FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Alex Parini - Wilson

I'm a Neo-Communication judge. What exactly does that mean? Think of me as a modern version of your classic communication and stock issue judge.  What I like to see: • Real world policy making. The Aff should tell me how the state can make a difference. If you're running a Kritikal Affirmative then it needs to be run well. Dancing during the 1AC while telling me the state is prejudice is not enough to get my ballot.  • Solid link chains. Any argument-whether it's on the Aff or Neg-needs a clear story. Generic links can get you there if the warrants are strong.  • Clash. Both teams need to engage on some level. I'm ok with a framework debate so long as both teams actually engage each other's arguments.  • Line-by-line. Please go down the flow and tell me where you're going. Nothing sucks more then losing a round because the judge (me) flowed your argument in the wrong spot and couldn't extend it over. (I'll try my best to give you the benefit of the doubt, but don't put me in that position.) • Logic. Don't be afraid to "step outside the box". If you know something is BS call it out. Just because you don't have a card against them doesn't mean you should ignore their argument.  • Impact calculus. Weigh your impacts against your opponent's. Don't let me decide morality comes before nuclear war or vice versa. Convince me (with logic) which impacts are a priori. • Tell me why you won the debate. When I'm writing the RFD on the ballot I should use a line the 2A/NR used in their final speech.

Anisha Datta - Glencoe

n/a

Ann Simon - Marshfield HS

n/a

Ben Hynes-Stone - Silverton

n/a

Benjamin Agre - Cleveland

Bruce Jones - Southridge

n/a

Caron Harter - North Bend

n/a

Carrie Strecker - Neah-Kah-Nie

n/a

Clarissa Jones - Southridge

n/a

Dave Schaefer - Nestucca

n/a

David Augustine - Lincoln

Don Steiner - Wilson

Drew Simon - North Bend

n/a

Eli Morgan-Steiner - Wilson

Elise Brown - West Linn

Elizabeth 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!

Ellen Pheifer - MVHS

n/a

Emma Hoffman - Lincoln

Enid Zusman - Lincoln

n/a

Frank Mukaida - Marshfield HS

n/a

Harriet Beeman - Wilson

Heidi Sivers-Boyce - Wilson

Hiro Nukaga - Tigard

n/a

Isobel Coen - Cleveland

Jan Pizzo - Butte Falls

Two years high school speech Judging since 1980 First coaching assignment 1981 Debate coach 1993-1994 and 2004 to present. LD: Clash between aff and neg. Value/Crit should be integrated throughout cases. Analysis and cards are both important. Speaking speed should not be as fast as Policy. Line by line rebuttals are important. Debaters will be expected to know the rules, especially concerning new arguments. Ethical behavior is always a must. Policy: T, K and CP arguments are all fine. Generic disads and random T arguments tend to strike me as lazy. Old style stock issue debate is fine. My paradigm is: "Don't do anything to drive people out of the event." Line by line or grouping are both fine. Spread/speed okay. Speed should not be so fast that I need your written case/cards to understand the debate. Do not panic if I use a paper flow pad, I just like it better than the computer. Also, do not panic if I stop flowing, it does not mean I am not following the debate. Tag team does not work for me when it results in only one partner doing the C-X.  Debaters will be expected to understand the rules, especially concerning new arguments. Ethical behavior is a must. Policy-maker slant. Therefore, tell me why we need new legislation/law/plan, how it will fix the problem and why the plan is better than the status quo. Give me justification for voting for the plan on aff. On neg, tell me either why the status quo is not bad, why the aff plan will not work, why the aff plan is not needed or how the plan will create bigger issues. Alternatively, a K or CP is also a fine neg. approach as long as it connects. Traditional stock issue take-outs on-case of aff is also fine. For example, minor repair arguments work with me. PF: I will try my best to judge this form of debate from the perspective of a lay judge. Therefore, theory arguments, excessive speed or spread and jargon will be judged less favorably than in LD or Policy. Communication, illustrations, eye-contact and writing style will have more emphasis. Ethical behavior is a must. Oral critiques provided when permitted by the tournament.

Janet Billups - Cleveland

Jaymie Leach - Redmond

n/a

Jennifer Freda - Cleveland

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 Watkins - Glencoe

n/a

Josette Bisbee - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

Josh Sheirman - Marshfield HS

n/a

Kara Blake - Butte Falls

Karen Hobbs - Summit

n/a

Kat Podlesnik - Hermiston

n/a

Katie Kantrowitz - Silverton

n/a

Kayla Crook - Marshfield HS

n/a

Ken Teschner - Tigard

n/a

Kenneth Bisbee - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

Kevin Colo - MVHS

n/a

Kris Igawa - Beaverton

n/a

Lisa Howard - South

Lydia Casas - Marshfield HS

n/a

Lynn Pizzo - Butte Falls

Mae Graham - Cleveland

Marcia Stewart-Warren - Butte Falls

Mark Little - OES

n/a

McKinley Rodriguez - Lincoln

Megan Medley - MVHS

n/a

Melissa Winters - North Bend

n/a

Melissa Wyman - Cleveland

Michael Timmons - Silverton

n/a

Nancy Keates - OES

n/a

Nicholas Hanson-Holtry - Southridge

n/a

Norm Maves - Neah-Kah-Nie

n/a

Olivia Hering - Glencoe

n/a

Patrick Gonzales - Cleveland

Patrick Cannon - Lincoln

Paul Hesse - North Bend

n/a

Paul Altotsky - Tigard

n/a

Rebeca Ilisoi - Silverton

n/a

Rick Turner - Beaverton

n/a

Sam Schwartz-Horny - Cleveland

Sara Levering - Silverton

n/a

Scot Klocke - Sunset

Stacy Erickson - West Linn

Stefana Sardo - Sunset

Stewart Reed - Southridge

n/a

Susan McLain - Glencoe

n/a

Tracy Muday - Marshfield HS

n/a

2015 Hap Hingston Forensics Invitational