Judge Philosophies
Ally Jung - BC ACADEMY
Amanda Sie - Tillicum
n/a
Andrew Dawson - Odle
n/a
Frankie Orrico - TMS
n/a
Frankie Orrico - Tillicum
n/a
Frankie Orrico - Odle
n/a
Josue Anderson - BC ACADEMY
<p>Experience<br /> I’m somewhat new to the Public Forum style (3 years now) however I’ve done my best to appreciate the nuances of the style compared to other styles practiced in Canada that I am more familiar with. I have 5 years of university-level British Parliamentary (worlds style) debate and while that does influence my preferences for persuasion in speaking and intellectualism of arguments, I strongly appreciate PF’s use of frameworks and impact-calculations.</p> <p>Decisions<br /> I do my best to allow the debaters to construct the rationalities for my decisions within the debate, persuasive frameworks that last the debate will influence my decisions although I focus most on whatever the debaters themselves choose to debate about, which areas had the most clash. I find a debate with a shortage of clash from both sides frustrating, while I would tend to reward the team with the most genuine attempts at engagement.</p> <p>I do my best to act as an ‘average person’ when deciding which team has holistically worked harder to be most persuasive. My experience as a coach expresses itself in how I evaluate the ‘effort’ of events that occur within the debate. Rounds of debate should be complex and involve various factors, likewise, I try to be as open minded as possible with elements developed within the actual debate. Unless the round was particularly bad and simplistic, it’s unlikely that a round will ‘boil down to one thing’ though it’s likely that varous elements will interconnect and become linked to specific ideas fought for in the debate.</p> <p>Style and speaker points<br /> I evaluate style holistically and do not consider it a separate element of a debate. The weight of the content is intrinsically valued by me based on the mannor that it is presented. Speaking styles only matter if they affect my ability to percieve content and I do not consider it outside of that realm when evaluating individual speakers. A speaker who uses fancy words and neat hand gestures won’t earn bonus points but it’s likely that I may find their contributions/matter more persuasive, likewise, I won’t punish a debate with crass or unpolished speaking styes (or ESL) but it’s possible that it debilitates my ability to conceptualize the matter presented. As a result of this perception of style, I do not ever give low point wins since I find them paradoxical. Debaters who are more persuasive get higher speaks, debaters who are more persuasive should likewise win the debate since they are more persuasive debaters and the activity should prioritize the rewarding of that holistic trait.</p> <p>Feedback<br /> I prefer giving oral feedback and I’m very happy to give as much of it as debaters want. I strongly encourage debaters to ask me whatever questions they’d like after a round, as I’m less inclined to give lengthy written feedback. My penmanship is laughably unreadable and I try to make up for it by giving dedicated comments.</p> <p>I like to contextualize my comments as much as possible with the actual debate that occurred, so I enjoy disclosing if the tournament allows for it, since it better allows debaters to appreciate the weight of the various items within feedback. </p>