Judge Philosophies
Abhay Dharmadhikari - Sunset
Alberto Rincon - Wilson
n/a
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>
Amy Meabe - Wilson
n/a
Anup Kumar - Sunset
Audrey Umber - Canby
n/a
Beau Woodward - Lakeridge
n/a
Ben LeBlanc - Lincoln
Benjamin Agre - Cleveland
Bethany Dozier - Wilson
Cameron Nilles - OES
n/a
Cary Doyle - Corvallis
n/a
Chris Pak - Sunset
Christian Geddes - South
Courtney Walsh - MHS
n/a
Dalton Hellman - Westview
I look forward to judging rounds for everyone. Below is some of my judging philosophy. As always, feel free to ask specific questions in round if you have them. Background: 4 years competing in speech and debate in high school (Canby) 4 years competing in college (Mt. Hood CC and Boise State Univ.) Debated almost every format and will judge any format of debate. How I view rounds: The start of the round is your space. Use it how you want to. I have clean pieces of paper in front of me at the start of the round and that is how I judge. If you tell me something, it is on my paper. I will evaluate a round how you tell me to. I believe the debate space is yours to use how you want. I will listen to almost any argument and would consider myself pretty progressive for debate. I am alright with you running: Kritiks Plans Counter Plans Theory I am fine with speed. I feel like I keep up with almost anyone. If you are going fast and aren't clear then I will either stop writing or say clear. In the end, I want to see a good round with clash and lots or arguments. I evaluate theory first and foremost unless you tell me otherwise and then go to offensive arguments before defensive. As I said, if you have specific questions feel free to ask me. Thanks!
Dan Tattersfield - Lincoln
Daniel Wang - Lincoln
Dave Schaefer - Nestucca
n/a
DeLona Campos-Davis - Hood River
n/a
Debbie Groff - Canby
n/a
Don Steiner - Wilson
Donna Graville - Lake Oswego
n/a
Eli Morgan-Steiner - Wilson
Eric Nisley - Hood River
n/a
Eva Calcagno - Wilson
n/a
Garrett Broberg - Lincoln
Garrett Broberg - Four-year competitor at El Dorado High School (Placerville California) competed primarily in Congress. 2016 California State Champion Presiding Officer, TOC semi-finalist, etc... I have however competed and judged all debate events (Nationals in PF) (Parli TOC Qualifier). LD– Speed: I am the last judge that will tell you “no spreading†as long as your opponents are okay with speed, go for it Topicality – As far as I am concerned, Topicality outweighs theory. T is needed in order to establish how we can create theoretical justification within the resolution. Theory – It’s fine but please slow down if you are giving several rapid-fire theory arguments that are not much more than tags. My default is the impact to a theory argument is to reject the argument and not the team. If you want me to put the round on it, I will, but I need more than "voter" when the argument is presented. I need clearly articulated reasons why the other team should lose because of the argument. Ks: I like them and I think they can be good arguments. I like specific links and am less persuaded by very generic links such as "the state is always X." Unless told otherwise, I see alternatives to K's as possible other worlds that avoid the criticism and not as worlds that the negative is advocating. With that in mind, I see K's differently than counterplans or disads, and I do not think trying to argue Kritiks as counterplans (floating PIC arguments for example) works very well, and I find critical debates that devolve into counterplan or disad jargon to be confusing and difficult to judge, and they miss the point of how the argument is a philosophical challenge to the affirmative in some way. Framework arguments on Ks are fine too, although I do not generally find persuasive debate theory arguments that Kritiks are bad (although I will vote on those if they are dropped). However, higher level debates about whether policy analysis or critical analysis is a better way to approach the world are fine and I will evaluate those arguments. Public Forum – There are a few things that I look for and require in PF. First and foremost: If it's in the final focus, it ought to be in the summary. I reserve the right to look at evidence to see if it comes from a credible source, or to see if it's been distorted, or simply to see if it says what I think I heard it say. Debaters should call out sketchy evidence, but I may call it out myself even if your opponents don't. I expect to hear some qualification for your author and the DATE (the year, at minimum) out loud. If you cite evidence simply as "according to Princeton," I will be very sad, and my sadness may affect your points. When evidence is called, prep time starts when the full text evidence is pulled up. Try to terminalize and specify impacts. "Helps the economy" (for instance) is not very impressive as an impact. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, DON’T HESITATE TO ASK!
Hannah Mathieson - Lake Oswego
n/a
Jane Griffiths - Lake Oswego
n/a
Janet Billups - Cleveland
Jason Miller - Lake Oswego
n/a
Jeff Calcagno - Wilson
n/a
Jeff Cruzan - Oak Hill
Jennifer Felberg - Wilson
n/a
Jennifer Clark - Hood River
n/a
Jennifer LeSieur - Clackamas
Joetta Moon - Wilson
n/a
John Stump - Cleveland
John Staskal - Cleveland
Joseph Breaux - Sunset
Julie Solomon - OES
n/a
Kaitlin Gilbert - MHS
n/a
Katie Wilson - Lakeridge
n/a
Kris Igawa - Beaverton
n/a
Lisa Casalino - OES
n/a
Marcy Landis - MHS
n/a
Mark Little - OES
n/a
Marla Murray - Lake Oswego
n/a
Marlaina Isbell - Lincoln
Melanie Merryman - Nestucca
n/a
Michael Doran - La Salle Prep
n/a
Michael Theofelis - DDHS
n/a
Michael Curry - Sprague
<p>For all forms of debate: <strong>BE NICE!</strong> Be nice to me. Be <strong>nice</strong> to your opponent. Be <strong>nice</strong> to your partner. There is no money on the table, so don't act like there is. <em><strong>Speech and Debate is one of the most important things you do as a human being.</strong></em> So help make this wonderful activity accessible to all!<br /> <br /> <strong>Public Forum</strong><br /> I expect cases to reflect the speaking expectations of event. 4 minutes of information presented in 4 minutes of time. I see my role as evaluating what you feel is important and would be worth speaking about, listening, and learning about. That being said, I do need clear signposting. The cleaner my flow, the more legitimate decision I can make. I expect to see impacts accessed in the round. If I have my way, all I have to do is look at the flow and weigh Aff world versus Neg world.<br /> I would like to make my decision solely off of the arguments first. If necessary, I may have to fill in some gaps . . . but I'd like to avoid this. If the debate is very messy on the flow, or lacks impacts, then and only then would I look to speaking style as a way to render a decision.<br /> <br /> <strong>Parliamentary Debate</strong><br /> In a parli round I see my role as a non-intervening policy maker who is accustomed to, but doesn't necessarily require, stock issues as a part of the presentation. It's weird I know, but I don't think any one judge fits squarely into any one paradigm. More importantly, I would like to base my decision on the best arguments in the round. My need for some stock issues is more an acknowledgement that there should be some common expectation amongst the debaters about what to run. I do tend to policy make more often then stock issue, but I do presume Neg to an extent. Still, a bad Neg case will always lose to a better Aff, even if the Aff doesn't fulfill all its burdens. Unlike many of my Oregonian peers, I am very much in favor of teaching policy and theory arguments in parli debate. For me, especially considering that Neg's prep time is almost useless, providing the Neg with offensive opportunities is necessary. I do expect off case arguments to be run correctly. The #1 reason why I rarely vote (for example) on T is because elementary facets of the shell are missing, lack of impacts, or a general misunderstanding of what the argument even is. If you have me for a judge, don't run off case just for its own sake. I have a high threshold for pulling the trigger on a procedural, or a K. So be wise in these arguments' applications. My opinion on speed is the same for Parli as it is for Public Forum in one area. I expect both first constructives to be delivered at a reasonable speed. If I have a clean flow at the beginning, then I can place responses properly once the pace picks up. I still don't want spreading, but I get it that the Aff needs to move at a quick pace in order to cover the flow prior to and after the Neg block. I expect arguments that are complete. Good link stories. Weighable impacts. Voting issues in the rebuttals. No tag teaming when questions are presented. Also, THERE IS NO RULE IN OREGON ABOUT ONLY HAVING 3 QUESTIONS!!! If you say "I'll take the first of three questions," I will weigh that against you. Take the questions if the opponent has been asking good questions. I won't blame you if you don't because the questions haven't been probing. Ideally, I want to weigh the round on impacts. I like comparing Aff and Neg worlds. If necessary, I may have to fill in some gaps in order to render a verdict . . . but I'd like to avoid this. If the debate is very messy on the flow, or lacks impacts, then and only then would I look to speaking style as a way to render a decision.<br /> <br /> <strong>LDV Debate</strong><br /> In an LD round I see my role as a non-intervening judge who wants to leave the direction of the round open as much as possible to what the debaters bring to the table. LDV is wide open for me in many regards. In Oregon, I value the V/C debate and would love all communication at a reasonable speed. Yet, we travel to some circuit tournaments on the West Coast, so of course I enjoy seeing the diversity of policy and framework arguments. So here's what would make my decision more legitimate. In regards to the case, run what you believe is worth speaking about, listening about, and learning about. Chances are really good that you know some stuff I don't. You are really focusing on this topic, and I have to teach classes, grade assignments, and raise my two sons. So you have the information advantage. You are going to have to educate me and sell me on whatever you are running. One point that is very important: I'm a smart guy. I'll get it only if you are proficient at delivering it. If I "didn't understand" your position, it's probably because you failed to adequately explain it. I do need clear signposting. I do need the constructives to be at medium speed. I find most people who spread are bad at it for a number of reasons. But the impact is devastating: I will have a messy flow. If you can give me a clear beginning, then you can pick up the pace in the rebuttals, and I can flow it better. I like to compare Aff and Neg worlds. I like to do this weighing with impacts. I would like to be able to base my decision off of the flow. If necessary, I may have to fill in some gaps in order to render a verdict . . . but I'd like to avoid this. If the debate is very messy on the flow, or lacks impacts, then and only then would I look to speaking style as a way to render a decision.</p>
Morgyn Sattenspiel - Sprague
Neil Griffiths - Lake Oswego
n/a
Nicky Stump - Cleveland
Parvathy Subramanian - Westview
n/a
Pat Johnson - Lakeridge
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 Gonzales - Cleveland
Peter Sprengelmeyer - South
Rajesh Shah - Sunset
Robyn Rose - Lake Oswego
n/a
Rohan Hiatt - Sunset
Rosy Li - Sunset
Sahil Goel - Westview
n/a
Sarma Kalapatapu - Westview
n/a
Satish Balusa - Sunset
Sony Felberg - Wilson
n/a
Sravya Tadepalli - Crescent Valley
Don't. Spread.
Stefana Sardo - Sunset
Steve Root - La Salle Prep
n/a
Stuart Schultz - Wilson
n/a
Subhadra Sampathkumaran - Westview
n/a
Sue Jepson - Hood River
n/a
Tammy Khazali - Sunset
Taylor Knudson - Cleveland
Tina Ontiveros - Hood River
n/a
Ulysses Duckler - Wilson
n/a
William Woods - Lincoln
Debate background- I debated in Northwest Washington high school debate for four years. During that time, I did 3 and a half years of Open Policy (CX/Cross-EX) debate. I currently am a second year college debater. I am also in my first year as the policy coach at Lincoln High School (OR). General Stuff I see debate as a space for the debater. You should debate what you want and how you want, it's not my role as the judge to decide how/what you can read in round. (Not to say I will tolerate oppressive and offensive discourse or actions in round). Debate rounds are always for the debater first, and so I will do my best to be as fair of a judge as possible with the arguments you say. Framing and role of the judge/ballot args are good, but not necessary. People should be comfortable to be in the round and everyone should make sure that is everyone feels safe. I tend to vote off the flow first and try to prioritize judging this way, but if you take issue with this I am open to evaluating rounds anyway that you ask me to in the round. Flashing does not count as prep, but don’t over do it. More Specific Info- T/Theory- I probably have a lower threshold for voting on procedurals than many people on the circuit. a clear interpretation/counter-interpretation in order to best evaluate the procedural debate is important, otherwise I will have no basis for how to evaluate your standards. T/Theory is probably always a voting issue but should still be articulated why, otherwise I will give the other team more leeway on the debate. Kritiks/Critical debate- useful tools that can have very important messages as well. I mostly have done reading on Ranci¨re, Marxism, Afro-pessimism, Foucault, (and some post-modern works). I think framework args on Kritiks are a good idea but not required. I will not do the work to make your arguments make sense or interact on the flow, that is up to you as the debater to make that happen. Overall a big fan of the K debate, of any kind. Kritikal affs- Go for it. I am open to any kind of 1AC. Whether you are in the direction of topic, intersect with it, or reject it. Just give me a reason to prefer your method and I will adapt to that. I will still vote on framework/T against these affs if the neg wins the argument, so don’t assume I will just reject those arguments on face. DA’s- Good stuff. I think DA turns and outweighs case args are great and should be a big part of any neg strat. Politics DA’s are a good strategic tool in debate as well but make sure your uniqueness is up to date. CP’s-. They are a fine way to steal all your opponent’s offense and make sheets of paper go away. Make sure they have competition and explain solvency mechanisms. Note- If you are debating a novice and you’re an open debater obviously try and win. But there is a point where you should take a moment and make sure you are not being exclusionary. There is no reason to keep spreading at 400 wpm if its clear your opponent is not keeping up or is close to. Make sure you keep the debate space inclusive and not scaring away kids from the activity. LD- So I am a policy debater by trade but if you are doing more contemporary style LD then I think I will be able to understand and keep up okay. All of above applies to whatever you would have to say as well. Public Form- I will need reminding of the times and how that works. Other than that this is just like any other kind of debate, and I will do my best to evaluate it in that way. Final Notes- Please feel to ask any questions before the debate begins about anything you would like, or reach me at williamwoods@lclark.edu