Jung Park Paradigm

Last changed 2/15 11:40P PDT

Background: I teach language arts and communication at a private after school academy that I own with my husband. Also, I am a licensed attorney in California with a background in litigation. I have done extensive performing and public speaking and am a member of SAG. I have not debated in LD but enjoy it tremendously.

What I Value: I value organized, clear and coherent debate with clash. I value traditional debate and especially appreciate creative but applicable values and value criteria. A thoughtful framework and clear organization is very important, both in the framework and argument. I really enjoy hearing well-structured cases with thoughtful framework and value/Value Criterion setups. I have seen cases decided on framework and I think it is very educational for students to learn philosophy and understand more of the philosophical underpinnings of resolutions and even democratic society. Don't forget to show me how you achieved your value better than your opponent, or even how your value and VC achieve your opponent's value better. Don't forget to show your organization of claim-warrants-impact in your arguments. I don't think solvency is necessary in LD, but if you have a persuasive way to bring it in, I am okay with it.

Speed: A proper pace and rhythm of speech is important. I am fine with coherent, articulate fast talking that has a purpose, but I am against spreading. I find it and double-breathing very off-putting and contrary to the fundamentals of public speaking and good communication and the notion that debate should be accessible to all. Normal people sit bewildered watching progressive, circuit-level debaters, unable to comprehend them.  Furthermore, it appears that progressive debaters typically give their cases via flash drive to judges and opponents who then read them on their computers during the round and during decision-making. This then becomes an exercise in SPEED READING and battle of the written cases. The opponent and the judges do not even have to be able to understand the spreading since they have it before them. Yet, we in the audience, suffer, feeling we are too "dumb" to get it and wondering what is going on. Spreading alienates the average audience because it cannot understand the debaters. The truth is, many of these spreaders have not even practiced being articulate at normal speeds, so speeding up muddy articulation becomes impossible to comprehend. I am glad that many states are increasingly not allowing spreading at tournaments.

Theory: I don’t know much about theory and all the tricks that have trickled down from policy into progressive LD.  However, I am open-minded and if done intelligently, such as a valid and applicable spreading K, I believe it can be an interesting way to stop abusive practices in a round.

 

Final words: I think all of you should be very proud of yourselves for getting up there and doing this activity. Please remember that being courteous, honest and having values you follow are going to take you much further in life than unethical practices such as misrepresenting your evidence cards or being rude to your opponent. Good luck!

Full Judging Record

Tournament Date Ev Rd Aff Neg Vote Result
Claremont Wolfcub Middle School Tournament 4/22/2017 PF R6 Elite Kids Prodigy DJ Kudos KW Neg
Claremont Wolfcub Middle School Tournament 4/22/2017 PF R5 Jeffrey Trail LZ CL Education CH Aff
Claremont Wolfcub Middle School Tournament 4/22/2017 PF R4 Top Education LJ Rosemont DG Neg
Claremont Wolfcub Middle School Tournament 4/22/2017 PF R3 Jeffrey Trail JK Magnet NY Neg
Claremont Wolfcub Middle School Tournament 4/22/2017 PF R2 Magnet JL Fairmont SS Aff
Claremont Wolfcub Middle School Tournament 4/22/2017 PF R1 Fairmont CT Jeffrey Trail GH Aff
Bruschke Invitational at CSU Fullerton 4/14/2017 M LD R2 Mirman LZ Elite of Anaheim IP Aff
Bruschke Invitational at CSU Fullerton 4/14/2017 O LD R1 Woodbridge SS Honor JL Aff