FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

- Lincoln

Policy Debate Paradigm I am the policy debate coach for Lincoln High School in Portland, OR.  I was a policy/LD debater for Lincoln High School and CEDA debater for The American University in Washington, DC. Upon graduation, I returned to coach the American CEDA program for three more years. After a long hiatus, I’ve been called back to the activity that I love.   Debate is awesome! But … it’s only as good as we, as a community, make it. I am coming back to the activity to make sure that it continues for future generations. Teams that disrespect their opponent, or this activity, will be dealt with severely on my ballot. Integrity is not something to trifle with for short-term strategic benefits.  <ol> <li>Stand during speaking times, unless you’re medically unable.</li> <li>Homophobic, racist, religiously intolerant, or sexist language and/or behavior will not be tolerated.</li> <li>Rudeness, dishonesty, cruelty and vulgarity devalues the activity.</li> <li>Have fun! Strive for creativity, humor, debate scholarship, humility, compassion, and being strategic.</li> </ol>   Stylistic Overview <ol> <li>CLASH!</li> <li>Quality over quantity. Just because I can handle a faster round doesn't mean that it impresses me.</li> <li>Smart analytics is always better than lazy warrantless evidence.</li> <li>Debates about evidence QUALITY and CONTEXT are to be encouraged!  </li> <li>I am ok with tag teaming during cross ex so long as it provides greater clarity and isn’t abused.</li> <li>So long as it’s not a new case, advantage/scenario or neg position. The negative and affirmative positions should be disclosed pre round, if asked.</li> <li>If asked, evidence must be made available to the opposition.</li> <li>Prep stops when the flash leaves your computer.</li> <li>Provide a clear decision-making calculus judge from the start throughout the round and please do all of the impact analysis for me.</li> <li> I believe one or two prestandards (a propri) arguments are sufficient, anything more and I lean towards abuse.</li> </ol>   Positions Kritiks I’m more than open to them. But know that I’d probably rather judge just about anything … than a postmodernism debate. Even if you argued this in front of me 5 times this season, debate a K as if I’ve never heard the topic before. Topicality/theory debates Slow down for clarity, these debates tend to be nuanced.  Try to limit these positions to only abusive situation Disadvantages Not shockingly, case specific disads are better than generic. Counterplans Competition is key. Aff leaning on Conditionality. Legit perms must include all of plan and part of the counter plan.   I will try to judge whatever you want, within reason, so long as you justify it.

Alaina Russell - Bandon HS

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.

Alex Pita - Hood River

n/a

Alex Gielish - Willamette

n/a

Alexis Busso - Bandon HS

n/a

Amy Bloms - Westview

Amy Moss Strong - Bandon HS

n/a

Amy Laws - Ashland

n/a

Andrew Morgan - Tillamook

n/a

Angel Horta - Sandy

n/a

Angela Finneran - North Bend

n/a

Anna Castro - Gresham

n/a

Barbara Ritter - Sandy

n/a

Beau Woodward - Lakeridge

n/a

Belinda Bellante - Tillamook

n/a

Benjamin Agre - Cleveland

Bill Simon - Marshfield HS

n/a

Brett Hurliman - Tillamook

n/a

Brian Malan - Gresham

n/a

Brian Skahill - Cleveland

Carli Smythe - Summit

n/a

Carol Gelfer - Cleveland

Caron Newman - Loggers

I am first and foremost a communications judge.  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.  Regardless of the type of debate, you must be clear and concise.  I do not like spreading; what’s the point if no one can understand you?  Remember, Aff must convince me there needs to be a change in CX.  I don’t appreciate the neg wasting time on T if it’s not really an issue.  The worst round I’ve ever judged spent 20 minutes arguing the definition of “its.”  If you are not arguing the resolution, it’s very difficult for me to vote for you.  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’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.  Finally, in all events, the cross weighs heavily in my decision-making.  I appreciate insightful questioning and clear answers.

Cary Doyle - Crescent Valley

Cass Anderson - Ashland

n/a

Christy Veselik - Sandy

n/a

Courtney Walsh - MHS

n/a

Craig Leve - South

DAVE HENSHAW - BUDC

n/a

David Henshaw - Sehome

n/a

David Saenger - South

David Jung - BC ACADEMY

n/a

DeLona Campos-Davis - Hood River

n/a

Denise Dodson - Lincoln

Devon Crowe - Ashland

n/a

Diane Roza - SMHS

n/a

Donna Ray Bolduck - N Val

n/a

Doug Sam - Cleveland

Elizabeth Fortier - HHS

n/a

Ellen Howard - Bandon HS

n/a

Ellen Pfeifer - MVHS

n/a

Enrique Espinoza - Gresham

n/a

Eric Abbruzzese - Lincoln

Erica D'Alessandro - Tillamook

n/a

Erik Schlenker - Jesuit

n/a

Frank Mukaida - Marshfield HS

n/a

Gabriella Whitehead - Hood River

Geoff Lin-Cereghino - SMHS

n/a

Hampus Hammarland - Glencoe

n/a

Heidi Way - Grants Pass

n/a

Ingrid Skoog - Oak Hill

Jaime Platt - Marshfield HS

n/a

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.

Jared Roe - Willamette

n/a

Jaymie Leach - Redmond

n/a

Jean Cowan - Marshfield HS

n/a

Jeff VanVickle - Bandon HS

n/a

Jennifer Wagner - IVHS

n/a

Jennifer Clark - Hood River

n/a

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.

Jill Angle - Sandy

n/a

Joanna Ehlers - Lincoln

Joanne Drapkin - Bandon HS

n/a

Joe Sullivan - Cleveland

John Stump - Cleveland

John Watkins - Glencoe

n/a

Jordan Compton - Grants Pass

n/a

Josephy McKinney - South

Josh Sheirman - Marshfield HS

n/a

Julie Ringo - Summit

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.

Kara Blake - Butte Falls

n/a

Kara Shore - Willamette

n/a

Karen Hobbs - Summit

n/a

Kathryn Liu - Lincoln

Katie Wilson - Lakeridge

n/a

Kayla Crook - Marshfield HS

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.

Ken Beare - Westview

LAURA LIVINGSTON - BUDC

n/a

Lance Haberly - Siuslaw High

n/a

Laura Harvey - Jesuit

n/a

Laura Livingston - Sehome

n/a

Leslie Dailey - Cleveland

Lisa Reynolds - Lincoln

Lisa Howard - South

Lisa Kaplan - Cleveland

Liz Bohls - South

Luke Haenggi - Tillamook

n/a

Lydia Casas - Marshfield HS

n/a

Lynn Pizzo - Butte Falls

MIles Gordon - Cleveland

Maddy Kenney - Sandy

n/a

Mamta Sharma - Westview

Marcia Stewart-Warren - Butte Falls

Marissa Bertucci - Gresham

n/a

Martin Nelson Harrington - Tillamook

n/a

Mary Rower - Cleveland

Matt Parrish - Grants Pass

n/a

McKenzie Messer - Lincoln

Megan Medley - MVHS

n/a

Megan Bauer - Ashland

n/a

Mei Lu Zheng - Westview

Melissa Winters - North Bend

n/a

Molly Schulze - Willamette

n/a

Nina Bertucci - Gresham

n/a

Olivia Hering - Glencoe

n/a

Pat Johnson - Lakeridge

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 Gonzales - Cleveland

Patrick Cannon - Lincoln

Patrick Welch - BSH

n/a

Paul Fairman - N Val

n/a

Phil Fisher - South

Rob Moeny - N Val

n/a

Rob Bingham - Ashland

n/a

Robert Crawford - PEHS

In all events, I expect adherance to classic public speaking values--crisp enunciation and good projection, eye contact, confident posture and controlled movement, and a sense of sincere commitment to the truth, whether the truth of your position in debate events or the truth of your selection in IE's. I judge Public and Public Forum debate forms. In both, I am a "communications" judge. I feel the opportunity to speed-read briefs, rattle away in arcane debate jargon, and demand specific outcomes from judges is offered in OTHER debate forms, so in these I expect attention to oratorical skills, the art of persuasion, and cogent argument centered on a common-sense interpretation of the resolution. I expect full engagement with that common-sense interpretation on both sides, rather than evasive attempts to shift the ground under the judge's feet--this means clarity and clash.

Robin Hill - Bandon HS

n/a

Roger Williams-Thomas - Cleveland

Ryder Canepa - Grants Pass

n/a

Sarah Brody Webb - Lincoln

n/a

Steve Barth - Marist

n/a

Suhas Kurse - Westview

Susan McLain - Glencoe

n/a

TORY SANDOZ - BUDC

n/a

Tim Hammett - Ashland

n/a

Tom Lininger - South

Run anything.  I am a flow judge.  Speed is fine.  Have fun and don't be rude.  I have taught debate and other subjects (mostly law) at the University of Oregon.  I used to be a policy debater back in the day.

2015 Robert D Clark Invitational at the University of Oregon