FTN - Judge Philosophies

Judge Philosophies

Nielsen - Ashland

n/a

Alex Lianopoulos - Sprague

Alex Dang - Cleveland

Alex Gielish - Willamette

n/a

Alexander Erwig - South

I debated for four years in high school TOC level LD for Crescent Valley, and did three years of college parli for the University of Oregon. I've coached at multiple high school summer camps and am also currently coaching South Eugene’s policy team. Ultimately, you should deploy whichever strategy you are most comfortable and proficient with, and I’ll be happy to evaluate it. My favorite debates are those in which both teams are making smart, strategic arguments, regardless of whether those are critical or policy or theoretical debates.   I'm fine with any speed, any type of argument, and will not impose my own views about debate on you. I fundamentally believe that debate is an activity where each individual has an opportunity to speak about issues and arguments important to them, so I am fully open to whatever you want to do.    That being said, I’ll lay out a few of my general beliefs about debate. This isn’t to say that you should just conform to them, as I believe any theoretical issue is up for debate in-round, but should give you a heads-up as to what my inclinations are.   Specific Issues:  Kritiks: A strong framework with clear role of the ballot claims ideally accompanies most successful criticisms. I think a lot of critical debate suffers from a lack of warrant comparison and thesis-level analysis, so good comparative analysis and solid overviews will get you a long way. Just because I am versed in this kind of literature does not mean that I like seeing poorly executed critical strategies, so know your author's claims and be able to explain them. Extending tags and re-reading lines from your evidence is not the same as understanding and being able to explain your argument. Be able to sum up the thesis of your criticism in three sentences or less.   Theory: I like theory debates, especially those in which the interpretations are cleverly crafted (ex. Not “PICs bad” but rather “Counterplans that create an artificial net-benefit bad”). I am not a fan of the blatant doctored evidence that I’ve seen on the domestic surveillance topic to support some T interpretations. I’ll be reading the evidence that supports your interp, so be sure that your evidence actually says what you claim it does. Be sure to include fleshed out voters (“vote b/c education and fairness” is not sufficient).   DA/CP: I really enjoy evaluating these debates, and think that a well-crafted and argued DA/CP strat is probably one of my favorite debates to watch. The more specific and recent your evidence is, the better your disad is likely to perform in the debate. I tend to think that the internal links on most disads I’ve seen are the most lacking component, so having a well fleshed-out story is important in these areas.     Speaker points: My speaker points are primarily based on strategic execution in the debate, so even if you speak really well but make poor strategic choices you will get fewer speaks than someone who executes a winning strategy very well but doesn’t speak as well. That being said, I think most high school policy debaters would benefit from taking their speed down a level or two and increasing clarity. Not only does this ultimately make you faster (counterintuitive but true), but it also makes your speaker points go up. Especially in the rebuttals, many speeches would be more effective at a slightly slower pace while still making all of the necessary arguments.

Aly Horry - Sehome

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.

Amy Moss Strong - Bandon HS

n/a

Armando Barrera-Rubio - Sprague

Artem Raskin - Evergray

Background Evergreen Valley head coach. 4 years of high school parli, 3 years of circuit LD, 3 years of NPDA parli, 1 year of British parli. Political Science major, focus in International Relations. History minor. Approach to judging - I am a flow judge. If you run arguments I don’t like, I will be more willing to buy answers which debunk them, but I won’t intervene against them myself. If I can’t vote for either side without intervening, I will go by the path of least intervention. - Voting issues are crucial. Rebuttals should be used to explain argument interaction, levels of argumentation, and why you are winning these levels, not just to restate PMC/LOC contentions. - I vote for a team that has offense in the end of the round, defense almost never wins rounds. - Try to avoid bringing up completely new arguments in the second constructive – this creates a truncated discussion of an argument. I will be sympathetic to PMR turns against new arguments coming out of the block. - I am not a fan of splitting the block, but I don’t think MOC and LOR should be identical. The LO doesn’t need to extend non-essential defense if the MO already made the responses. I give LOR some leeway on extensions: simply referencing an argument is fine, you don’t need to spend too much time extending MO warrants. In general, LO should briefly extend chief pieces of offense and crucial defense and spend most of the time on big picture argument comparison. - If an argument is unclear the first time I hear it, I won’t vote on extensions which clear it up. - Rebuttals are for weighing; weighing is not a new argument. There is, sometimes, weighing which borders on making a new argument – call a Point of Order if you have doubts. - I will not vote on blips. The best, though not the only way to ensure your argument isn’t a blip is to structure it. - If the entire round comes down to a factual question, I will Google it. Argument preferences - I like positional cases. This means that the Government should have a specific plantext or a thesis. I welcome specification theory on vague plans. - I am not a fan of trichotomy. I don’t think any resolution *has* to be a value, that’s up to the Government to decide. - I enjoy listening to structured critical arguments with a clear and realistic alternative made by debaters who have read the philosophy behind them. If one of those elements is missing, I won’t enjoy them. - I have a high threshold for voting on procedural arguments. If you run topicality as a timesuck when there is no clear abuse, I will be very open to arguments that topicality should be a reverse voting issue. Theory needs to be structured and you need to explain why it is a voter. I tend to buy “reasonable limits” answers to it. - I default to Millsian net benefits. I think more specific standards exclude relevant argumentation. Weighing should be done primarily on contention level. Critical and philosophical debates are an exception to this rule. - Counterplans are very strategic. I don’t think the Opposition should be able to fiat alternative actors, though I won’t go so far as to intervene against that. Presentation preferences - Moderate speed is fine if it is used to present more in-depth arguments, but blatantly spreading out your opponents is never cool. - I will flow each argument (advantage, disad, framework, topicality etc) on a different piece of paper. When signposting, indicate clearly when you are moving on to a new argument. Tell me in which order I should arrange my papers in a roadmap; roadmaps are not timed. - I prefer teams to take at least 2 POIs per constructive speech. You should definitely take clarification questions after reading a plantext, or you will open yourself up to various specification arguments. - On parli decorum (pre-speech thank-you’s, shaking everyone’s hands after the round, wearing suits etc) – I am not a fan. I won’t prohibit it, I just think it’s pointless.

Ben Mann - Wilson

Hey there! I’m the Assistant Speech and Debate Coach at Wilson High School.   I competed in high school for a year at West Linn mainly focused on LD and IEs (Oratory, Impromptu, Radio, Prose, etc). Afterwards, I judged off and on at high school tournaments for the past three years. Currently, I’m a senior at Lewis & Clark College competing in college parliamentary debate and IEs along with coaching Wilson.   Regardless of the event, I fundamentally believe you should compete in whatever way you feel most comfortable and I should adapt to you rather than the other way around. In debate, I generally value substance over style (the arguments you make over the way you deliver them). IEs are more of a balance between the strength of the piece and delivery. While I try to be as open as possible, I do have tendencies for specific debate formats which are as follows:   CX Speed is fine, just give me a little pen time between positions to finish flowing. Slow down with plan/counterplan/alt texts. Prep time starts once you’ve put in the flash drive. Theory is fine – I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. K’s are good and I’m familiar with a lot of the classics (Cap, Nietzsche, Fem, etc) but explain obscure ones to me a little more. I’m neutral on most theory (condo, PICs, delay, framework, etc) and open to arguments on both sides as long as they have voters. Counterplans don’t need to be textually competitive or mutually exclusive if you show how they compete through net-benefits as the best policy option. I don’t need to see evidence unless you cite something that sounds blatantly counterfactual. Theory as an RVI is an uphill battle for my ballot.   LD Make sure to ground your contentions and rebuttals in your value and criterion. Some of the strongest LDers either explain why their value/criterion outweighs or explain why affirming or negating the resolution is preferable regardless of the value/criterion. Warrants, empirics, and logic get you far with me.   Parli Most things said in CX apply here: I default to net-benefits, counterplans, kritks, and theory are fine (I default to competing interpretations and am neutral on theory). Though I’m not outright against fact and value debates, I strongly feel policy provides the greatest fairness and education and that a policy lens can be extracted from value and fact-oriented resolutions. If you’re affirmative on a policy topic, PLEASE read a plan text.   Public Forum Of course, I value delivery more in this event. Aff should provide a clear weighing mechanism for the round and structured contentions will get you far with me. Please be respectful during crossfire.   If you have any questions about my judging philosophy, feel free to email me at <a href="mailto:mannb@lclark.edu">mannb@lclark.edu</a>. Happy competing!

Benjamin Agre - Cleveland

Bill Cobabe - Grants Pass

n/a

Bill Simon - Marshfield HS

n/a

Brett Hurliman - Tillamook

n/a

Bridgette Andersen - Jesuit

n/a

Brittany Gorman - Butte Falls

Brittany De Los Reyes - Ashland

n/a

Carli Smythe - Summit

n/a

Carolyn Hill - Nestucca

n/a

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.

Carson Hickox - Bandon HS

n/a

Chase Davidson - North Bend

n/a

Cherie Gullerud - Corvallis

n/a

Cherie Gullerud - Crescent Valley

Cheyanne Gliewe - Tillamook

n/a

Chris Selker - Lincoln

Chrissy Erguiza - Ashland

n/a

Colette Bray - Butte Falls

Courtney Young - Ashland

n/a

Crystal Stanford - Ashland

n/a

Dave Schaefer - Nestucca

n/a

David Jung - BC ACADEMY

n/a

Deb Defrancesco - Sandy

n/a

Denali Toevs - Cleveland

Diane Roza - SMHS

n/a

Don Steiner - Wilson

Donald Liberty - Jesuit

n/a

Ellen Howard - Bandon HS

n/a

Eric Sungho Cho - BC ACADEMY

Generally, I believe that debaters, especially for Public Forum, should focus on clarity (because the style was created to be more relatable to the normal citizen) and well-warranted, logical arguments. That being said, debaters should feel free to use any really creative impacts or arguments as they like, as long as they can back it up and is somewhat believable. Impacts play a huge role for me when I vote.   Please do not spread, because PF isn’t policy, or else debaters will lose speaker points. Furthermore, disrespectful, overly-aggressive, and/or dishonest debaters will also be deducted significant speaker points.   Frameworks are not too important for novice PF debaters (for me), because I believe debaters should start with simply content-based arguments in the earlier parts of their debate career. However, for junior/open PF debaters, I expect a good clear framework or I will simply default to my personal preference for a framework.   In terms of evidence, I won’t be impressed if debaters simply reiterate quotations or empirical data. I’m more concerned of if the debaters actually understand “how”, for example, GDP will increase, rather than simply stating that GDP will increase because so-and-so said so. This makes for much more interesting, and higher-quality debate, rather than comparing evidence. I’m not really a fan of PF debaters discrediting an entire argument by attacking the source of evidence; even if debaters are attacking sources, they should still give the opposition the benefit of the doubt and deconstruct the flaws of the opponent’s arguments (but debaters can of course point out unreliable sources).   In the end, I will vote for the team who persuades me in believing that their side will create a better world or the least-worse world (so impacts are important for me). If the aff fails to provide any reason for change, and I feel the status quo is the most reasonable, then I will default to con because it is the aff’s job to create change and withhold the entirety of the resolution.   I do not like to disclose unless the tournament requires to, but I am willing to give constructive feedback for all debaters.

Greg Kirby - Marshfield HS

n/a

Hampus Hammarlund - Glencoe

n/a

Hiro Nukaga - Tualatin

n/a

Hollis Wenzel - Sandy

n/a

James Denman - Lincoln

Janet Billups - Cleveland

Jason Miller - Glencoe

n/a

Jean Cowan - Marshfield HS

n/a

Jeff Stephens - Marshfield HS

n/a

Jennifer LeSieur - Clackamas

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

Jill Armin - South

Joe McKinney - South

John Liu - Lincoln

Josh Scheirman - North Bend

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.

Karen Hobbs - Summit

n/a

Kayla Crook - Marshfield HS

n/a

Kehl van Winkle - Thurston

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.

Kevin Eighmey - NEHS

n/a

Kyle Suenaga - MVHS

n/a

Lance Haberly - Siuslaw High

n/a

Larry Burke - Clackamas

Laura Harvey - Jesuit

n/a

Laura Livingston - Sehome

n/a

Lisa Reynolds - Lincoln

Lisa Kaplan - Cleveland

Lisa Howard - South

Liz Fetherston - Thurston

You can find my philosophy and my decisions from last year in this google drive: tinyurl.com/debate-rfd TL;DR: I debate for UO. You won't go too fast or be too technical for me, but it's your game, so play it however you want.  I recommend you still read the part about impacts in the philosophy.   Please email me at thurstonforensics@gmail.com if you have further questions or need clarification.

Lori Cossey - Marshfield HS

n/a

MIles Gordon - Cleveland

Mack Smith - Lake Oswego

n/a

Mark Little - OES

n/a

Mary Stayer - Lake Oswego

n/a

Mary Jo Golder - Marshfield HS

n/a

Melissa Wyman - Cleveland

Michael Stephens - Marshfield HS

n/a

Michael Curry - Sprague

For all forms of debate: BE NICE! Be nice to me. Be nice to your opponent. Be nice to your partner. There is no money on the table, so don't act like there is. Speech and Debate is one of the most important things you do as a human being. So help make this wonderful activity accessible to all! Public Forum 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. 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. Parliamentary Debate 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. LDV Debate 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.

Michaela Langston - Butte Falls

Michelle Winchell - Bandon HS

n/a

Michelle Kirby - Marshfield HS

n/a

Mike Springer - Tillamook

n/a

Mike Rosen - Cleveland

Molly Schulze - Willamette

n/a

Nathan Hellman - Willamette

n/a

Nizar Ajanovic - Sprague

Olivia Hering - Glencoe

n/a

Patrick Gonzales - Cleveland

Peter Sprengelmeyer - South

Rob Moeny - N Val

n/a

Rob Bingham - Ashland

n/a

Rob Schulze - Willamette

n/a

Robyn Rose - Lake Oswego

n/a

Sarah Warsaw - Summit

n/a

Sharon Beinlich - Lincoln

Shawn Winchell - Bandon HS

n/a

Sheryl Floyd - Nestucca

n/a

Star Kacmarsky - Tillamook

n/a

Steve Woods - Bellingham

Steve Dutton - Tillamook

n/a

Steve Rumage - Tillamook

n/a

Steve Barth - Marist

n/a

Steve Coatsworth - Ashland

n/a

Susan McLain - Glencoe

n/a

TJ Reardon - Lake Oswego

n/a

Taylor Nelson - Ashland

n/a

Theresa VanHollebeke Holt - Bishop Blanchet

n/a

Thurman Miller - Glencoe

n/a

Tim Hammett - Ashland

n/a

Tori Marshall - Grants Pass

n/a

Tracy Tingwall - Lake Oswego

n/a

Trisha Makela - North Bend

n/a

Ty Wyman - Cleveland

Tyler Garcia - Siuslaw High

n/a

Yuliana Gomez-Barrales - Sandy

n/a

2014 Robert D. Clark Championship Invitational (University of Oregon)