Judge Philosophies

Amy Moss Strong -- Bandon High School

n/a

Ben Knobel -- Coquille High School

n/a

Bruce Hanson -- South Medford High School

n/a

Caroline Campbell -- South Medford High School

n/a

Caron Newman -- Butte Falls Charter School

<p>I am first and foremost a communications judge. &nbsp;That means that eye contact, respect for your opponent while he/she is speaking - not talking to your partner (to me, that is rude), inflection, and rate of speech are important. &nbsp;Regardless of the type of debate, you must be clear and concise. &nbsp;I do not like spreading; what&rsquo;s the point if no one can understand you? &nbsp;Remember, Aff must convince me there needs to be a change in CX. &nbsp;I don&rsquo;t appreciate the neg wasting time on T if it&rsquo;s not really an issue. &nbsp;The worst round I&rsquo;ve ever judged spent 20 minutes arguing the definition of &ldquo;its.&rdquo; &nbsp;If you are not arguing the resolution, it&rsquo;s very difficult for me to vote for you. &nbsp;For LD, I enjoy the philosophical portion as that was my minor in college. Try to stay away from policy jargon in LD; it doesn&rsquo;t fit. For parli, I expect you to answer questions instead of avoiding them and filling time that could be better spent responding to your opponent. &nbsp;Finally, in all events, the cross weighs heavily in my decision-making. &nbsp;I appreciate insightful questioning and clear answers.</p> <p>&nbsp;</p>

Celia Johnson -- North Medford High School

n/a

Clint Rodreick -- Phoenix High School

n/a

Elizabeth Schiller -- Grants Pass High

n/a

Ellen Howard -- Bandon High School

n/a

Frank Mukaida -- Marshfield High School

n/a

Gordon Haas -- South Medford High School

n/a

Heidi Way -- Grants Pass High

n/a

Jean Cowan -- Marshfield High School

n/a

Jen McKenzie -- South Medford High School

n/a

Jennifer Wagner -- Illinois Valley High School

n/a

Jennifer Miller -- South Medford High School

n/a

Jennifer Roberts -- Grants Pass High

n/a

Jim Whittington -- South Medford High School

n/a

Josh Scheirman -- Marshfield High School

n/a

Kayla Crook -- Marshfield High School

n/a

Keith Eddins -- Oak Hill School

<p>I prefer and default to a policymaker paradigm in CX policy debate. &nbsp;In current jargon, I reside in the truth-over-tech world. &nbsp;That said, I try to evaluate the round from (almost) any framework on which the debaters agree. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;I still consider inherency an issue that must be addressed by the AFF, and I think solvency should be demonstrated in the 1AC. &nbsp;In my mind, the notion of presumption favoring the status quo (and, thus, the NEG) continues to exist. &nbsp;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. &nbsp;I am liberal on T (at least from an affirmative perspective). &nbsp;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. &nbsp;It need not result in nuclear war or the end of the world. &nbsp;In fact, I find most DISADs more persuasive when not taken to the ultimate extreme. &nbsp;Ks are fine arguments provided you really understand and explain them. &nbsp;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). &nbsp;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. &nbsp;Plans, Ks, and CPs are fine in LD. &nbsp;In Parli, I am also quite comfortable with plans, Ks, and CPs, but they are not necessary. &nbsp;However, I will discount arguments in Parli that are based on a gross factual misstatement (even if the other team fails to challenge it). &nbsp;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. &nbsp;But for me to flow your arguments effectively, I need good signposting and clearly stated tag lines. &nbsp;Remember: I neither receive nor do I want a flashed version of your speech. &nbsp;Your best arguments may prove meaningless if you fail to tell me where to record them on the flow.</p>

Laura Cowin -- Bend Senior High

n/a

Lisa Howard -- South Eugene High School


Mark Stueve -- Marshfield High School

n/a

Maureen Bruins -- St. Mary\&#039;s School

n/a

Megan Berdelman -- South Medford High School

n/a

Miles Stirewalt -- Willamette High

n/a

Murray Richmond -- South Medford High School

n/a

Nathan Helland -- North Bend High School

n/a

Nichole Barber -- North Medford High School

n/a

Parker Corallo -- North Medford High School

n/a

Patrick Welch -- Bend Senior High

n/a

Timothy Hershberger -- South Medford High School

n/a

Tom Lininger -- South Eugene High School

<p>Run anything. &nbsp;I am a flow judge. &nbsp;Speed is fine. &nbsp;Have fun and don&#39;t be rude.&nbsp;</p> <p>I have taught&nbsp;debate and other subjects (mostly law) at the University of Oregon. &nbsp;I used to be a policy debater back in the day.</p>

Tori Marshall -- Grants Pass High

n/a

Tracy Muday -- Marshfield High School

n/a

Tyler Curtis -- Bandon High School

n/a