Judge Philosophies
Ally Jung - BC ACADEMY
Benj Parrilla - Edmonds Heights
n/a
David Jung - BC ACADEMY
n/a
Dawna Lewis - Edmonds Heights
n/a
Jennifer Noyd - FMS 2
n/a
Laban Lin - BC ACADEMY
<p>Framework:</p> <p>I'll accept any fair framework, but the debate must be confined to said framework. If the negative does not reject the framework and offer a more suitable alternative, but argues outside of that framework, I will reject those arguments.</p> <p>Clash:</p> <p>This is particularly important to me. If you drop the opposing analysis instead of responding to it by the end of the round, I will assume you have conceded that point and its implications.</p> <p>Burdens:</p> <p>Although Pro always has the burden of showing me why I should support a policy, Con will not win by any significant margin if their entire case only refutes the Pro's arguments. For Con to score well, they need to show me why a policy is harmful, not why it isn't necessarily a great idea.</p> <p>Arguments:</p> <p>As a BP debater, I am comfortable with extension-style arguments. Feel free to present atypical arguments, but of course, doing so for the sake of it will not win you any points. Present the best arguments you have, and I will take it in stride.</p>
Robert Sheardown - BC ACADEMY
<p>Framework:</p> <p>The framework should come from a reasonable interpretation of the resolution. Any squirrelling by either side will be heavily penalised. Any rejection of the original framework by the negative side should be based on a significant issue with the original framework as opposed to a personal preference. Arguments outside the framework will be disregarded.</p> <p>Clash:</p> <p>A lack of rebuttal or other form of explicit address directed toward the opposing team’s arguments is a serious issue – it implies concession to the opposing team’s points. Rebuttal should be well-reasoned rather than simply vague dismissals of opposing arguments.</p> <p>Burdens:</p> <p>Whilst the affirmative side obviously must prove why the resolution provides an improvement on the status quo, the negative side will not automatically win simply by refuting improvements presented by the affirmative side. The negative side must prove that the resolution presents a more harmful world than the status quo.</p> <p>Arguments:</p> <p>A diversity of arguments is important as it shows that the resolution’s benefits or harms are far-reaching and significant. Additionally, arguments should address all or most actors involved in the resolution as this shows a better understanding of the consequences of the resolution.</p>
Stephen Thornsberry - Redmond
<p>The following is roughly taken from the NFL LD judging guidelines.</p> <ol> <li>Communication should emphasize clarity. Accordingly, I will only evaluate those arguments that were presented in a manner that is clear and understandable. Throughout the debate, the competitors should display civility as well as a professional demeanor and style of delivery.</li> <li>Remember that the resolution is one of value, which concerns itself with what ought to be rather than what is. This value is prized for being the highest goal that can be achieved within the context of the resolution.</li> <li>The better debater is the one who proves their side of the resolution more valid as a general principle.</li> <li>Logos and ethos are equally considered. It should be noted that ethos is quite often ignored in LD. I don't ignore ethos and will often vote for the debater who expresses better confidence in delivery.</li> <li>There must be clash concerning the framework and contentions. Cross-examination should clarify, challenge, or advance arguments.</li> <li>Any case reliant on much theory will need to carefully define key terms. Common terms like "self" and "other" will need to be defined if they are used in a manner that is not part of common usage.</li> </ol>