2013 Robert D. Clark Invitational (University of Oregon)
University of Oregon - Feb 22-23 | Status: Completed
Judge Philosophies
Adam Testerman - Wilson
Alex Lianopoulos - Sprague
Alex Bean - Tigard
n/a
Amy Moss Strong - Bandon HS
n/a
Amy Korst - THS
n/a
Anna King - Sprague
Anne Sweeney - Sprague
Audrey Moss Strong - Bandon HS
n/a
Ben Mann - Lake O
n/a
Benjamin Agre - Cleveland
Brett Hurliman - THS
n/a
Brian Avery - Lake O
n/a
Carolyn Hargus - Cleveland
Caron Newman - Loggers
<p>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.</p> <p> </p>
Chris Selker - Lincoln
Christina Pyle - Ashland
n/a
Colleen Arreola - Sprague
Dakota Bouher - Bandon HS
n/a
Daniel Hugart - Tigard
n/a
Darren Dirk - North Bend
n/a
Dena Minato - Crescent Valley
n/a
Dena Minato - Corvallis
n/a
Denali Toevs - Cleveland
Don Steiner - Wilson
Ellen Howard - Bandon HS
n/a
Eric Shilling - Cleveland
Gena Dwyer - North
n/a
Gus Garcia - Cleveland
Holly Shilling - Cleveland
Jaime Perez - THS
n/a
Jane Leo - Lincoln
Janet Billups - Cleveland
Jason Miller - Glencoe
n/a
Jean Cowan - Marshfield HS
n/a
Jeff Stephens - Marshfield HS
n/a
Jennifer Gruter - Clackamas
Jennifer Bagshaw - Ashland
n/a
Jennifer Craugh - Ashland
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.
Jim Raible - Ione
n/a
Joe Provencher - Lake O
n/a
John Liu - Lincoln
John Nelson - Clackamas
John Watkins - Glencoe
n/a
Jon Thorpe - O\'Dowd
n/a
Josh Scheirman - North Bend
n/a
Julie Inada - Ashland
n/a
Karen Hobbs - Summit
n/a
Kathy Yasui - Hood River
Kayla Crook - Marshfield HS
n/a
Kelly Kenoyer - Sprague
Kiefer Lampson - Sprague
Kinzi Silburn - Bandon HS
n/a
Kris Balliett - Summit
n/a
Kyle Suenaga - MVHS
n/a
Lance Haberly - Siuslaw High
n/a
Larry Burke - Clackamas
Lisa Bertalan - Summit
n/a
Lisa Pozzebon - Lake O
n/a
Lloyd Hartley -
n/a
Lura Reed - Summit
n/a
Lyn Dalquist - Summit
n/a
MIchael Grainey - Blanchet HS
n/a
MIles Gordon - Cleveland
Mack Smith - Tigard
n/a
Madison Long - Bandon HS
n/a
Marcia Stewart-Warren - Butte Falls
Michael Curry - Sprague
<p>For all forms of debate: <strong>BE NICE!</strong> Be nice to me. Be <strong>nice</strong> to your opponent. Be <strong>nice</strong> to your partner. There is no money on the table, so don't act like there is. <em><strong>Speech and Debate is one of the most important things you do as a human being.</strong></em> So help make this wonderful activity accessible to all!<br /> <br /> <strong>Public Forum</strong><br /> I expect cases to reflect the speaking expectations of event. 4 minutes of information presented in 4 minutes of time. I see my role as evaluating what you feel is important and would be worth speaking about, listening, and learning about. That being said, I do need clear signposting. The cleaner my flow, the more legitimate decision I can make. I expect to see impacts accessed in the round. If I have my way, all I have to do is look at the flow and weigh Aff world versus Neg world.<br /> I would like to make my decision solely off of the arguments first. If necessary, I may have to fill in some gaps . . . but I'd like to avoid this. If the debate is very messy on the flow, or lacks impacts, then and only then would I look to speaking style as a way to render a decision.<br /> <br /> <strong>Parliamentary Debate</strong><br /> In a parli round I see my role as a non-intervening policy maker who is accustomed to, but doesn't necessarily require, stock issues as a part of the presentation. It's weird I know, but I don't think any one judge fits squarely into any one paradigm. More importantly, I would like to base my decision on the best arguments in the round. My need for some stock issues is more an acknowledgement that there should be some common expectation amongst the debaters about what to run. I do tend to policy make more often then stock issue, but I do presume Neg to an extent. Still, a bad Neg case will always lose to a better Aff, even if the Aff doesn't fulfill all its burdens. Unlike many of my Oregonian peers, I am very much in favor of teaching policy and theory arguments in parli debate. For me, especially considering that Neg's prep time is almost useless, providing the Neg with offensive opportunities is necessary. I do expect off case arguments to be run correctly. The #1 reason why I rarely vote (for example) on T is because elementary facets of the shell are missing, lack of impacts, or a general misunderstanding of what the argument even is. If you have me for a judge, don't run off case just for its own sake. I have a high threshold for pulling the trigger on a procedural, or a K. So be wise in these arguments' applications. My opinion on speed is the same for Parli as it is for Public Forum in one area. I expect both first constructives to be delivered at a reasonable speed. If I have a clean flow at the beginning, then I can place responses properly once the pace picks up. I still don't want spreading, but I get it that the Aff needs to move at a quick pace in order to cover the flow prior to and after the Neg block. I expect arguments that are complete. Good link stories. Weighable impacts. Voting issues in the rebuttals. No tag teaming when questions are presented. Also, THERE IS NO RULE IN OREGON ABOUT ONLY HAVING 3 QUESTIONS!!! If you say "I'll take the first of three questions," I will weigh that against you. Take the questions if the opponent has been asking good questions. I won't blame you if you don't because the questions haven't been probing. Ideally, I want to weigh the round on impacts. I like comparing Aff and Neg worlds. If necessary, I may have to fill in some gaps in order to render a verdict . . . but I'd like to avoid this. If the debate is very messy on the flow, or lacks impacts, then and only then would I look to speaking style as a way to render a decision.<br /> <br /> <strong>LDV Debate</strong><br /> In an LD round I see my role as a non-intervening judge who wants to leave the direction of the round open as much as possible to what the debaters bring to the table. LDV is wide open for me in many regards. In Oregon, I value the V/C debate and would love all communication at a reasonable speed. Yet, we travel to some circuit tournaments on the West Coast, so of course I enjoy seeing the diversity of policy and framework arguments. So here's what would make my decision more legitimate. In regards to the case, run what you believe is worth speaking about, listening about, and learning about. Chances are really good that you know some stuff I don't. You are really focusing on this topic, and I have to teach classes, grade assignments, and raise my two sons. So you have the information advantage. You are going to have to educate me and sell me on whatever you are running. One point that is very important: I'm a smart guy. I'll get it only if you are proficient at delivering it. If I "didn't understand" your position, it's probably because you failed to adequately explain it. I do need clear signposting. I do need the constructives to be at medium speed. I find most people who spread are bad at it for a number of reasons. But the impact is devastating: I will have a messy flow. If you can give me a clear beginning, then you can pick up the pace in the rebuttals, and I can flow it better. I like to compare Aff and Neg worlds. I like to do this weighing with impacts. I would like to be able to base my decision off of the flow. If necessary, I may have to fill in some gaps in order to render a verdict . . . but I'd like to avoid this. If the debate is very messy on the flow, or lacks impacts, then and only then would I look to speaking style as a way to render a decision.</p>
Michelle Lentzner - Lake O
n/a
Molly Schulze - Willamette
n/a
Nai Blanc - Cleveland
Nellie Hall - Summit
n/a
Nok Jones - Tigard
n/a
Patrick Gonzales - Cleveland
Patrick Welch - BSH
n/a
Peggy Kinkade - Summit
n/a
Peter Tran - Tigard
n/a
Reed Van Valkenburgh - Cleveland
Robert Crawford - PEHS
<p> 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.</p> <p> 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.</p>
Robin Hill - Bandon HS
n/a
Ron Nance - Marshfield HS
n/a
Ryan Mills - Ashland
n/a
Sandra King - Sprague
Saraga Reddy - Tigard
n/a
Sarah Bunnell - THS
n/a
Scot Dalquist - Summit
n/a
Sophie Whitehead - Hood River
Steve Barth - Marist
n/a
Steve Dutton - THS
n/a
Steven Taylor - Clackamas
Susan McLain - Glencoe
n/a
Tatiana Havill - Bandon HS
n/a
Taylor Kittell - THS
n/a
Terri Dirk - North Bend
n/a
Thurman Miller - Glencoe
n/a
Tim Hill - Ashland
n/a
Tina Beltrone - Lake O
n/a
Todd Bofferding - Hood River
<p>Tabula rasa for arguments.</p> <p>For style, please speak slowly enough for effective communication.</p>
Tracy Habecker - South
Tracy Ordonez - Ashland
n/a
Tyler Garcia - Siuslaw High
n/a
Wendy Werthaiser - Ashland
n/a
james ranney - Tigard
n/a