Bryan St. Amant
Constraints: Windsor, Bishop O’Dowd
Background
High school debate: Four years policy debate, two years national circuit, CHSSA State Champion
College debate: One year national circuit policy debate
Coaching: 4 years coaching parliamentary debate @ Windsor High School
Professional: BS Mech Eng, UC Berkeley; SM Management, MIT; Founder/CEO, Vinteractive LLC
Approach to judging
My approach to judging parliamentary debate is biased by my belief that this activity should be primarily educational in nature (rather than just a game), focusing on the development of public speaking, critical thinking and persuasive skills that will benefit students in later life. For this reason, I consider ethos, pathos and logos in all the debates I judge. Perhaps it is my corporate background, but I’m basically looking for two groups of smart young people who are doing their best to impress me with their professional demeanor, understanding of the question at hand, quality of evidence/analysis presented and their reasoning in asking me for the vote.
Argument preferences
From an argumentation standpoint, I value complete arguments built on logical reasoning and/or convincing evidence/examples. Although I’ll vote on gross violations of topicality or abuse, I tend to disregard just about any debate theory that isn’t firmly grounded in CHSSA’s simple rules for this activity. When debaters focus most of their time on procedural issues rather than the topic at hand, it just seems silly to me like we’ve all been cheated out of a better alternative.
So based on CHSSA rules for policy motions, I want AFF to prove change is necessary, harms are significant and a viable solution is available. On NEG I want to see defense of the status quo and/or a superior counter-proposal along with direct refutation of AFF solvency/harm.
In value comparisons, I expect each side will make a case for why their value is superior.
For factual motions, I expect each side to show under what circumstances the motion can be considered true or false.
In all cases, I value clear rebuttals that weigh AFF/NEG arguments against reasonable judging criteria.
Regardless of what I want to see in a debate, I will give credit for any significant argument dropped during a round and won’t fill-in responses that were not explicitly made. I stop taking notes and considering arguments after time expires and vigorously attempt to exclude new arguments from consideration during rebuttals.
Presentation preferences
See above about my preferred balance of ethos/pathos/logos in a persuasive presentation. In parliamentary debate, I prefer an assertive rate of delivery that allows for the presentation of multiple ideas but leaves room to vary rate/tone in order to emphasize key points. Flat out policy-style spreading is usually ugly in my opinion and can outpace my ability to take notes, so please use this style sparingly unless you are a master.
- There are no comments yet
Leave a Reply