Ben Soleim - Lewis & Clark College

Saved Philosophy: n/a




Michael Catlos - Lewis & Clark College

Saved Philosophy: n/a




Nadia Steck - Lewis & Clark College

Saved Philosophy: n/a




Mary Lynn Veden - Linfield College

Saved Philosophy: n/a




Glenn John Cervantes - Lower Columbia College

Saved Philosophy: n/a




Jen Campbell - Lower Columbia College

Saved Philosophy: n/a




J Dalgleish - Lower Columbia College

Saved Philosophy: n/a




Erika Hein - Lower Columbia College

Saved Philosophy: n/a




Stefanie Neill - Lower Columbia College

Saved Philosophy: n/a




Ginger Pickner - Lower Columbia College

Saved Philosophy: n/a




Amber Lemiere - Lower Columbia College

Saved Philosophy: n/a




April Silva - Lower Columbia College

Saved Philosophy: n/a




Lea Bauley-Gabriel - Mt. Hood Community College

Saved Philosophy: n/a




Shannon Valdivia - Mt. Hood Community College

Saved Philosophy: n/a




Colten Sullivent - Mt. Hood Community College

Saved Philosophy: n/a




Heather Nichelle - Mt. Hood Community College

Saved Philosophy: n/a




Evan Steele - Oregon State University

Saved Philosophy: n/a




Mark Porrovecchio - Oregon State University

Saved Philosophy: n/a




Dan Broyles - Pacific University

Saved Philosophy: n/a




Jennifer Conner - Pacific University

Saved Philosophy: n/a




Alyson Escalante - University of Oregon

Saved Philosophy:

I competed in NPDA/NPTE parli debate for four years, two at El Camino College and two at the University of Oregon. As such, I've debate both on communication centric local circuits as well as national level competative circuit debate. The round is yours, and you are free to do what you wish with it. I will do my best to accomodate the type of round the teams involved decide to have. I do have some preferances but I will attempt to minimize the impact they have. This paradigm is meant to provide transparency for how I understand and aproach debate so that you can understand the biases and preferences which inform my evaluation of a round. Theory: I generally have a middle of the line threshold on most theory positions and I don't have particularly strong opinions on most of the debates about ideal pedagogy, except in relation to topicality. In general my threashold is lowest for questions of topicality and I tend to prefer that the affirmative team defend the resolution. I am willing to judge rounds where that is not the case, but the affirmative should have ample justifications for their decision and I tend to be sympathetic to topicality/framework. In terms of theoretical questions regarding counterplan status, I default towards understanding conditionality to be positive, but I am more than happy to vote on a condo bad shell which is not properly adressed. Critiques: I'm fairly comfortable with most literature bases for the main popular critiques on the national circuit. While I enjoy critique debate, I generally find that it massively simplifies incredibly complex literature. As such, I will reward debaters clearly well versed in, and understanding the nuance of their literature, with speaker points. In general I have a better understanding of more traditional political critiques of capitalism, the state, or other objective political institutions. I am also fairly comfortable with my understanding of criticisms grounded in broader continental philosophy. I am less well read in the fields of critical race theory and critical legal studies so if you want to read positions grounded in this literature please be sure to explain terminology and concepts so I can understand their function in the round. "Identity politics": I don't really like the term identity politics but it seems to be the term the circuit has settled on so here we are. Anyway, I generally find these rounds dificult to judge when not provided with a clear framework for how I am supposed to engage the round. If you want to read these kinds of arguments you should answer a few questions for me. What is my role in this round? Am I here as an objective observer flowing the round or should my social location and identity effect my interaction with the arguments being made? Should I stick to a logocentric understanding of the flow as an objective measure of the round, or should I evaluate without emphasizing the flow? If you address these sorts of questions you will have a significantly easier time winning my ballot. If you do not give me a paradigm to evaluate the round I will default to the flow, which I often find is insufficient for evaluating the affective and personal aspects of these rounds. Just tell me what you prefer. Disads: I probably prefer plan versus disad debate the most. I'm not particularly opposed to any particular disadvantages and I generally find that the more generic disads such as politics, hegemony, business confidence, or other generics are a really interesting debate when a team goes above and beyond in researching these positions and understanding the nuances of the story they are telling. If you have any questions not addressed here please feel free to ask me before round.





Joseph Allen - University of Oregon

Saved Philosophy: n/a




Sean McKean - University of Oregon

Saved Philosophy: n/a




Ashley Tippins - Western Washington University

Saved Philosophy: n/a




Kinny Torre - Western Washington University

Saved Philosophy:

First year out of the activity. I've debated for 7 years (3 years policy and 3.5 years parli) I've coached high school debate for 3.5 years and I currently coach for WWU

 

 tl;dr My judging philosophy is contextual to each round so, show up ready to debate and there shouldn’t be a problem. I know that debate has radical potential but we can probably only achieve it if we have some fun along the way ;) 

 

Usually, I default to the flow because it’s best way for me to process information. I’m not saying that I’m objective and to consider judges that evaluate debates through the flow as inherently objective is very harmful. That being stated, I do my best to evaluate the round through the competing lens that I am given; otherwise, I will be left to my own arbitrary view of debate. Note: that’s not to say that I will view the round through the lens of a policy maker but rather that I’ll evaluate the arguments the way that I think they should be evaluated unless I am told otherwise.

 

In other words, run tix and delay, Nietzsche and heg, a project, or several procedurals. My judging philosophy is centered around the belief that the debaters ought to determine the way through which I evaluate the round. Unless given an alternative lens, this means that I default to competing interpretations on procedurals and framework because I’m not sure how else I would answer those questions.

 

Lastly, a few tips if you want me to like you as a debater:

  1. Obviously, don’t be exclusionary or an asshole to your opponents or partner. If you're mean to your partner or your opponents there's a higher chance that in a close round I'll do the work for the oppossing team. 
  2. Usually, you don't have to call a point of order; often it times the argument doesn't matter and (usually) my flow is good enough that I should be able to tell. Nevertheless, if you feel like you need to call them then shoot. 
  3. I usually do not find "this is not the place for this argument" style of argument to particularly persuasive unless you can prove that there was a significant imbalance in ground AND that this is bad. 
  4. Please don't make one argument an RVI...you should have entire positions that prove why you should win. 
  5. Don’t assume that just because I was a K hack during my last few years that I know about the random argument that you found on redcritque; every argument needs a clear a warrant  
  6. Read all advocacies and texts twice or slowly (or both). I know that you have super dope argument about the semiotics of capitalism but I also need to know wtf you're gonna do about it
  7. If you’re clearly winning sit down