FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Aaron Putnam - Barlow

n/a

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.

Allison Quarles - RPHS

n/a

Amber Manning - Tigard

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.

Andrea Polivka - Nestucca

n/a

Andrew Morgan - Tillamook

n/a

Andrew Nock - Barlow

n/a

Anna Weston - Centennial

n/a

Ben Hynes-Stone - Silverton

n/a

Bill Allen - Tillamook

n/a

Brad Thompson - BSH

n/a

Brandon Johnson - SAHS

n/a

Carl Rupp - Tillamook

n/a

Carolyn Hill - Nestucca

n/a

Carrie Strecker - Neah-Kah-Nie

n/a

Dana Maben - Tillamook

n/a

Dave Schaefer - Nestucca

n/a

David Barringer - OCHS

n/a

Don Steiner - Wilson

Doug Burris - Centennial

n/a

Eli Morgan-Steiner - Wilson

Eric Mische - La Salle Prep

n/a

Heidi Rodriguez - Delphi

n/a

Hiro Nukaga - Tigard

n/a

James Kerne - SSHS

n/a

Jen Loeung - Centennial

n/a

Jen Card - Barlow

n/a

Jennifer LeSieur - Clackamas

Judy Davis - Barlow

n/a

June Gerst - Century

n/a

Justin Crow - West Albany

I am a tabula rasa judge. TOPICALITY: I don't like when AFF teams are abusive with definitions, and I don't like when NEG teams claim abuse or run T when it is not called for. Reserve T for those times when it is appropriate; don't run it every round. Here's a good example of abusive definitions in parli: For the topic R, THS significantly increase space exploration, the AFF defines the term "space exploration" as "offshore drilling in the Pacific Ocean." They justify this definition by saying "there's a lot of open space out there in the ocean, and it should be explored for energy and financial gain." If the AFF defines it this way, I assume the AFF either does not understand the resolution statement or is purposefully defining it in such a way that (1) caters to their own strength -- previous knowledge about the Pacific Ocean or (2) is unpredictable by the NEG, thus giving the AFF team an advantage. The key to avoiding T and the key to living up to your responsibility as the AFF team is to pass the predictability and fairness tests with your definition of terms. Like a tennis player who fairly calls lines, was the intention behind the definition in good spirits? If you take a poll of 100 debaters at the tournament and ask them to define the term in question, will any of them be in the ballpark of your definition? Also, be careful of definitions or plan texts that are too narrow or too broad (topicality and extra-topicality).   I am fine with CP, Disads, and K (though I don't really like K). Unless I give you a hand signal to slow down, I am fine with speed. As a courtesy to your opponents and me, please clearly label your contentions with brief taglines. (For example, "Contention 1: COST. The cost of implementing such a  plan..." DON'T REPEAT YOUR FLOW TO FILL TIME. Weigh, clash, give examples / metaphors, but don't repeat your case. If I have it on my flow, and you are repeating what I already have on my flow, what is the point of your speaking? Use htose precious minutes more constructively! If a team says "They did not ___ therefore we win the round" that is not necessarily so. It may be an a priori argument, it may not. Teams that argue something is a priori when it isn't annoy me because (similar to T) I don't know if they just don't know the rules or if they are trying to manipulate me into giving them a ballot. I once heard in a parli round, "Our opponents did not run a criterion to support their value; therefore, we win the round." That is just not true.  For voters, clearly weigh for me WHY you win. This often comes down to clearly stating and weighing impacts or otherwise stating why the better debating was performed by your team. If policy, many arguments for me will come down to evidence weighing. You both have data to back up your side of a particular point, but one team uses a solid Harvard study while the opposing team uses a study from crazyjoemanifesto.com or, worse yet, "my uncle says that..." In this case, all other things being equal, the team citing the Harvard study would likely win on that point.

Katie Kantrowitz - Silverton

n/a

Keith Eddins - Oak Hill

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

Kelly Court - SW Christian

Debate: I want to be able to flow your debate.  Speak clearly and not too fast.  If I can't keep up with you, you will not win.  Make sure to state your contentions clearly at the beginning and again as you move from point to point.  Be polite.  Pay attention while your opponents are speaking.  I like a clean well organized debate.  Have fun. Individual Events: Tournaments make for long days; I like to learn new things and to be entertained.  Please refrain from swearing in your presentations. It is seldom necessary.  I look forward to judging again this year.

Kim Hainley - Clackamas

Kris Igawa - Beaverton

n/a

Lisa Stewart - SW Christian

n/a

Liz McClanan - Catlin Gabel

n/a

MIchael Grainey - Blanchet HS

n/a

Mackenzie DeLong - Aloha1

n/a

Mark Little - OES

n/a

Mary Teylan - La Salle Prep

n/a

Matt Smith - SSHS

n/a

Michael Doran - La Salle Prep

n/a

Michael Timmons - Silverton

n/a

Michelle Jenck - Tillamook

n/a

Parent 1 TBA - Barlow

n/a

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

Patrick Welch - BSH

n/a

Patrick Leahy - SAHS

n/a

Paul Slyman - La Salle Prep

n/a

Rachel Thompson - OCHS

n/a

Ramata Adebawo - Westview

Reddy Mallidi - Westview

Rod Seigler - Centennial

n/a

Sarah Foster - Westview

This is your round. Do what you want to do in all debates. I will believe anything that you want me to but you have to make me believe it. Sign post well. I NEED to know where you are going so that I don't fall asleep.

Shanna Dorland - Tillamook

n/a

Spenser DeLong - Aloha1

n/a

Stefanie Slyman - La Salle Prep

n/a

Stephen McClanahan - Silverton

n/a

Steve Root - La Salle Prep

n/a

Suhas Kurse - Westview

Tiffany Zuidema - Tillamook

n/a

Tina Lam - Catlin Gabel

n/a

Tracy Doebesh - Centennial

n/a

Tracy Tingwall - Lake Oswego

n/a

Trent Stewart - SW Christian

n/a

2015 McMinnville High School Forensics Invitational