Judge Philosophies
zz-bye
n/a
zz-bye
n/a
Brent DeCracker - CPCMS
n/a
David Jung - BC ACADEMY
n/a
Elizabeth Fortier - HHS
n/a
Gabi Fernandez - FMS 2
n/a
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>
Serena Fitzgerald - FMS 2
n/a
Susanne Gladjo - FMS 2
n/a
Vivian Noyd - FMS 2
n/a