonzales - Cleveland

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

2016 Wilson Invitational