I have a lot of experience judging Public Forum debates, having served as judge since 2016.

I tend to focus on the clashes in a debate, and it would be great if debaters could weigh their contentions against their opponents'. The ability to point out flaws in the opponents' logic is another thing I look for in debaters.

BRIAN BWANYA

AGE: 24

COLLEGE: NANJING UNIVERSITY

CURRENT OCCUPANCY: STUDENT

1. What types of debates have you participated before and how long is your debate career?

I have been honored to represent my school as a first speaker back in high school at both provincial and national level during the 2019 season and participated in numerous high school debates in both Zimbabwe and South Africa.

2. How do you consider fast talking?

I prefer moderate and composed talking. Fast talking can result in poor word articulation and the judge(s) might miss a curial argument. I do not encourage debaters to use speed rather use substance to overwhelm your opponents. Quality over Quantity.

3.How do you consider aggressiveness?

It's important to present your arguments with conviction and passion but always maintain a respectful and professional approach. Keep in mind that, the main aim is to persuade others with logic and mechanism and not by intimidation or hostility.

4. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?

Well l take into consideration many factors before determining the team which wins. The debater/team who has the most compelling argument backed with concise logic and in-depth analysis, persuasiveness and clear arguments and a team which demonstrated the strongest grasp of the topic at hand has a chance to win my vote.

5. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preferences of the debate?

It's important for me to see clear arguments presented by both sides backed with recent and relevant evidence. I also prefer debaters who are able to remain calm and collected during the debate by avoiding personal attacks or insults even derogatory language. Lastly, stick to the topic and avoid tangents or irrelevant arguments that do not directly relate to the topic.

GOOD LUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The adjudication of any debate will consider a number of issues but my verdict will be determined by the terms or rules of that specific debate. Competitors will have to demonstrate their understanding of the topic in an analytical way and also by referencing authentic sources or statistics rather than using emotional points to seek validation of this judge. Everything will be based on who has done justice to the topic in key areas rather than who has sided with my position. I will approach every competition without choosing a side of the topic I support or will not be influenced by my cultural values to determine outcomes.

1. Debate career?

I have previous judging experience with NHSDLC the past several mothns. Judging PF online and offline tournaments.

2. Fast-talking?

Fast-talking can be impressive and effective in some cases, but it can also be overwhelming and difficult to follow for some people. As a general rule, I prefer a moderate speaking pace is preferable as it allows the debater to communicate their points clearly and ensures that I can follow along.

3. Aggressiveness?

Aggressiveness can be useful in some debates, particularly when the topic is emotionally charged or controversial. However, it's important to maintain a respectful and professional tone, even when challenging an opponent's arguments, also ensuring your points are well delivered. Personal attacks or insults or gestures like throwing hands when an opponent is speaking are never acceptable and can undermine the credibility of the debater.

4. Determining the winner of the debate?

To determine the winner of a debate, I consider several factors, including the coherence and accuracy of the arguments presented, the quality of the evidence provided, and the persuasiveness of the debater's delivery, not forgetting well argued out logical responses.

I do not admit new arguments in the summary speech. Any supplementary information included in your summary speech won't garner extra points. Your role is to consolidate the main points of conflict in this round, facilitating a better understanding of the issues that have been discussed.

In general, the debater who can provide the strongest and most well-supported argument, while also successfully rebutting their opponent's points, is likely to win the debate.

Ultimately, the goal of a debate is to engage in a respectful and informative exchange of ideas, and the winner is the one who best achieves that goal.

julianvgagnon@gmail.com please add me to email chains

from planet debate-

this is difficult for me b/c i'm not sure i have A judging philosophy but I do have many different ideas about and for debate...some inconsistent. that being said i don't want what i think about debate to totally dictate what debaters decide to do in rounds.

topicality- generally don't like it. I find no abuse args to be really persuasive. Since I like critical arguments so much I think you can usually find ground in any debate. i don't like the competing interpretations framework very much. i find the "that limits out any aff" arg to be persuasive. but i will vote on that framework and topicality if left unchallenged. in a good topicality debate on competeing interp vs an ok no abuse arg i'll USUALLY vote aff.

cp- like em. with a critical nb even better. i think i'm a fair judge for these debates. aff theory args generally not persuasive unless unchallenged. very similar to topicality in this regards.

das- great. a lot of people are now struggling with the we control the uniqueness = a risk vs. we got d/risk of turn. i don't think the aff has to have offense to win a da but i do find in a lot of debates that with only defense it hurts the aff a bunch. especially when the neg has a cp. but i tend to weight the da first in terms of probability and then magnitude.

critical args- love em. these are the debates i find the most interesting. i'm willing to listen to virtually any way the neg wants to present them. method. alternative. text no text. don't care. case turn. obviously it's the neg's burden to provide some way to evaluate their "framework" but in terms of theory i think they are all pretty much legit. args are args and it's the other teams responsibility to answer them.

others- i like to see people be nice to each other in debate rounds. some people may say i intervene sometimes. it's true but let me provide context. if you go for you mis-spelled (jk) a word in your plan and you should lose and your winning the arg but the other team says this is stupid...we'll i'm persuaded. you just wasted a bunch of peoples time. another thing. DON'T RUN MALTHUS IN FRONT OF ME- DOESN'T MATTER IF IT RIGHTS OR NOT. i won't flow it. i think that while debate is a game we still have a responsibility to "speak truth to power". discourse is very important. definately co-constitutes with reality. this may be why i'm starting/have been hating the politics debate for the last year and a half. but hey, like i said before, i'm full of inconsistancies b/c sometimes you just don't have another arg in the box to go for. i'm sympathetic to this. especially in high school debate. i still research it for the hs topic and coach my kids to go for it.


from debateresults...

Debate is a game- i have a lot of ideas about how the game should be played but in the absence of teams making those arguments i won't default to them. i think debate should make the rules of the game and provide a framework for how i should evaulte the debate. i'm not a big fan of some arguments...like malthus in particular...but also theory arguments in general. these debates generally happen faster then my mind and pen can handle. ive judged a lot although i haven't much this year on the china topic. some people may think i have a bias towards critical arguments, and while this is true to some degree (i generally find them more intersting than other debates), it also means i have higher standards when it comes to these debates. yeah imagine that, me with high standards.

Hello!! I'm Alan, a debater/judge/student with around 6 years of public forum experience. I've judged some tournaments, yet I am unfamiliar with the topic this time and do not have much experience with the style of U.S. circuit debaters. Please be polite, don't spread and be clear with your speeches.

Good luck and HAVE FUN!!!

TONY KIMANI

Age: 24

Current occupation: Undergraduate Student

College: Central South University, Hunan, Changsha

During my four years of high school years, I participated in various debates as a speaker, and in the 2018-2019 national debate, I participated as a judge. Some debate topics included:

1.Universal Basic Income (UBI): Should governments provide a guaranteed income to all citizens, regardless of their employment status, to alleviate poverty and promote economic stability?

2.Internet Privacy: Is it justified for governments or corporations to monitor and collect personal data?

3.Genetic Engineering and CRISPR Technology: Should humans be allowed to modify the genetic makeup of living organisms, including human embryos, to treat diseases or enhance desirable traits?

4.Free Speech vs. Hate Speech: Should societies prioritize the protection of free speech, even if it means allowing hate speech?

I consider fast talking as a level of confidence and time consciousness as long as the speed doesn’t render the words said by the speaker unclear. Politeness is a key aspect of giving out speaker points as it ensures order in the debate room. I make a judgment on the winner based on the logic of the clash and how the speaker debates the claim. This, however, needs substantial up-to-date evidence and logic.

I would urge debaters to be composed and argue their points without rushing. If debaters are well prepared to debate either as a pro or con of a debate, then they will stand in a good position in making reasonable claims and in the crossfire.

In speeches, I like to see confidence and composure. It displays good understanding of the topic and shows that the speaker practiced enough before the presentation.

Honorable defeat is preferable to dishonest victory.

Rishi Mukherjee (he/him)

Affiliations/Conflicts: Lexington High School, Cicero Project, UMass Amherst, Harvard College, Amherst College, Tufts University.

rishi.rishi.mukherjee@gmail.com put me on the chain

Harvard Update

I have had a recent spiritual realization. I have faith that there is no truth without wisdom. When making decisions I find that wisdom>tech>truth: divine and spiritual understandings seem inseparable from any ethical paradigm including intuition, consequentialism, intention etc. thus argumentation that does not center religious or divine morality will not be rewarded.

Lexington Update

- i do not want to judge online debates when there is an in person alternative - in college berhe and i deadass strike all online judges - my computer is egregious as i'm using a very old laptop and it can barely handle gmail and overheats when i use zoom - so please strike me if you're online.

- if you feel you must pref me despite competing online i do understand as someone who has to finesse for funding and has debated sick trust me i resonate - of course i still value fair competition above all else and of course i will not punish you with speaks or the ballot if you pref me online - but i will be very grumpy if you choose to pref me despite my objections - if i am judging you online please refer to the section called "online debate".

- this is my first tournament on this topic and i haven't judged policy since last years TOC - and also this is my first year judging where i know close to little about the high school topic - i know nothing about the camp affs, common arguments, side bias, T wordings, accepted norms etc. - for what it's worth i will say i'm majoring in finance and i'm quite knowledgeable about economics plus i've coached on a PF topic about UBI and i've researched and debated an aff about fiscal redistribution - if that matters to you or your coaches you should pref accordingly.

- if you're interested in debating in college in the northeast feel free to let me know or ask questions :)

PF Paradigm
- everything applies from policy paradigm (the top level part mostly)

i consider myself flay funnily enough - but to you i'm probably a flow judge - I do policy - but taught some PF - im ok with speed - ok with theory - ok with k's - plus down for (well executed) trolling

misc things that are weird about me in PF:

• down for paraphrasing - but i believe down with paraphrasing
• i would prefer that people do speech docs than waste time in ev checks
• i flow crossfire
• i actually treat grand cross and the summary as one speech - in my head its the 1ar in policy
• i care about extending 'complete' args into the FF
• i care less than most about terminalization but im lowkey a fan - numbers are cool
• i never understood pf judges deciding based on the number of clashes (see jamie zhang) - i resolve debates based on offense/defense and what seems most important - i dont really go clash by clash to resolve debates - i also default to what i consider judge instruction - (see policy paradigm)

LD Paradigm(Updated for Blue Key RR)

If I were preffing myself: 1 for LARP, Ks, Tricks, & T/Theory and 2/3 for Phil

I do CX, but I've done and judged a fair bit of LD. Everything from my policy paradigm applies. Defaults and Bias are my position without explicit argumentation. Defaults: I default to T as a higher layer than the K . I default permissibility and presumption negates. I default dtd on T/Theory.
Ks/Kaffs/T-FW all fine - I've debated on both sides. Far higher tolerance than most for "frivolous" theory, tricks, a priori's. Harder sell but ok for T-Nebel and RVI's but that's because I think plans are good and that I'm decent for theory generally respectively - if you win technically you're fine.

Memes aren't an autowin despite what you might hear about me. They still need to be fleshed out arguments. But I will be pleased if you send it and go for memes!

Policy Paradigm (Updated for Emory)

Emory Update - Policy

- i noticed i am regressing speakswise because im not impressed recently

- i know the NATO topic pretty well - i debated a NATO aff for all of alliances and have done some prep on this topic plus i occasionally read the news abt Russia - and im disenchanted with the love of recent ev as a substitute for coherent warrants

- talking to shree a lot has made me care more about a) cards in K debates & b) near-excessive contextualization to the other team in FW v Kaff debates by both the aff and neg

- whimsically down for a condo debate that starts early in the 2ac

Top Level:

- I believe debate is best when the judge does not favor adjudicating the round based on personal preconceived notions such as "rep" or "truth" among others. I strive to uphold this ideal and evaluate the debate in a technical manner. "If debate was about truth the debate would end after the 1ac and 1nc" - Matthew Berhe

- Judge instruction is paramount. Telling me what the consequence of winning a particular argument is on the debate will be formative in determining how I evaluate the debate. Argument resolution wins debates; explaining the interaction between your and your opponent's arguments & competing claims as well as why it favors you will win you close rounds. Absent any instruction from debaters I will make my own judgements on how to evaluate competing arguments. Many "JF's" occur because judges put the puzzle pieces together differently in their own head. Tbh this is more important than "opinions" on arguments. Tell me how to think and why!

Online Debate

- Don't start a speech without me.

- I usually won't say "slow" or "clear" in the middle of a speech. It is in your best interest to have me understand everything you say and I don't want to incentivize debaters spamming args until a judge interrupts. I would rather incentivize teams to over-compensate and debate carefully.

- Record your speeches; people inevitably disconnect in the middle of a speech and recording prevents issues that arise from this. My computer caught on fire one time lol anything can happen.

K Stuff -

Kaffs/Framework

- I know people pref based on this so TLDR: I'm very middling. I would pref myself above most clash judges but below judges who lean for you because I'm good for policy-policy and K v K.

- I don't care about what the aff does unless the neg makes it an issue. I read both affs with a plan and planless affs in high-school and continue to read both on the aff in college and I also often read FW on the neg.

- I believe there's no one right way to run FW on the neg i.e. people who say fairness is always better than clash etc. I think that categorizing certain impacts as always strategic or unviable is an L take. Go for whatever option you are most comfortable with/you think is most strategic.

Ks on the neg v Policy Affs

- I'm persuaded by the idea that the aff should get to "weigh" the aff, but what that means is up for debate.

- I find it simpler to vote for K's that disprove the aff and/or have specific links.

K v K

- Framing and judge instruction should be very explicit and debated out.

- Explanation is critical, application and examples win rounds; buzzwords lose rounds.

Policy Stuff

T

- I like the full package: I want a predictable model of debate that also produces good debates. I find it difficult to intrinsically care more about one of these components than the other.

- Reasonability is more persuasive to me when articulated with specific arguments with impacts like substance crowd-out rather than vague pleading that I should believe the affirmative.

- I am unfamiliar with the current high school topic.

DAs

- Comparison of any form including turns case or impact calc wins debates.

- A central question I usually have is evaluating and comparing risk. I find "zero-risk" impossible but often negligible risk is functionally the same e.g. I consider the risk of randomly getting struck by lightning negligible so I wouldn't decide against going outside just because the magnitude of taking a walk is outweighed by death by lightning zap. There is not zero risk that Shree wins the Olympic 200 meter dash in flip flops, however there is very negligible risk of such an event.

- great evidence > good analytics > poor evidence

CPs

- I used to not judge kick unless instructed to do so - I accidentally did one time though. Eh probably neg leaning if you tell me to.

- Fine for hella condo, but I always will take condo seriously if properly extended. I personally care much less abt perf con than most.

- I have no problem with process CPs that compete off of "arbitrary things" like certainty/immediacy as well as consult CPs, delay CPs or literally any other 'abusive' CPs. I generally find it easiest to vote aff in these debates if you have a process advantage. However, most good aff teams can also handily defeat these positions with proper theory and competition debate.

- I am lowkey not with the hype around going for tricky perms against process CP and I'm not enchanted with tricky perms as most and I prefer just voting on theory. I am generally compelled that things like intrinsic perms are bad, but at the same time that certain process cp's are bad.

Misc

- I believe meme arguments are an art form - passion and skill are critical! - this argument has gone underground - if you know you know.

- Don't make debate unsafe. I don't have a problem with stuff like the Death K, Spark, Wipeout etc. but use your best judgement.

- Clipping or other ev ethics violations are a loss and 0 speaks, accusations need a recording/proof and will stop the round.

- I give "modern" speaks and modulate based on the tournament "difficulty".

- I often flow CX.

- While I might not think too highly of debate in the abstract, I definitively respect the passion and effort people put into the activity. Therefore I approach judging and feedback seriously in accordance. The investment is what makes it all worth it.

1). In my opinion the goal of a framework is to to frame your case such that your impacts are relevant, and your opponents do not. It can be used to weigh the value of impacts in the beginning of the round, and to set a burden of proof on the other team.

2). In a debate I focus on the arguments, evidence, the impact of the arguments as compared to that of the opponent, I also focus on the solvents.

For a speech i focus on whether the student has understood the topic and how important it is, how people can relate to it and also the originality within the speech it self, these are some of the criterias I use to judge a speech.

3). A good ballot to me comprise of a minimum of three contentions like for example, the weight of the impact in the topics discussed, evidence with good factual data on the topic, intriguing crossfires, the summary that stays within the boundaries of the topic not new arguments. These as well are the criterias I mainly focus on when judging a debate

NGALULA JOJO

AGE:23

COLLEGE:NANJING UNIVERSITY OF POST AND TELECOMMUNICATION

CURRENT OCCUPANCY:STUDENT

1. What types of debates have you participated before and how long is your debate career?

I did debate when I was in high school went up to provincial level in 2017 and 2018.

2. How do you consider fast talking?

I don’t mind fast talking but I do prefer moderate and composed talking. Talking fast can result in poor word articulation and the judges might miss crucial argument moreover I think value over volume.

3.How do you consider aggressiveness?

Arguments should be presented with passion but always be respectful and professional. Keep in mind that, the main aim should be to persuade others with logic and especially the mechanism and not by intimidation or hostility.

4. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?

I take into consideration the entire debate before determining the team which wins. The team which has the most persuasive argument and is backed by logic.

5. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preferences of the debate?

It's extremely important that your arguments are presented as clear as possible with proper breakdown so that I can follow along and it needs to be backed up with relevant evidence. I do prefer debaters who are able to conduct themselves professionally by remaining calm and collected during the debate by avoiding personal attacks. Lastly, don’t go on tangents and give irrelevant arguments do your best to stick to the topic.

                                                                    BLESSING PETER

My personal debate philosophy.

I believe reserving judgment and taking your time is an essential part of the debate, the ability to use simple logic to refute an opponent’s argument for me is the key  

 Speech Projection

I have no issues as long as the speech is clear, and does not put too much focus on the number of arguments which will lead to race against time instead focus on quality and emphasis because at the end of the day I can only judge on what I clearly hear no matter how good and confident I am in my flowing skills

My take on aggressiveness

I believe healthy competition comes from respecting each other, they are your opponent, not your enemies, remember, empty vessels make a lot of noise!

How do I usually determine the winner of the debate?  Briefly

As aforementioned on the use of logic to refute an opponent’s argument, rebuttal speech for me is one of the most important areas to excel in, gather your main arguments in the summary, you do that you win it

Do all your necessary preparations, and have your evidence ready in place. Don’t second guess your argument, if you do let it be inside don’t show it

I'm Auster Shi, who's now taking a bachelor program at Communication University of China, and once debated for over 3 years. Now I've been judging Public Forum debate for over a year in multiple tournaments in Mainland China.

I'd like to hear an off-time road map that is brief and clear to follow before both summary and final focus in case of some debaters might jump between lines unintentionally. Also, these two speeches presented in an efficient way with details covered and necessary comparison are surely a strike in my zone.

No overlapping during crossfire. That's the only thing that I desperately need when judging long tournaments with several rounds. Other things like discrimination and hatred speech will not get me to burst into anger right away but immediately report to the tabroom.

Anyways, hope that we can have a great debate time together.

Judge philosophies

1. judge’s name: Moirah Sithole

1. Tell us about your debate judging experience.

• I have judged Public Forum debate for more than a year.

3. Tell us about your debating experience.

• I have debated Public Forum for more than a year.

4. What is your speaking speed preference?

• TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?

• I regularly read news about this topic. It's an interest of mine

6. Do you think the second rebuttal speaker should be expected to respond directly to the first rebuttal speaker (frontlining)?

• Yes, if the second rebuttal doesn't respond to the first rebuttal I consider it a dropped argument

1. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?

• It's somewhat important. I use my notes to aid me in making my decision.

1. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate?

The following are the factors that goes into to my decision as to who wins the debate:

1. Content and Argumentation: l assess the strength of each team's arguments, evidence, and reasoning presented during the debate. This includes the clarity of the arguments, the relevance of the evidence cited, and the logic of the reasoning.

2. Clash and Rebuttal: l then evaluate how well each team engages with and responds to the arguments made by the opposing team. Effective rebuttals that address the key points raised by the other side and highlight weaknesses in their arguments are important.

3. Organization and Structure: l also look at how well each team organizes their case, presents their arguments in a logical and coherent manner, and provides a clear roadmap for the debate.

4. Delivery and Presentation: l consider the speaking skills of the debaters, including their clarity, confidence, and ability to effectively communicate their arguments to the audience.

5. Crossfire Performance: l sometimes also take into account how well debaters perform during the crossfire, where they engage in direct questioning and answering with the opposing team.

6. Impact and Weighing: l further assess the overall impact of each team's arguments and weigh the significance of the impacts presented. Debaters are expected to explain why their arguments are more important or have a greater impact than those of the opposing team.

7. Use of Evidence: l also evaluate the quality and relevance of the evidence presented by each team to support their arguments. Debaters who use credible and well-supported evidence are often viewed more favorably.

8. Clarity of Final Focus: The final focus speeches are crucial in summarizing the key arguments and impacts of the debate. I pay attention to how well debaters crystallize their arguments and make a compelling case for why they should win.

1. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?

Debaters need to relax and enjoy the debate .

JUDGE PARADIGM

NAME: ARLENA NJOKI WAITHANJI

AGE: 23 YEARS

CURRENT OCCUPANCY: UNIVERSITY UNDERGRADUATE STUDENT.

DEBATE ETIQUETTE

Personally, I prefer a moderate-paced speaker as I feel that this allows the debater to clearly articulate their points and guarantees them that all their points are heard by the judges. The debaters should also be confident and explain their arguments clearly. During the debate, certain virtues and manners should be observed. The debaters should not be aggressive towards their opponents because as much as this is a competition, it is also an opportunity for the debaters to learn. In this regard, the debating environment should therefore be calm, and everyone accorded the time and space allocated to them to present their motion without disruption.

DECISION MAKING PROCESS

During the debate I employ the format of establishing what claim the debater presented, their justification for the claim and the impact of the claim. In addition to this I look at the logic plus the evidence presented by the debaters to establish who the winner is. Concerning impact, I encourage students to provide justification and demonstrate feasibility. This is because some students might present quantitative data without explaining the mechanism or providing a link to how these outcomes will be achieved.

I would also like to convey to the students the importance of clearly convincing me, as the judge, about what they mean and why their arguments are unique. It is not my role to interpret their claims in any way. They should be persuasive and make a compelling case for why they should win the various contentions they are championing. Additionally, I suggest using crossfire to challenge opponents and attempt to weaken their arguments by addressing any loopholes they might have. Failure to do so only strengthens the opponent's position.

SPEAKER POINTS

When I am allocating speaker points, they vary in different aspects. I consider the English proficiency, manner of delivery, articulation, and overall presentation. Moreover, I assess how well students respond to questions and engage with their opponents during crossfire. In addition to penalizing the use of abusive language and intentional falsification of evidence, I also take into account the organization and clarity of their arguments, as well as their ability to adapt to unexpected challenges or counterarguments. These factors collectively contribute to the overall evaluation and scoring of each participant.

Moderate speaking is preferred. Given that English may not be the first language for many students, clarity could become an issue. Therefore, I advise students to speak moderately to ensure that all their points are heard clearly by both the judge and their opponents. This helps avoid situations I've encountered before where the opposing team asks for a repetition of contentions. However, if you are confident in your pronunciation, then a quicker pace is acceptable to me.

I am eagerly looking forward to learning, listening to, and interacting with all the teams in the debate.

Hi All,

This is John, currently a first yeart at UBCV. I have had experience in both parliament debate styles in Canada for over 2 years and PF mainly in the chinese circuit for over 4 years, during which I won and top spoke numerous tournaments and many other awards.

Awards don't make a judge so I won't go into them, so let's go over my standards of judging. I'll talk about the most concerned issues in this paradigm - Speed and Speaks. Other than that, I welcome all kinds of arguement so please feel free to talk about Ks, non-PF args or any other if you like. You might wonder how do you win? Just do your best and I'll see if it's enough :) . In some rounds I might give win based on the number of clashes won by a team, in other's I might give based the imperativeness/importance of arguements, or which team is more aligned with their args. So, just do what you gotta do!

Essential Notes:

Be happy, be nice to others in the round. I might give you free speaks if you act kindly or vice versa.

Speed:

I'm ok with anything around 200 words per minute, but anything beyond that, especially when you have a bunch of numbers/stats/fancy words together, you are at a high risk of losing me. I will continue to flow down whatever I can, but I'll leave a note in your speaker comment area saying "your speech has gone mad". If you wondered why you said certain points in refutation, summary... but I did not have those down on my RFD, you would know why after you saw the comment above. So, be sure to slow down when you have important links or numbers you want me to write down.

Speaks:

Important Note:

1. NO "30s" roadmap, please.
2. If you say you are going to implicate on something later and you didn't, I might duct [or not based on tournament rules] your speech by 0.5 as this is going to occupy part of my cognitive resources which affects my ability to flow.

Your speaks auto a 27.5.

For the first speaker on each team:

1. If you gave me a clear, direct, and impactful case that's being delivered in a coherent manner, I would increase your speaks by 0.5.
2. If you were able to offer me some creative and unique points and I found those arguements concrete and topic-relatable, I would give you an additional 0.5 to you.
3. Summary/second rebuttal should collapse regardless of wether you are on Team A or Team B - I would give you another 0.5 if did a good job at collapsing (weighing as well). I prefer you to run-over in your summary (If you did this fabulously, you are guaranteed minumum 29.5) but you can structured the speech in any form you like.
4. The 1 point left would be based on your performance during the first CF and grand CF.

For the second speaker on each team:

1. You should start weighing in your refutation. If you do good weighings I'll increase your speaks by 0.5-1. Don't give me a million warrant turns, as you are just "neutralizing" their arguments which doesn't tell me why they are wrong.
2. If you want to disprove their warrant card/impact card, you need to talk about the research methods or other technical loopholes in their cards (please do not worry as I have preliminary knowledge, and If you did this fabulously, you are guranteed a minumum 29.5). However, if you wanted to point out something that wasn't mention in their cards or they were cherry-picking on their cards - mention it in your speech and I'll ask (You might have to remind me).
3. Impact turns are more than welcomed! If you offer me good impact turns I'll give you an anditional 0.5. Non-uqinueness and impact minimization gives you a 0.25-0.5 increment depends on how you say them. I'll also consider logic-based refutation/paradox... if you mentioned this when the materials allow, I would give you a 0.25-0.5 increment.
4. Final Focus should be focused on clashes. I wouldn't consider arguments that were dropped even if you mention them because they were essentially excluded from the debate, so both team regarded them as "unimportant". The only exception is if the arguments dropped were constantly reminded by a team. I'll reward a 0.5 increment (if your current score allows) if you were able to point out something that's really important but was not revealed. Of course, it has to be related to the previous materials as well.

Disclaimer:

These criterion are what I can think on the top of my mind for a "One of the best speech". You can definitely amaze me with something else! Be creative! Be bold! Plus there might be round where you just can not perform certain part above, so I'll be mindful of that and adjust my rating, however do be mindful I'm not going to give you comparative rating, which means how strong your opponent doesn't affect the speaks you receive, it's all standard rating of the techniques you show me.

Hi, this is Jamie. I'm currently studying Business and Finance / Social Science at NYU Shanghai. I was a debater in high school and now I am a professional referee and coach. I judge nearly 300 PF debates on average every year and have rich experience in debate judging. Here's my Paradigm:

1. The standard for my decision of the debate

(1) RFD

I. My criterion for judging the outcome of the debate is completely based on the number of clash points won by both sides, which has nothing to do with the debaters' own English level or preparation level. I will never insert any subjective or intellectual background into the final decision.

II. Clash points that can be credited to my RFD must meet the following conditions: This point needs to be elaborated on and discussed by the debaters before the summary speech, then summarized in the summary speech, and finally given the practical significance of the clash point in the final focus.

III. In the case that both sides have won the same amount of clash points, I will select the point that the debaters of the two sides spend the most time discussing in the whole debate, while this point is the most important clash point in the debate for me. The debate is won by whichever side wins the most important clash point.

(2) Speaker point

My scoring criteria will change depending on the requirements for judges in different tournaments. However, my personal speaker point criterion is:

24 means that the debater can barely complete the debate without any bad behavior; 25 means that the debater has finished the debate fluently, but there were no highlights; 26 is my average score, which means that the debater has not only completed the debate but also provided some good arguments; 27 means that the debater has given a lot of good ideas throughout the debate and overall did a good job; 28 means I think the debater is one of the best debaters in the tournament; 29 means that I think the debater is capable of winning a tournament outside the United States; 30 means I think the debater can win the tournament in America.

To be more specific: I give the debaters' scores mainly on the basis of their logical ability, English level, delivery, structure, preparation level, and politeness.

I. Logical ability: The logical ability of debaters is mainly reflected in their obvious logical errors in their arguments. It is important to note that even if the debater makes a logical error and the opponent does not point it out, I will still reduce the debater's speaker point without affecting the outcome of the debate.

II. English level: English ability is the basis of PF debate. If the speaker's English is obviously insufficient, I will consider subtracting the debater's speaker point. On the contrary, if the debater's English is extremely outstanding, I will increase the speaker point of the debater.

III. Delivery: Outstanding English ability does not mean that the delivery is clear enough. I have met many debaters who are very good at English, but they cannot express their logic clearly because they read the manuscript too fast. If the debater makes me think that his/her articulation is not clear enough, no matter how good the debater's English is, I will consider reducing their speaker point.

IV. Structure: Generally speaking, the debaters have a very elaborate construction in their constructive speech. However, I am more interested in whether the debater can maintain a high level of structure in rebuttal, summary, and final focus. A good structure will greatly help the delivery of the debater. I will also award the debater for their excellent structure by raising their speaker points.

V. Preparation level: The degree of preparation is mainly reflected in two aspects: A. whether the debater has a sufficient understanding of the important arguments in the topic; B. Whether the debater prepares citations and quotations for each argument he/she uses.

VI: Politeness: Politeness and respect are also important parts of the debate. If one of the debaters clearly disrespects the opponent or does something impolite, such as verbally abusing the opponent, then I would give a speaker point below 24 without hesitation.

2. Specific elaboration of different parts of the debate

(1) Constructive: I don't care if the speaker reads or recites the constructive speech. As long as the speaker speaks clearly and fluently in an orderly manner, I think it's a qualified constructive speech. I hope I can clearly hear the claim, warrant, and impact of each contention. Also, if the debater clearly does not perform well in the constructive speech, I would definitely give him/her a low speaker point, because writing a case is supposed to be a part of being fully prepared in advance, with very little improvisation needed in the debate.

(2) Rebuttal: I admit that the debater can prepare a lot of blocks ahead of time for rebuttal. However, I still don't want the debater to become a pure "reader" in the rebuttal, just "reading" what he or she has prepared. Improvising is very important. In addition, I hope all 2nd speakers can listen to their opponents' cases carefully and not drop any ideas easily. Finally, I allow debaters to extend their own case at the end of the rebuttal, but only after completing the counterattack against their opponent's case. If the 2nd speaker does not make any rebuttal but just simply repeats their own contentions, I will not make any flow and reflect any of the content in my RFD.

(3) Summary: The summary is what I think is the most difficult part of the whole debate. I expect the debaters to freestyle more in the summary and "summarize" the previous 20 minutes rather than choose to read their own blocks or cases repeatedly. I would not accept any new arguments in the summary. Finally, I accept a small amount of rebuttal in the summary, but I do not expect to hear another 3-min long rebuttal speech.

(4) Final Focus: I can accept that the structure and content of the final focus and the summary are generally the same, but they can never be exactly the same. The final focus should emphasize the realistic impact of each clash point.

(5) Crossfire: I can make it very clear to all debaters that what you discuss in the crossfire will not be more than 5% of my RFD as a whole. That's not to say I don't think the crossfire is important, or that I won't do flow for the crossfire. I insist: that all key information mentioned in the crossfire needs to be re-addressed in the following speeches. If the debater merely mentions a point in the crossfire, the point will not be valid.

(6) Prep time: I don't have a preference for the way debaters use their preparation time. I only care about two aspects: first, if the debaters spend a lot of preparation time before a certain speech and their performance in the speech is very poor, I will question whether the debaters really make good use of the preparation time and consider reducing their speaker points. Second, if the debater does not use preparation time at all and appears unprepared for the following speech by speaking inarticulately. I would think that the debater is too arrogant to use his own preparation time. I would also lower his/her speaker points.

(7) Checking card: I have no preference for the number and time of the debater's checking cards. The debater can check the cards at will within the scope permitted by the rules. I focus only on one point: Does the debater address after checking the cards? If the debater doesn't follow up at all after checking the cards, I think the debater is wasting everyone's time. Therefore, I will reduce the speaker points of the debater.

Thank you for your patience. That's all of my paradigms.

I graduated from Public Communication in Newhouse College, Syracuse University. I participated in NHSDLC during high school and won the Champion in 2018 Guangzhou Regional. I have judged several debates tournaments before. For the debate, I would like to hear more about your logic path and complete arguements. Building a stable framework as the base of your debate is also important. Also, I prefer if you can speak clearly and fluently instead of quickly. Good luck!

My Pronouns are They/Them/He/Him

Put me on the email chain: shaohan.zhou.2016@gmail.com

Framework:

My perspective as a PF debater tends to focus on quantifiable impact analysis, but I also buy egalitarian analysis as a framework and critiques if you put them in the right schema, a good analysis around structural violence/inequality/capitalism/libertarianism/neoliberalism/accelerationism might earn you a win against a huge amount of statistical evidence.

If there's no framework debate at all, I will follow default cost-benefit analysis on quantifiable impact, if both sides failed to access any quantification, I will then evaluate link quality>general performance>emotional appeal(it should be noted that I don't often buy seemingly exaggerated impact like human extinction, nuclear WW3, world doom unless you can access a good amount of probability cards) I'd also take feasibility into consideration even if it's a should-no-would resolution, basic supply-demand statistics /empirical successful examples should do just fine for that.

Speed:

Spreading NOT appreciated but I will still carefully listen to spreading cases and judge based on my flow. I can easily handle speed over 1000 words/4 min from my empirical experience(I once went for 1200 words case in a major final and lost) I think the vast majority of PF speakers wouldn't go over this limit whatsoever, so unless you are a well-versed CS-Spreader I believe I can understand your fastest pace possible, but still remember this: speaking CLEARLY is always the pre-requisite for speaking FAST!!!!

Crossfires:

I appreciate respectful, peaceful, and fruitful crossfires, I flow BOTH crossfires and speeches, major evidence, especially data mentioned anew in cross should be re-emphasized in later speeches. Yelling and abusive behaviour will lead to speaker points deduction, but rudeness would not be a major RFD on my ballot at the end of the day.

For Online Events, I'd like to remind you again that normally conference Apps like ZOOM have automatic main voice detection, which means when multiple debaters try to talk simultaneously, one of them(normally the loudest one of all) would be emphasized and others weakened, so as basic decency I'd like to ask you to keep Q/A brief and productive because it's relatively hard to interrupt in online sessions, save some time for opponents to respond. Don't start making Speech/reading cards in Cross!

In short, have the basic decency of keeping things lean and saving time for each other.

Front-lining:

I do NOT require rebuttal speakers on the second speaking team to frontline opponents' rebuttal speech! Of course, it's appreciated if your time permits, but I would value direct responses and quality of rebuttal over front-lining against your opponents' rebuttal, that could be picked up in summary(AKA I would NOT just consider it dropped until after Grand Cross, don't try to sell me "any turns left unresponded in 2nd rebuttal are 100% conceded arguments", I will take responses from summary into consideration)

Summary and Final Focus:

No NEW arguments in final focus, summary should cover ALL voting issues about to be mentioned in the final focus. Do not just bring up "dropped argument" in final focus if it's only mentioned once in your case and was not picked up in your summary to point out opponents didn't respond to them etc. I appreciate impact analysis based on quantifiable evidence, in summary, you should try to keep the consistency of using good data and try not to get into sheer logical explanation/emotional appeal.

Critiques:

Simple standard: 1. alternative better than original plan 2. alternative mutually exclusive with the original plan, if both criteria suffice on a scientific basis, I will buy your critiques with high speaker points. But I would also accept offenses about counterplan not allowed in PF debate, however would not be a major contributor to my RFD. (Focus on Framework if Alt is absent, FW standard mentioned above.

Theory, and everything alike:

NO, you can try reading those, and I will still judge on my flow, but also still based on my usual standard mentioned above.

If you have any questions whatsoever, don't feel afraid to ask