2013 Bellingham United Debate Tournament
Bellingham, Squalicum, Sehome high schools - Dec 14 | Status: Completed
Judge Philosophies
Alicia Jekel - PCCS
n/a
Dylan Thomas - Mount Vernon
Eric Sungho Cho - BC ACADEMY
<p>Generally, I believe that debaters, especially for Public Forum, should focus on clarity (because the style was created to be more relatable to the normal citizen) and well-warranted, logical arguments. That being said, debaters should feel free to use any really creative impacts or arguments as they like, as long as they can back it up and is somewhat believable. Impacts play a huge role for me when I vote.</p> <p> </p> <p>Please do not spread, because PF isn’t policy, or else debaters will lose speaker points. Furthermore, disrespectful, overly-aggressive, and/or dishonest debaters will also be deducted significant speaker points.</p> <p> </p> <p>Frameworks are not too important for novice PF debaters (for me), because I believe debaters should start with simply content-based arguments in the earlier parts of their debate career. However, for junior/open PF debaters, I expect a good clear framework or I will simply default to my personal preference for a framework.</p> <p> </p> <p>In terms of evidence, I won’t be impressed if debaters simply reiterate quotations or empirical data. I’m more concerned of if the debaters actually understand “how”, for example, GDP will increase, rather than simply stating that GDP will increase because so-and-so said so. This makes for much more interesting, and higher-quality debate, rather than comparing evidence. I’m not really a fan of PF debaters discrediting an entire argument by attacking the source of evidence; even if debaters are attacking sources, they should still give the opposition the benefit of the doubt and deconstruct the flaws of the opponent’s arguments (but debaters can of course point out unreliable sources).</p> <p> </p> <p>In the end, I will vote for the team who persuades me in believing that their side will create a better world or the least-worse world (so impacts are important for me). If the aff fails to provide any reason for change, and I feel the status quo is the most reasonable, then I will default to con because it is the aff’s job to create change and withhold the entirety of the resolution.</p> <p> </p> <p>I do not like to disclose unless the tournament requires to, but I am willing to give constructive feedback for all debaters. </p>
Gina Su - PCCS
n/a
Gwen McCartt - SWHS
n/a
Harry Youngnam Kim - BC ACADEMY
Jacob Zerby - Kamiak
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>
Kenny Torre - Mount Vernon
Megan Vujica - GPS
n/a
Mike Fitzgerald - Kamiak
n/a
Soomin Choi - BC ACADEMY
Steve McCartt - SWHS
n/a
Steven Helman - Kamiak
n/a