TBA1 - Prairie

n/a

---

TBA2 - Prairie

n/a

---

TBA3 - Prairie

n/a

---

AJ Breimon - Lakeridge

n/a

---

Addison Barton - MVHS

n/a

---

Amy Grondin - Sherwood

n/a

---

Ann Holler - Prairie

n/a

---

Anna Raye Foster - Siuslaw High

n/a

---

Basil Hawley - Cleveland

---

Beau Woodward - Lakeridge

n/a

---

Benjamin Agre - Cleveland

---

Beth McDonald - Clatskanie

n/a

---

Brad Thompson - BSH

n/a

---

Brian Collins - MVHS

n/a

---

Calvin Clark - MVHS

n/a

---

Catherine Band - Lincoln

n/a

---

Chris Selker - Lincoln

---

Chris Kautsky - THS

---

Courtney Angeli - Lincoln

---

Denice Stymfal - Prairie

n/a

---

Doug Sam - Cleveland

---

Elizabeth Fortier - HHS

n/a

---

Erick Lee - SAHS

n/a

---

Erin Annis - Skyview

n/a

---

Ernie Leland - MVHS

n/a

---

Glenn Bishop-Smith - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

---

Grant Mathers - MVHS

n/a

---

Gregory Walls - Prairie

n/a

---

Igor Tupikov - Prairie

n/a

---

Isaac Quinn - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

---

Jan Bosson - West Linn

---

Jeni McAnally - CRHS

n/a

---

Jennifer Barton - MVHS

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.

---

Joan Huston - UHS

n/a

---

Jodi Kruse - R. A. Long

n/a

---

John Gilligan - West Linn

---

Kate Barrett - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

---

Katie Greer - UHS

n/a

---

Ken Beare - Westview

---

Kendall Greer - UHS

n/a

---

Lance Haberly - Siuslaw High

n/a

---

Mary Sizemore - Clatskanie

n/a

---

Mary Schulte - Clatskanie

n/a

---

Mary Keefer - MVHS

n/a

---

Megan Strong - Clatskanie

n/a

---

Michael Joseph - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

---

Michael Joseph - Cleveland

---

Michelle Neal - Heritage

n/a

---

Mike Terzian - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

---

Natt Reynolds - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

---

Neil Heacock - Prairie

n/a

---

Norm Sanford - EHS

n/a

---

Pamela Fisher - UHS

n/a

---

Pamela Cross - CRHS

n/a

---

Patrick Johnson - Westview

<p>Real world arguments win- theoretical/improbable impacts do not</p> <p>Comparative impacts critical for a win</p> <p>Topicality is legit, again, only for real world probability</p> <p>CLASH! and signpost where your arguments clash with opponents AND why your impact is more significant</p> <p>No tagteam when prohibited</p> <p>Speed is not your friend when I&#39;m judging, if you have firmly established your contentions and have time, then spreading ok w/o speed</p>

---

Patrick Leahy - SAHS

n/a

---

Patrick Gonzales - Cleveland

---

Patrick Welch - BSH

n/a

---

Paul Hamann - Heritage

n/a

---

Paul Torgersen - MVHS

n/a

---

Phil Hawkins - Prairie

n/a

---

Reddy Mallidi - Westview

---

Regina King - THS

---

Sarah Weaver - Cleveland

---

Scott Hess - THS

<p>I expect students to have a well-documented case.&nbsp; Tell me your sources.&nbsp; I want strong authority, recent data, and compelling reasoning.&nbsp; Presenting your own case, however, is only part of the game.&nbsp; Rebuttal of your opponents&#39; case should show strong preparation and arguments supported by equally strong evidence.&nbsp; Finally, good arguments don&#39;t occur without clear speaking skills.&nbsp; All speeches must be understandable, flowable, and articulate with good road mapping and impacts.</p>

---

Scott Rowland - Elma H.S.

n/a

---

Seffornette Walls - Prairie

n/a

---

Steve Bosson - West Linn

---

Steve Seymour - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

---

Suzanne Hall - THS

<p>I expect cases to be presented with thoughtful, thorough and critical use of evidence to support each contention.&nbsp;I hope for keen responses to the opposing side with clear collaboration and team support during cross fire sessions. Overall, I expect competitors to remember that this is a speaking event; strong oratorical skills, including pacing, volume, emphasis and phrasing impact my evaluation of their efforts.</p>

---

Thomas Crowe - MVHS

n/a

---

Tommy Mattix - MVHS

n/a

---

Tyler Weil - UHS

n/a

---

Tyler Bieber - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

---

Victoria Garcia - SAHS

n/a

---

Zach Peace - Ridgefield H.S.

n/a

---