Judge Philosophies
- Lincoln
<p>Policy Debate Paradigm</p> <p>I am the policy debate coach for Lincoln High School in Portland, OR.</p> <p> 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.</p> <p> </p> <p>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. </p> <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> <p> </p> <p>Stylistic Overview</p> <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> <p> </p> <p>Positions</p> <p>Kritiks</p> <p>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.</p> <p>Topicality/theory debates</p> <p>Slow down for clarity, these debates tend to be nuanced. Try to limit these positions to only abusive situation</p> <p>Disadvantages</p> <p>Not shockingly, case specific disads are better than generic.</p> <p>Counterplans</p> <p>Competition is key. Aff leaning on Conditionality. Legit perms must include all of plan and part of the counter plan.</p> <p> </p> <p><strong><em>I will try to judge whatever you want, within reason, so long as you justify it.</em></strong></p>
Alex Parini - Wilson
<p>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. </p> <p>What I like to see:</p> <p>• 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. </p> <p>• 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. </p> <p>• 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. </p> <p>• 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.)</p> <p>• 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. </p> <p>• 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.</p> <p>• 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. </p> <p> </p>
Ameena Amdahl-Mason - Clackamas
<p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p> <p>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.</p>
Amy Meabe - Wilson
Ashlynne Olsen - Wilson
Audrey Umber - Canby
n/a
Bethany Dozier - Wilson
Braedon Lehman - SAHS
n/a
Brandon Johnson - SAHS
n/a
Carolyn Hill - Nestucca
n/a
Cary Doyle - Crescent Valley
Cathy Cleaver - Lincoln
Dave Schaefer - Nestucca
n/a
Dayna Keough - Wilson
Denise Sprengelmeyer - South
Don Steiner - Wilson
Eileen Stone - Cleveland
Eli Morgan-Steiner - Wilson
Erik Johannes - OES
n/a
Harriet Beeman - Wilson
Jan Atwill - OES
n/a
Jane Leo - Lincoln
Jennifer LeSieur - Clackamas
Joanna Ehlers - Lincoln
John Van Vleet - Wilson
Judge One - Silverton
n/a
Kat Podlesnik - Hermiston
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>
Kenneth Bisbee - Ridgefield H.S.
n/a
Kris Igawa - Beaverton
n/a
Lisa Reynolds - Lincoln
Matt Parrish - Grants Pass
n/a
Melodie Martz - N Val
n/a
Nancy Keates - OES
n/a
Padma Akkaraju - Crescent Valley
Patrick Leahy - SAHS
n/a
Ray Streinz - Wilson
Riley Johnston - Silverton
n/a
Rob Moeny - N Val
n/a
Stephanie Backman - Beaverton
n/a
Taylor Ferris - Grants Pass
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
Tru Mallon - Silverton
n/a