Judge Philosophies

Amy Moss Strong - Bandon HS

n/a


Ben Knobel - Coquille

n/a


Bruce Hanson - South Medford

n/a


Caroline Campbell - South Medford

n/a


Caron Newman - Loggers

<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 - NMHS

n/a


Clint Rodreick - Phoenix

n/a


Elizabeth Schiller - Grants Pass

n/a


Ellen Howard - Bandon HS

n/a


Frank Mukaida - Marshfield HS

n/a


Gordon Haas - South Medford

n/a


Heidi Way - Grants Pass

n/a


Jean Cowan - Marshfield HS

n/a


Jen McKenzie - South Medford

n/a


Jennifer Roberts - Grants Pass

n/a


Jennifer Wagner - IVHS

n/a


Jennifer Miller - South Medford

n/a


Jim Whittington - South Medford

n/a


Josh Scheirman - Marshfield HS

n/a


Kayla Crook - Marshfield HS

n/a


Keith Eddins - Oak Hill

<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 - BSH

n/a


Lisa Howard - South


Mark Stueve - Marshfield HS

n/a


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

n/a


Megan Berdelman - South Medford

n/a


Miles Stirewalt - Willamette

n/a


Murray Richmond - South Medford

n/a


Nathan Helland - North Bend

n/a


Nichole Barber - NMHS

n/a


Parker Corallo - NMHS

n/a


Patrick Welch - BSH

n/a


Timothy Hershberger - South Medford

n/a


Tom Lininger - South

<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

n/a


Tracy Muday - Marshfield HS

n/a


Tyler Curtis - Bandon HS

n/a