Judge Philosophies
Amanda Taylor - Loggers
n/a
Amy Moss Strong - Bandon HS
n/a
Barbara Dodrill - Bandon HS
n/a
Bill Simon - Marshfield HS
n/a
Bob Hundhausen - Bandon HS
n/a
Camy Taylor - Bandon HS
n/a
Caroline McKemey - Bandon HS
n/a
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>
Cathy Underdown - Bandon HS
n/a
Cherri Dunning - Marshfield HS
n/a
Claudine Hundhausen - Bandon HS
n/a
Doug Holland - Marshfield HS
n/a
Jadess Taitano - Marshfield HS
n/a
Jan Pizzo - Butte Falls
<p>Two years high school speech</p> <p>Judging since 1980</p> <p>First coaching assignment 1981</p> <p>Debate coach 1993-1994 and 2004 to present.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Oral critiques provided when permitted by the tournament.</p> <p><br /> </p>
Jean Cowan - Marshfield HS
n/a
Jenn Winston - Bandon HS
n/a
Jennifer Wagner - IVHS
n/a
John Hubbard - Bandon HS
n/a
Joy Suppes - Marshfield HS
n/a
Kaitey Davis - Marshfield HS
n/a
Kara Shore - Willamette
n/a
Kathy Coombs Hubbard - Bandon HS
n/a
Keith Eddins - Oak Hill
<p>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.</p>
Kevin Black - Bandon HS
n/a
Linda Sack - Bandon HS
n/a
Lydia Casas - Marshfield HS
n/a
Lynn Pizzo - Butte Falls
Marcee Knight - Loggers
n/a
Marcia Stewart-Warren - Butte Falls
Mark Stephens - Marshfield HS
n/a
Mark Stueve - Marshfield HS
n/a
Marty Giles - Marshfield HS
n/a
Mary Fields - Marshfield HS
n/a
Mary Jo Golder - Marshfield HS
n/a
Michael Winston - Bandon HS
n/a
Michael Dunning - Marshfield HS
n/a
Missy Cooper - Marshfield HS
n/a
Molly Schulze - Willamette
n/a
Rachel Osbon - Bandon HS
n/a
Rob Moeny - N Val
n/a
Roger Strauss - Bandon HS
n/a
Sabra Kachelein - Bandon HS
n/a
Shawn Cragun - Marshfield HS
n/a
Tara Blohm - Marshfield HS
n/a
Tom Lininger - South
<p>Run anything. I am a flow judge. Speed is fine. Have fun and don't be rude. </p> <p>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.</p>
Tori Marshall - Grants Pass
n/a