Hi, Lois here!

It's a pleasure to be your judge.

I believe communication is relatively key in a debate. I urge debaters to politely express themselves in an informative and educative way.

I would base my paradigm on your articulation, analysis, framework, evidence, impact, and delivery.

Express your ideas clearly and more audibly. In order to avoid a distorted claim, try having a holistic framework and build a well-structured argument on the framework. Support your reasonings and arguments with substantial and well-cited analytical and empirical evidence. Be precise and more oriented in your organization.

Have a well-planned speech and stay within the said time.

All the best!!

This is my first year in debate judging. I deliberate on the overall presentation, how strong the argument is and supported with the facts effectively, how the debate team works, and how everyone has a voice.

I am looking to see your ability to clearly articulate your points, use positive body language, a strong voice, and eye contact. Speakers should work to persuade/inform with confidence. Convince with facts and persuade with information and genuine, clear arguments.

I enjoy debates that are informative and educative, where debaters seem to be enjoying and showing mutual respect. I participated in debates throughout high school and I know what it means to debaters. I definitely prefer arguments with substantive and supporting evidence and not just facts.

Speaking quickly is fine, but it has to be clear enough. Thus, if I can't actually understand what your claim is, I will likely not give that point as much weight. Please approach each round as an opportunity to learn.

Finally, the summary and final submissions made should be properly evaluated, constructed and conveyed in the most persuasive manner as its weight might affect the final judgement.

As a newly certified judge, I am enthusiastic about the opportunity to evaluate your speeches and debates. Here are some key points to keep in mind during your rounds:

Clarity: Please articulate your points and contentions clearly, making it easier for me to follow your argumentation.

Respect: I expect all participants to maintain a respectful and constructive atmosphere during the debate. Respectful communication is essential for a productive and fair competition.

Presentation: Make sure to present your arguments and ideas effectively, considering factors such as organization, evidence, and persuasive communication.

Fairness: I will be impartial and evaluate each argument on its merits. Please avoid any unfair tactics or personal attacks.

Time Management: Adhere to time limits and manage your speaking time effectively. This ensures a balanced and organized debate.

Integrity: When making points or using evidence, please reference your sources of information.

I look forward to a great competition and wish you all the best in your performances!

Judge’s Name: BRIAN BWANYA

2. Tell us about your debate judging experience.
a. I have never judged debate before.
b. I have judged debate for less than a year and this is my first time judging Public Forum.
c. I have judged debate for less than a year and have judged Public Forum before.
d. I have judged debate for more than a year, but Public Forum for less than a year.
e. I have judged Public Forum debate for more than a year.✔️✔️
3. Tell us about your debating experience.
a. I have never debated competitively before.
b. I debated Public Forum for less than a year.
c. I debated other formats for less than a year.
d. I have debated Public Forum for more than a year.✔️✔️
e. I have debated other formats for more than a year, but not Public Forum.
4. What is your speaking speed preference?
a. Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)
b. Conversational speed (120-150wpm)✔️✔️
c. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)
d. Fast speed (200+wpm)
5. How much do you know about the topic?
a. I coach debate and have researched this topic.✔️✔️
b. I have professional-level knowledge about this topic.
c. I regularly read news about this topic. It’s an interest of mine.
d. I pay attention to this topic, but I don’t go out of my way to know about it.
e. I have no idea about the topic. Please make sure I understand things.
6. Do you think the second rebuttal speaker should be expected to respond directly to the first rebuttal speaker (frontlining)?
a. Yes, if the second rebuttal doesn’t respond to the first rebuttal I consider it a dropped argument
b. No, the second speaker rebuttal is only responsible for answering the first constructive✔️✔️
c. I’m not sure.
d. Other (please specify)
7. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?
a. It’s very important. I take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely based on my notes.
b. It’s somewhat important. I use my notes to aid me in making my decision.✔️✔️
c. It’s not that important. I tend to judge the debate more wholistically.
d. Other (Please Specify)
8. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate?
Well I take into consideration many factors before determining the team which wins. The debater/team who has the most compelling argument backed with logic and in depth analysis, persuasiveness and clarity arguments and a team which demonstrated the strongest grasp of the topic at hand has a chance to win my vote.
9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?
It’s important for me to see clear and concise arguments presented by both sides. I also prefer debaters who are able to remain calm and collected during the debate by avoiding personal attacks or derogatory language. Not only that, use tangible evidence to support your claims and it should be recent, relevant and accurate. Lastly, stick to the topic and avoid tangents or irrelevant arguments that do not directly relate to the topic.

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

I am a public speech and debate enthusiast with competing experience as a lay judge. I would like to see

Clear arguments

Strong proofs

Confident speaking

Respectful attitude

I look forward to seeing your wonderful performance!

As a lay judge, my evaluation criteria prioritize creativity, a strong hook, authenticity, and a cohesive speech. I value speeches that demonstrate originality and innovative thinking. A captivating hook that grabs the audience's attention is essential. I appreciate speakers who bring their authentic selves to the stage, allowing their true personality and passion to shine through. Additionally, I look for speeches that flow smoothly and have a logical progression, ensuring that the ideas are well-connected and the overall message is coherent.

DEAR DEBATERS

I believe that debate is a valuable platform for your personal and intellectual growth. My philosophy as a judge is centered on three core principles:
1. Engagement and Learning: I see debate as an opportunity for you to explore, question, and learn. I appreciate when you engage deeply with the topics and arguments, seeking a better understanding of the issues at hand. Your involvement in debate is not just about winning rounds but about the journey of discovery and self-improvement.
2. Respect and Inclusivity : Respect for your fellow debaters is paramount. In the spirit of civil discourse, I encourage you to engage in debates with respect, empathy, and an open mind.
Promote inclusivity by valuing diverse perspectives, and ensure that your arguments and responses maintain a tone of respect and professionalism.
3. Clarity and Adaptability: Effective communication is a cornerstone of debate. I encourage you to present your arguments clearly and logically. While I appreciate confidence , remember that clarity is equally important. Additionally, adaptability in responding to your opponents' arguments and changing debate dynamics is a valuable skill. Being flexible in your approach shows your ability to think on your feet.

I also want to emphasize that, as a judge, I aim to be impartial and unbiased. I will evaluate your arguments based on their merit, adherence to the debate format, and overall persuasiveness, rather than my personal beliefs.

Debaters should chronologically outline their argument and provide concrete evidence is a must in order to win a debate. The debater must effectively defend arguments as well as counter the assertations of the opposing team, failure to do so insinuates that they are correct. Above all everything should be done civilly. Have fun and good luck!

I love respectful debates.

Debaters should focus on debating the resolution.Belittling opponents will not be tolerated!

Arguments should be well developed and coherent.

Be sure to provide substantial evidence that is relevant to the topic and explain how it relates to your argument.

Inasmuch, as you will be rushing against time to present your arguments, "Do not chew words." Speak clearly and audibly.

Refute arguments politely, giving each other time to speak.

New evidences and new arguments are not allowed in the FF.

Deliver your speeches in a convincing manner, accompanied with great reasoning and logic.

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.

I'm looking for coherence above anything else. I believe there is no point in making an argument if it cannot be understood. Therefore, be clear with your arguments and in your presentation.

I tend to favor participants that are the most specific. Specificity is the key to having a good speech or argument, in my opinion. As an English teacher, I tend to use what I look for in an essay as my criteria for judging a debate. I look for a Thesis that is backed up with arguments, analysis, and data.

I'm ok with speed, but sometimes, it's hard to understand when students are reading too fast. I do reserve the right to tell students to slow down.

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.

I look to see you apply both public speaking and debate skills to use in debates. For each speech, you should be delivering strong arguments with the credible evidence to back up everything you're claiming. Don't spread. Unless you're looking to be an auctioneer in the future, it is of no real use to read as fast as possible. Deliver strong, clearly spoken speeches that any judge would be able to comprehend. I look for adaptation to changing judges/opponents. Additionally, debaters should actually be listening and taking note of what the opposing side is saying. It is immediately clear when one or both sides are just stating points without acknowledging what the opposing side stated. Pay attention for dropped contentions, weigh the impacts whenever appropriate.

I am interested in having competitive rounds with students who display the passion of having a great debate and ultimately, I will side my final judgements to the team providing the greatest impact in the debate.

Participants should be ready to justify either with facts or logic as to why they are winning the argument and having the upper stand in the debate.

Offense should be reflected in the first speaker's speech in order to show that they have a foot hold in the debate. These individuals are crucial in the debate as they are the first to set a tone in the debate and present their argument and why they should get the vote.

Defense is a must in the rebuttals and participants should spend more time addressing factual arguments backed by evidence rather than wasting time without showing their evidence.

I am not in favor of a team that cannot argue without evidence when the opposing team asks for evidence check. I am interested in hearing a team that comes with facts, logic and brings their evidence to the table.

In short, I appreciate a good and logical narrative. Longer, here's an unorganized list of comments:

ü Assume I know nothing about the topic or what abbreviations stand for;

ü I like policy and critical debate;

ü Please no progressive arguments or spreading.

ü Keep the jargon to a minimum. I don't know what a counterplan is.

ü Fairness can be an impact;

ü Explicit clash over implicit clash;

ü Analysis over evidence;

ü I won't vote on evidence being bad if it was not indicted in a speech;

ü I'll tolerate ridiculous arguments because they should be easy to answer anyway.

ü I highly prefer debaters who speak at a slow conversational and clear pace.

ü Please be respectful to each other in the round and remember to have fun.

I look out for objectiveness, evidence, and the capacity to rebut well to make
my decision. I believe every debater stands an equal chance to win a debate no matter which side he or
she is on.

Debaters must make sure they are not only attacking their opponent’s claims but also defending theirs to win clashes.

Including evidence from currents happenings to justify your point can increase your chances of winning a clash

Leaving your opponent’s points unrebutted may score your opponent some points in my evaluation.

I consider myself both a flow judge and Comm-centric judge, because I would like to be able to follow along easily on the flow but also like speakers to sound persuasive.

An ideal round for me is a competitive but friendly and respectful .

As a debate judge, I am concerned with judging the evidence, the reasoning, and the presentation. The affirmative
side carries the burden of proof and must convince the judge with sufficient support for its argument. The negative side must convince the judge with the refutation of the opponent's argument. With this as a basis, I listen for logical, clear reasoning, presented in a well-organized, persuasive manner. I put great emphasis on delivery and how well the debater communicates his thesis and supportive ideas.

I would say that I am open to any argument as long as it is well thought out and clearly structured. It is also crucial that arguments are fairly easy to follow along.I would say that I am open to any argument as long as it is well thought out and clearly structured. It is also crucial that arguments are fairly easy to follow along.

My final decision as judge is based on the fundamental question: which side persuaded me to accept their stand on the proposition?

I am a lay judge and here is what I am looking for.

• Strong original arguments - not a direct repeat of your resource package.
• Quality over quantity (watch your speed)
• Clear, concise, easy to follow
• Crossfire rounds show me if you listened to your opponent
• Convince me with your arguments

Good luck and I look forward to seeing you compete.

As a former judge and debate speaker myself, I evaluate the rounds based on the framework provided by debaters then choose the team with better constructed argument and clearer communication to be the winner. Both sides should use logic and evidence to support their side and contradict the opponents arguments. Excellent speeches in the summary and rebuttal.

Speak clearly and concisely. You must talk fast enough to have the time to deliver your speech but slow enough so you can be understood. Debating a fast talker is not a problem remember to be friendly to your opposing team.

I write notes throughout the debate, assessing the bearing of each argument on the truth or falsehood of the assigned resolution.

Previous tournaments judged

1. Suzhou NSDA tournament January 2021
2. Tiger tournament hosted in Shanghai 2019, 2021, 2022 (July and November)
3. NSDA Wuxi tournament 2021
4. WSDA Guangzhou 2022
5. BIBSC Guangzhou 2022(December)
6. BIBSC Shenzhen Bilingual (January)
7. WSD Shanghai offline April 2023
8. WSD online (October 2023)
9. WSD Hangzhou offline (November 2023)
10. Lozo Shanghai offline (Nov 2023)
11. BIBSC Guangzhou online ( Nov 2023)
12. General Pool at TOC Pumpkin Spice Cup Shanghai Offline
13. TOC ICE CUP Hangzhou December 2023
14. BASIS International Nanjing 2024
15. TOC Winter Invitational Shenzhen Offline 2024
16. TOC Winter Invitational online 2024
17. NHSDLC Winter Invitational 2024
18. TOC Egg Hunt Cup Online 2024
19. BASIS International Bilingual Chengdu 2024

Judge Philosophies 1. Judge’s Name: Nobert Hlabangana 2. Tell us about your debate judging experience.[e]

a. I have never judged debate before.

b. I have judged debate for less than a year and this is my first time judging Public Forum.

c. I have judged debate for less than a year and have judged Public Forum before.

d. I have judged debate for more than a year, but Public Forum for less than a year.

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

3. Tell us about your debating experience.[d]

a. I have never debated competitively before.

b. I debated Public Forum for less than a year.

c. I debated other formats for less than a year.

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

e. I have debated other formats for more than a year, but not Public Forum.

4. What is your speaking speed preference?[c]

a. Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)

b. Conversational speed (120-150wpm)

c. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

d. Fast speed (200+wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?[d]

a. I coach debate and have researched this topic

b. I have professional-level knowledge about this topic.

c. I regularly read news about this topic. It’s an interest of mine.

d. I pay attention to this topic, but I don’t go out of my way to know about it.

e. I have no idea about the topic. Please make sure I understand things.

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

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

b. No, the second speaker rebuttal is only responsible for answering the first constructive

c. I’m not sure.

d. Other (please specify)

It depends on the format and rules of the debate. However, in other formats, such as PF the second rebuttal speaker may focus more on extending their own team’s arguments and attacking the opponent’s case rather than directly engaging with the first rebuttal.

7. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?[b]

a. It’s very important. I take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely based on my notes.

b. It’s somewhat important. I use my notes to aid me in making my decision.

c. It’s not that important. I tend to judge the debate more wholistically.

d. Other (Please Specify)

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

A: In public forum debates, I determine the winning team by a combination of factors including clarity and organization, strength of argumentation supported by evidence, effective rebuttal and clash with opponents’ arguments, strong speaking skills, adeptness in crossfire exchanges, efficient use of time, clarity of impact, and overall strategic approach to framing the debate. The team that presents the most compelling case, effectively refutes opponents, and demonstrates superior debating skills typically emerges victorious.

Judging a speech I evaluate the speaker’s content, structure, delivery, engagement, persuasiveness, originality, adherence to time limits, and overall impact.

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

A: I prioritize clear and logical argumentation, effective rebuttal, and engagement with the opponent's arguments. I appreciate well-structured speeches that are easy to follow and deliver persuasive points with confidence and clarity. Additionally, adhering to time limits and demonstrating adaptability and strategic thinking throughout the debate

Please be loud and clear when speaking. Use hand gestures and intonation to keep me engaged. I want to be able to feel your passion, but your emotions should not seem forced. It should come out naturally. The speaker should be confident and well-prepared. Proper use of ethos, logos, and pathos is key. Make sure your contentions are clearly outlined. Make sure your rebuttals clearly address the contentions of your opponent. Make sure to be aggressive but respectful during the crossfires.

I am a judge with lots of experience in speech in debate in many types of debate both in China and in the US. I think that it is up to the debaters to do most of the work and ideas.

I think that in PF, the most important part are the impacts, but I am open to vote for anything, just let me know why.

You can ask more specific questions in the round.

Note that i check how well a team understands the resolution and how well you bring it to light.
I pay close attention to a team’s depth of analysis in line with how logical and effective the evidence provided is.
To make sure all points are responded to clearly during a clash.
I will only sign the ballot for the team with the best material in the context of the round.
Please always keep the round educational and non-toxic.
Make sure you do your work properly before the start of the round.

Title: Evaluating Excellence: A Speech Competition Judging Paradigm by Marcus Sepo Jensen

Introduction:

As a speech competition judge, our paradigm centers on three key criteria: clarity of message, engagement with the audience, and effective delivery. We seek to reward speakers who present a clear and well-organized message, establish a genuine connection with the audience, and demonstrate exceptional delivery skills.
I. Clarity of Message:
Assess the clarity and coherence of the main message.
Evaluate the structure and organization of the speech.
Consider the speaker's ability to convey complex ideas in an understandable manner.
II. Engagement with the Audience:
Evaluate the speaker's ability to connect with the audience.
Assess inclusivity and the ability to engage a diverse audience.
Consider responsiveness to audience reactions.
III. Delivery:
Evaluate vocal skills, including modulation and clarity.
Assess body language, including posture and gestures.
Consider overall physical presence and confidence.

Originality and Creativity:
Evaluate the speaker's unique perspective and innovative insights.
Assess the use of creative elements such as language and rhetorical devices.
Consider the speaker's ability to evoke emotion and leave a lasting impression.

As a judge in debate and speech competitions, my primary goal is to provide fair and constructive feedback to participants while evaluating their performance.

I prefer that fewer arguments surpass many weak ones in terms of persuasiveness and should be addressed each at a time.

A framework is an essential roadmap for how the speaker will approach the debate. Without a framework, I might get lost in the details of the debate and lose sight of the big picture, so I consider a framework as an essentialpart of the debate.

Rebuttals should elaborate on each point made by the debaters in their persuasive speeches.

If you want to give evidence mention it from citation details like the author, year, or source.

I expect participants to articulate their ideas in a clear and concise manner, using logical reasoning and evidence to support their claims.

Oral prompting is acceptable in crossfire and all 4 debaters should participate in Grand Cross.

The debaters are expected to keep the discussion on the resolution's major aspects.

I have no opinion based on critical arguments. Just debate the resolution.

Each debater has an equal ability to prove the validity of his or her side of the resolution as a general principle during arguments.

Be courteous and not bully.

I will also evaluate how well speakers engage with their audience through eye contact, vocal projection, and body language.

Speak clearly using good oral communication skills.

Communicate with your opponents.

During the debate, I will evaluate each speaker based on their individual performance rather than comparing them to other participants.

As a debate judge, my primary goal is to facilitate a fair and intellectually stimulating environment for debaters to present their arguments and engage in critical thinking. I believe in the importance of respectful discourse and encourage debaters to engage in constructive dialogue while maintaining decorum.

I priotize the analysis of content over style, focusing on the quality and substance of the arguements. I expect debaters to demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of the topic , cire credible sources and use logical claims to support their claims. Time management is also of importance . I expect debaters to adhere to the allocated time.. Fairness and impartiality are fundamental to my judging paradigm. I will assess each debate round independently, without bias or preconcieved notions. I am open to innovative and creative arguements as long as they are supported by evidence .

In conclusion, as a debate judge i will evaluate debaters based on their ability to effectively communicate, present well reasoned arguements and engagement in a thoughtful discourse.

1. Judge’s Name

NAME: ASHWIN

GENDER: MALE

INSTITUTION: NANJING UNIVERSITY

AGE: 24

2. Tell us about your debate judging experience. (e)

a. I have never judged debate before.

b. I have judged debate for less than a year and this is my first time judging Public Forum.

c. I have judged debate for less than a year and have judged Public Forum before.

d. I have judged debate for more than a year, but Public Forum for less than a year.

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

3. Tell us about your debating experience. (d)

a. I have never debated competitively before.

b. I debated Public Forum for less than a year.

c. I debated other formats for less than a year.

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

e. I have debated other formats for more than a year, but not Public Forum.

4. What is your speaking speed preference? (c)

a. Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)

b. Conversational speed (120-150wpm)

c. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

d. Fast speed (200+wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic? (d)

a. I coach debate and have researched this topic

b. I have professional-level knowledge about this topic.

c. I regularly read news about this topic. It’s an interest of mine.

d. I pay attention to this topic, but I don’t go out of my way to know about it.

e. I have no idea about the topic. Please make sure I understand things.

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

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

b. No, the second speaker rebuttal is only responsible for answering the first constructive

c. I’m not sure.

d. Other (please specify)

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

a. It’s very important. I take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely based on my notes.

b. It’s somewhat important. I use my notes to aid me in making my decision.

c. It’s not that important. I tend to judge the debate more wholistically.

d. Other (Please Specify)

8. What factors go into your decision as to who wins 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.

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

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

Tina Kileo

Age: 25yrs

College: Chifeng University

Current occupancy : Student in University

Hello I am generally experienced to judging so generally speaking I tend to be motivated by well reasoned logic with superior supporting evidence. I have participated in more than five tournaments so far and got an opportunity to judge different kinds of speech including Extemporaneous speech, Impromptu speech, oral interpretation and original oratory speech.

Im okay with high speed when it comes to delivering a speech. But I’d say that if you do speed then please be clear in pronunciation. Also don’t use speed as a weapon not to elaborate the point clearly. That is the worst and the speaker points will reflect on that.

Aggressiveness is not a problem to me but it depends on an extent to which it reaches. I will evaluate and listen to every argument in the debate (unless it is overly racist, sexist, homophonic, transphobic etc) so as objectively as possible you do you in a respectful manner.

To determine a winner of the debate; I like arguments that are supported by evidence. However I evaluate the round based on arguments under whichever framework is best defended (including warranting that framework) Just winning framework doesn’t win the round. I need to see offensive arguments generated under a framework. I struggle to evaluate non-topical or extra-topical arguments and I’m much happier to vote for arguments that clearly link back to advocating one side of the resolution.

I care most about the round being educational and safe. I’m open to vote for anything, just let me know why.

Hello speakers,

I am Dr. Lanz and certified by NFHS in adjudicating and coaching speech and debate.

EXTEMP: I consider how well the speaker responds to the question, the quality and quantity of evidence you present, and the overall effectiveness of your speaking. I focus on logical analysis, clarity, effective introduction and conclusion, use of support material, use of language, and effective delivery.

IMP: I focus on the creativity of the speaker’s response, the organization and logic of your presentation, and the skillfulness of your overall communication.

OO: I focus on the quality of the speaker’s argument, including your logical connections and your use of evidence. I also look at the effectiveness of the speech’s organization and the flow of the speech. Your overall presentation, including speaking skills, creativity, and audience engagement is important.

Interp: I consider the skillfulness of the speaker’s performance, the creativity of the interpretation, and the overall coherence of the selection.

PF: I enjoy passionate arguments during crossfire. I also enjoy engaging presentations, meaning delivering your speech to the opposing team and the audience instead of just reading off of a script. I appreciate clear communication. Do not speed up.

I have taught courses in presentation skills, debate, public speaking, etc, in my past teaching careers. This is the second time that I've judged this event.

As always, a wise debater would slow down slightly in front of me. I would like to know how what you say relates to the topic. Badly done speed can lead to me missing something on the flow. I'm pretty good if I'm on my laptop, but it is your bad if I miss it because you were going faster than you were effectively able to.

Speed is okay. But I really do prefer listening to rounds conducted at something more about a natural pace.I don't have a preference as long as they have credible evidence and it applies to the round.

I may need to know about the very specific part of the topic/argument you are going for, so make sure it's explained. I'm visible regarding reactions to specific arguments, and it will be obvious if I’m confused about what is going on.

If you're debating policy, try to have some original thoughts. I think the activity becomes boring when all you do is read other people's stuff.

Meanwhile, I want to see a round in which teams run arguments that they feel comfortable, confident, or otherwise righteous running. Do what you do well, do what matters to you, and have fun.

I value logical consistency. Facts are more important to me than feelings. Word quality is superior to word quantity.

Framework: I place a strong emphasis on the framework, which involves deciding which issues or impacts are most important and instructing debaters on how to weigh them in the round. The main priorities are well-reasoned arguments, logical analysis, and effective use of evidence.

Speaker Points: To decide the winner, I look at speaker points based on a debater's presentation style, clarity, and overall performance. Strong communication skills contribute to a more persuasive and engaging performance. Respect for opponents should be maintained throughout the debate.

Clash and Rebuttal: I also look at the clash—direct engagement with the opponent's arguments—and effective rebuttal. Debaters are expected to respond to opposing points and demonstrate why their arguments are superior.

Relevant Evidence: The utilization of relevant evidence and examples to support arguments is vital. I assess the quality and relevance of the evidence provided by each team.

Congressional Debate

I care most about the round being educational and safe.

I will score speeches according to their responsiveness to the debate happening in the round. Introducing new arguments in the back half of the debate can be productive but only if it is contextualized within the debate that has come before it. Every speech after the sponsorship should be responsive.

When referring to previous speakers, please do so specifically and respectfully. Vaguely misrepresented claims aren't productive. Show me that you are flowing the round and understand what's happening in the debate.

Demonstrating knowledge of, and participation in, parliamentary procedure is a necessity to get on my ballot. Presiding officers will not receive a default rank if their leadership of the round is subpar but I will evaluate their contributions to the debate with equal weight to those who introduce keystone arguments or central rebuttals. I will assign a score per hour and consider accordingly.

In a presiding officer, I value proficiency and collegiality. Full disclosure, I have not judged an online congress tournament before and I'm not entirely certain of the best practices and standards with setting initial precedence. I will seek guidance on this.

Public Forum Debate

I care most about the round being educational and safe. Ultimately, I'm going to sign my ballot for the team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact.

I’m fairly tab, so feel free to read anything but be prepared to justify why you’re winning that argument and ultimately why that argument matters in the greater context of the round.

Defense sticks for the first speaking team until it's frontlined; it needs to be extended in FF, though. I don't care what 2nd rebuttal does, only that defense is extended the speech after it's frontlined.

Offense needs to appear in both the summary and the FF for me to evaluate it. Offense is more than just a card tag or author name - warranting is very important.

I don’t want to read evidence and more importantly you don’t want me to read evidence. My interpretation may not match yours and that preempts any muddiness in the round.

Please. Please don’t lie to me in your FF - “unresponded to” is almost never the case and is generally synonymous with “unextended.” Do the work. I won’t do it for you.

For the few years as a debate judge i have throughly enjoyed every momement of the tournaments ,and i have realized the critical role that i play in supporting students educational and competitive endevors .I apprriate a well put argument (debate )surported with a solid framework that provides justification for the topic in argument and the state importance of the argument . At the end of the debate i will determine who did the best job in debating ,which is centered on argumentation and not purely persuasive speaking. i consider the major arguments in the round and how they were refuted . As a judge i also consider the clarity of what the contastants are physically doing in the performance in order to also judge if the physical performance is enhancing the interpretation of the story . I do not let my personal views shape the outcome of the decision and i evaluate only the argumentation presented by the competing debaters .It is always my pleasure to give out constructive feedback at the end of the debate in order to help student improve and develope lacking skills , wishing everyone a successful debate and the best to every team !!!

Hi there ;),

Nice to meet you!

We are all here to learn and have fun, so let your submissions be educative, informative, and, most importantly, without using "strong and or bad" language. Let's try to have a fun but educative and safe round. Be nice!

Be precise in your submissions and do ensure effective communication. Be audible and clear enough to be heard and understood. And also provide excellent reasoning backed by substantial and specific evidence. Speed is okay; you must, however, be understood to progress.

For me, a well-developed argument is always more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Every speech matters. And it's all about fair play. Build strong arguments and stay in the allotted time. Do extend your arguments, and don't lie in FF.

It's okay to ask for evidence, but make sure you use it. Expatiate on it, so I get it from your perspective. We all don't think alike.

Do not orally prompt your partner or distract them. You can always wait to get your message across later. Patience is key.

NB: The focus should be on learning. Do not focus on attacking or disrespecting a person's flaw or style. Respect is paramount! Be graceful, be nice! Be Confident!

I want to be able to follow the flow effortlessly and appreciate persuasive speakers,the perfect round consists of pleasant, polite competition.I am concerned with judging the facts, the justification, and the presentation as a debate judge. Each side has the burden of proof, and it is up to them to persuade me that their case is well-supported. The argument put forward by the adversary must be refuted in order for the negative side to persuade me. As a result, I pay attention for logical, convincing arguments that are presented in an orderly manner. I place a lot of focus on the speaker's delivery and how effectively he or she presents his or her argument. The round's safety and instructional value are most important to me. The team with the least mitigated link chain into the best weighed impact will ultimately receive my vote, on which I will mark my ballot.

The first speaking team's defense remains in place until it enters the frontline; but, in FF, it must be expanded. The only thing that matters to me is that the defense continues after the second rebuttal has been made. The burden of proof is on the side that must persuade me that itscase is well-supported. The negative side must persuade the judge bydisproving the opposing viewpoint. I look for logical, convincingreasoning that is presented in a clear, orderly manner using this as myfoundation. I place a lot of stress on the debater's delivery, the way heor she presents his argument, and the level of support.For me to evaluate offense, it must be mentioned in both the summary and the FF. More than merely a card tag or author name, offense warrants action.

I'm fairly tab, so feel free to read whatever you like, but be ready to defend your position and finally explain why it matters in the overall scheme of the round.

Judge Philosophies

Judge’s Name: Latifa Mtawali

As a debate and public speech judge, I will consider the following factors when deciding the best speech or debate:

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

1. Substance of Arguments

Strength of evidence: Did the debaters back their claims with facts, statistics, and credible sources?

Logical reasoning: Were the arguments internally consistent and well-structured? Did they avoid fallacies?

Addressing counter-arguments: Did the debaters anticipate and effectively respond to opposing viewpoints?

2. Delivery and Style:

Clarity and conciseness: Were the arguments easy to understand and follow?

Charisma and stage presence: Did the debater hold the audience's attention and project confidence?

Civility and respect: Did the debaters treat each other and opposing viewpoints with respect?

3. Audience and Context:

Debate format: Was it a formal competition with set rules or a more informal discussion?

Audience expectations: What were the audience members hoping to gain from the debate?

Persuasiveness: Did the debater effectively shift the audience's opinion on the issue?

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

The energy of young debaters is truly inspiring! Witnessing their passion and deep knowledge of these important issues is a privilege. I'm excited to participate and immerse myself in the entire experience.

1. Judge’s Name :Mutsa Mufaro
2. Tell us about your debate judging experience.
a. I have never judged debate before.
b. I have judged debate for less than a year and this is my first time judging Public Forum.
c. I have judged debate for less than a year and have judged Public Forum before.
d. I have judged debate for more than a year, but Public Forum for less than a year.
e. I have judged Public Forum debate for more than a year.
3. Tell us about your debating experience.
a. I have never debated competitively before.
b. I debated Public Forum for less than a year.
c. I debated other formats for less than a year.
d. I have debated Public Forum for more than a year.
e. I have debated other formats for more than a year, but not Public Forum.
4. What is your speaking speed preference?
a. Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)
b. Conversational speed (120-150wpm)
c. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)
d. Fast speed (200+wpm)
5. How much do you know about the topic?
a. I coach debate and have researched this topic
b. I have professional-level knowledge about this topic.
c. I regularly read news about this topic. It’s an interest of mine.
d. I pay attention to this topic, but I don’t go out of my way to know about it.
e. I have no idea about the topic. Please make sure I understand things.
6. Do you think the second rebuttal speaker should be expected to respond directly to the first rebuttal speaker (frontlining)?
a. Yes, if the second rebuttal doesn’t respond to the first rebuttal I consider it a dropped
argument
b. No, the second speaker rebuttal is only responsible for answering the first constructive
c. I’m not sure.
d. Other (please specify)
7. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?
a. It’s very important. I take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely based on my
notes.
b. It’s somewhat important. I use my notes to aid me in making my decision.
c. It’s not that important. I tend to judge the debate more wholistically.
d. Other (Please Specify)
8. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate?
I decide who wins the debate by looking at how well a team presents theirarguments and counters their opponents. I pay attention to the strength of theirpoints and how they respond to the other side's arguments.I enter a debate witha blank mind, setting aside my prior knowledge and personal opinions. My
judgment is solely based on the arguments and information presented by thedebaters.
9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?
Take the time to thoroughly analyze and counter your opponents' arguments.Point out any fallacies or weaknesses in their reasoning. Additionally debatesshould be respectful and focus on the substance of arguments rather thanpersonal attacks. I believe constructive and respectful exchanges lead to a more
meaningful debate experience. Lastly fast talking is fine, but it becomes aproblem when speakers talk so fast that their points can't be heard. It's importantto find a balance between speaking quickly and being understandable, so that asa judge I can follow and understand what's being said. Speaking too fast shouldn't
make the message hard to understand.

1. What types of debate have you participated before and how long is your debate career?
I have judged the NSDA and WSDA debates since 2018
2. How do you consider fast-talking?
Fast talking is not an issue but can be problematic sometimes in the sense that debaters will be racing against time to finish all their points and end up generalizing most of their points. It is better to slow pace and let the judge hear important points supported by concrete evidence.
3. How do you consider aggressiveness?
Aggressiveness between opponents will always be discouraged since it doesn't promote the idea of fair and friendly competition. The main idea of the competition for me is to learn and not always about winning at all costs.
4. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?
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 by referencing authentic sources or statistics rather while demonstrating critical analysis skills required for this debate than use emotional points to seek validation of this judge.
5. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters, including any unique preference of the debate.
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.

Approach: As a judge, I prioritize evaluating arguments based on their logical strength, evidence, and persuasive impact. I carefully listen to each speaker, assessing their content, delivery, and organization.

Adjudication Criteria: I assess arguments based on their clarity, coherence, and relevance to the topic. I value well-researched positions supported by credible evidence. Effective delivery, including vocal variety, gestures, and eye contact, also influences my evaluation.

Feedback: I provide constructive feedback to participants, highlighting their strengths and areas for improvement. I focus on providing specific suggestions to help speakers enhance their argumentation, delivery, and overall performance.

Adaptability: I adapt my judging style to different events and formats, recognizing the unique requirements and expectations of each category.

Impartiality: I approach each round with an unbiased mindset, ensuring a fair assessment of all participants regardless of their background or affiliation

Hello guys ,l hope you’re all good In my assessing student debates, my holistic judging paradigm centers on the transformative potential of debate as an educational tool, emphasizing clarity, organization, and substantive content. I prioritize clear and well-organized communication, encouraging debaters to present structured arguments supported by credible evidence. Critical thinking is paramount, rewarding nuanced understanding, and the ability to synthesize information. I value effective cross-examinations that clarify positions and expose weaknesses. Delivery matters; I appreciate clear, paced, and varied vocal styles, as well as persuasive non-verbal communication. Strategic thinking is recognized and rewarded, with points for adaptability and efficient time management. Ethical conduct is non-negotiable, with deductions for personal attacks or offensive language. Lastly, flexibility, receptiveness to feedback, and a passion for improvement are key factors in my assessment, aiming to create a positive learning environment that values growth and engagement in the art of debate.

My judging paradigm is rooted in an impartial and meticulous evaluation process, adhering strictly to the predefined terms and rules of each debate. I prioritize clarity over speed, recognizing the significance of a contestant's ability to articulate a persuasive argument within the allocated time frame. Emphasizing a preference for well-structured presentations, I value a seamless flow of ideas, directness, and attention to detail. The ideal performance, in my view, captivates the audience through a compelling and convincing presentation, ensuring a winning edge for the debater who successfully combines precision with persuasion.

Judge Philosophies\

Judge’s Name : TINASHE NERWANDE

2 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 h I have debated other formats for more than a year, but not Public Forum.

4. 4. What is your speaking speed preference?

a. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?

a. I l pay attention to this topic, but I don’t go out of my way to know about it.

e.

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

a.

b. No, the second speaker rebuttal is only responsible for answering the first constructive

c

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

a. It’s very important. I take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely based on my notes.

b

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

As a judge I take note of the quality of reasoning and the speaker's points to be essential factors in evaluating the debate. I assess how well each speaker presents their arguments, supports them with evidence, and addresses the topic at hand. I also look at the structure and organization of their points, as well as their ability to effectively engage with their opponents' arguments.

Additionally, I consider the clarity and persuasiveness of the speakers' delivery, including their tone, demeanor, and ability to connect with the audience.By evaluating both the reasoning behind the arguments and the effectiveness of the speakers' points, I aim to determine the overall quality of the debate and select the most compelling team as the winner

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

I suggest debaters to make sure you do as much research on the topic as you could before entering the round. You only succeed with over-preparation. Have a fun debate.

As a judge, my theoretical framework focuses on clarity, fluidity, and audience engagement. I value well-presented arguments with substantial evidence that is accessible to everyone. I appreciate eloquence and encourage debaters to respect the decorum of the competition. Debaters should always be mindful of time management, ensuring an outstanding delivery of constructive and rebuttal arguments. During crossfire, the focus should be more on what opponents presented, rather than anything else. Above all, I aim to reward teams with good organization and presentation.

Hey, this is Brenda!

I am an engineering professional with strong interests in judging. I have over 3 years experience in judging. I enjoy debates that flow well and have distinct framework as this makes the debate well structured. I believe logic and evidence go hand in hand and well thought through debate. Moderate speaking pace, clear speech and confidence is what wins!

I look for solid, convincing, and logical arguments
I like to see civil debate.
Overreliance on evidence is ineffective if you do not make explicit links between evidence and the argument.
"Spitting" (talking too fast) will not win you points if it is difficult for opponents or me as the judge to understand.

I like to see civil debate. Overreliance on evidence is ineffective if you do not make explicit links between evidence and the argument. "Spitting" (talking too fast) will not win you points if it is difficult for opponents or me as the judge to understand.

Competitors should focus on practical implications of the topic at hand, weighing the impacts of their contentions versus their opponent's contentions in a logical manner.

What is your debate background?

I have judged off and on for the last seven years during many NSDA speech and debate tournaments. During my 9 years of teaching in China I have been delighted to judge in around 40 tournaments (online and in person) and see so many talented students.

How do you judge?

I look for sound logic, good research practices and solid arguments. I go with my gut. I listen for style, delivery and overall flow. I look for debaters who deliver the whole package. I look for the debaters or teams who have "done their homework" and know what they are doing. The end result of the overall presentation is what matters to me.

Please explain other specifics about your judging style:

I am not impressed by speed...especially if the speaker begins to trip over their words and lose their focus, flow and grip over their listener. Just be yourself. Don't be what you think we want. Be yourself...everyone else is already taken!

This is my first time judging, and I am really excited! I love watching speech and debate, but you will probably lose me if you use too much speech and debate jargon, as I am new to the scene, though I have taught acting and public speaking. I will be looking for thoughtful, well organized, well constructed speeches and arguments, delivered with passion and expression. I respond well to logic, and despite the fact that I'm American I don't like a lot of yelling and high emotions, but I do like strong projection and a well paced performance-don't be afraid to slow down, take pauses, and engage with the audience! I hate having to choose a winner and loser, but I will strive to give you solid, constructive feedback.

I have been a debate judge for seven years now and I enjoy it big time. I love a genuine argument that contrasts legitimate opposing views or unintended consequences.

Quality, well-explained arguments should take precedence over quantity. Debaters should employ quoted evidence to back up their statements, and relevant evidence should be used to supplement rather than replace arguments. A crucial consideration is clear communication.

The quantity of arguments is less significant than the quality of arguments, just as evidence quantity is less important than evidence quality. As a result, your arguments should have three crucial components: claim, evidence, and warrant.

In addition, I seek a robust theoretical framework that gives justification for duty-based or consequential arguments. The framework discussion should focus on who gives the highest value and criteria rather than who achieves them the best (that should be left for the contention-level arguments). Linking to an opponent's framework is perfectly permissible if the debate can achieve it more effectively at the contention level.

I don't mind what you run as long as it's clear and sensible. Make no assumptions about my knowledge, since if I don't understand it, I won't vote for it. I also consider how you treat your opponents. It may not ultimately influence my selection, but it will certainly influence your speaker points.

Good luck and enjoy debating.

 

Debaters should chronologically outline their arguments and concreate evidence is a must for you to win the debate.

In addition, the debater must effectively defend their arguments as well as counter the assertions of the opposing team, failure to do so insinuates that they are correct and you agree.

Above all, everything should be done in a civil manner. 

Tabula Rasa: Democracy/Anarchy Model –

1. Whatever basis for the decision the debaters can agree on will be used as a judging standard.
2. Debate is a rule-governed game; you play by (and are judged by) the rules
3. Debate Decisions are made based on:
4. when debators lay good frameworks and contentions and are able to provide a strong link.
5. strong rebuttal argumental arguments backed with facts, pieces of evidence, and logical reasoning and how quickly debators think on their feet in crossfires and finally,
6. A very good summary of speeches from both teams.

For a speech pool debate: decisions are made firstly by;

1. Delivery style- whether the speaker shows a new delivery style, made eye contact and uses body language and a tone level whether high or low used.
2. Content- the organization of the content from introduction to conclusion, availability of new examples and rhetoric of the speech backed with some shreds of evidence
3. time awareness

In conclusion, a speaker whether public speaking or debating should be very confident and use a good delivery style backed with examples and supports claims with logic or pieces of evidence

As a judge with experience in multiple tournaments, including the BASIS International Bilingual Schools China Championship and several other regional events, I am excited to evaluate your speeches and debates. Although my judging experience has primarily been in Public Forums, I have also judged speech events.

Here are some key aspects I will be considering in your rounds:

Speeches:

Content and Organization: A compelling speech should be built upon a well-researched and thoughtfully organized foundation. I will look for speakers who clearly articulate their main points, provide solid evidence and logical reasoning, and effectively structure their speech to maximize impact.

Delivery and Style: The way a speaker delivers their message can be just as important as the message itself. I will assess the speaker's ability to engage the audience through their voice, body language, and overall stage presence. A speaker who can captivate the audience and effectively convey their message is essential to success in speech events.

Originality and Creativity: A genuinely memorable speech often incorporates elements of ingenuity and creativity. I will consider how well the speaker uses unique perspectives, storytelling, and other creative techniques to enhance their message and make it stand out.

Public Forum:

Strength and Clarity of Contentions: A persuasive argument builds on solid, well-defined contentions. I will look for speakers who clearly articulate their main points and provide solid evidence and logical reasoning. The ability to convey one's message convincingly and effectively engage the audience is essential to success in a Public Forum.

Use of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos: Rhetorical devices such as ethos, pathos, and logos are powerful tools for persuasion and connection with the audience. I will assess the speaker's skill in incorporating these elements into their speech, as they help establish a convincing case and engage the audience on multiple levels.

Respectful Conduct toward Judges and Opponents: Maintaining a respectful demeanor throughout the debate is crucial for fostering a healthy and constructive environment. I will consider how well the speaker demonstrates respect toward their opponents, upholds the principles of fair play, and maintains professionalism. A speaker who engages in respectful behavior shows their ability to engage in civil discourse and understand the importance of maintaining a positive and inclusive atmosphere for the audience.

I look forward to being your judge and hearing your speeches and contentions!

I am a very expressive judge. I will have several nonverbal that will tell you how I feel about an argument. Don't take it personal, I do it to everyone in basically every round and it might help you win round.

I like to keep an open mind about most things. The thing I love the most in debate is the impacts. I enjoy big impacts and I enjoy hearing them blown up (no nuke war pun intended) in the round. Small impacts are not immediately shut down, but I will say that it would be more persuasive to have evidence that tells me to prefer these impacts.

I am okay with most types of speed and I will let you know if I can't keep up. I will say that if you do speed please be clear.

I will disclose results based on Tournament policy

I am willing to discuss any specific questions you have in the round.

Judge Philosophies

1. Judge’s Name: Alvin Stanley 2. Tell us about your debate judging experience.[e]

a. I have never judged debate before.

b. I have judged debate for less than a year and this is my first time judging Public Forum.

c. I have judged debate for less than a year and have judged Public Forum before.

d. I have judged debate for more than a year, but Public Forum for less than a year.

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

3. Tell us about your debating experience.[d]

a. I have never debated competitively before.

b. I debated Public Forum for less than a year.

c. I debated other formats for less than a year.

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

e. I have debated other formats for more than a year, but not Public Forum.

4. What is your speaking speed preference?[c]

a. Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)

b. Conversational speed (120-150wpm)

c. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

d. Fast speed (200+wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?[d]

a. I coach debate and have researched this topic

b. I have professional-level knowledge about this topic.

c. I regularly read news about this topic. It’s an interest of mine.

d. I pay attention to this topic, but I don’t go out of my way to know about it.

e. I have no idea about the topic. Please make sure I understand things.

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

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

b. No, the second speaker rebuttal is only responsible for answering the first constructive

c. I’m not sure.

d. Other (please specify)

In Public Forum debate, it's generally expected that the second rebuttal speaker will engage with the arguments presented by the first rebuttal speaker. This often involves frontlining, where they directly address and counter the points made by the opposing team.

7. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?[b]

a. It’s very important. I take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely based on my notes.

b. It’s somewhat important. I use my notes to aid me in making my decision.

c. It’s not that important. I tend to judge the debate more wholistically.

d. Other (Please Specify)

8. What factors go into your decision as to who wins the debate? The factors that determine the winner in PF debate and speech events include argument strength, rebuttal effectiveness, crossfire performance, clarity, organization, impact, and delivery. 9. Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?

I appreciate well-structured speeches that are easy to follow and deliver persuasive points with confidence and clarity. Additionally, adhering to time limits and demonstrating adaptability and strategic thinking throughout the debate

I find enjoyment in well-prepared and confident presentations.

Be reminded to provide sufficient and relevant evidence to help back up your argument. Refute arguments politely, without belittling another opponent no matter their style, ethnicity, race or appearance.

Give one another time to speak without interruption. Please keep track of time. I'm positive you will do your best! Good luck.

Hi! I'm Mr. Judson, the BISZ Middle School Speech and Debate teacher. I have been a Speech and Debate teacher for the last 5 years, focusing on Asian Parliamentary Debate, and I transitioned to teaching Public Forum Debate this year. As a head coach, I have not officially judged since 2019, but I still observe plenty of rounds.

For competitive fairness, I believe judges need to be a blank slate, thus it is your responsibility to tell me everything. You cannot infer my knowledge about a topic as I will have none, so clearly establishing background information is important.

For content, I value analysis over evidence. In my opinion, data is a tool to support your ideas and explanation. It should not be your main explanation. A good debater does not just throw information at opponents, but rather contextualizes and explains those key facts. Of course, you are not an expert in the field we're debating on, so evidence is still absolutely needed, but you should focus on logically explaining the reasoning and then setting up that evidence to be presented. In addition, I really like clear roadmapping, just a personal preference so I can organize my ballot is all.

Summary speeches should clearly expand arguments first and foremost with rebuttals acting as a secondary. Additional arguments raised in crossfire will be not weighed less unless expanded upon in the summary. On the other hand, I view final focus as a time to build a more emotionally charged impact-based speech.

I prefer to allow students moderate their own timing and interactions, and take more of a passive role in moderating debates. If a student is very rude or disrespectful, then I will step in as needed.

Tinaye Tsinakwadi

Tournaments judged in the past year

• more than 11 tournaments in the past year
• seasoned judge (+5 years of judging experience)

How many notes I take during the debate

• I try to take notes on everything.
• Details are essential to me, and I will analyze every major contention and write it down.

The main job of the summary speech

• Highlight major points of the clash and show how your team won.
• I prefer for summary speeches to be in retrospect of the entire debate.
• So less about raising arguments, but rather putting arguments to rest.

On a scale of 1-10, How important is defining the topic to my decision making (2)

• Unless it is an addition on top of the common definition.
• I prefer the standard definition, not arguing over technicalities.

How important is a framework to my decision making (5)

• more concerned with the consistency of your framework
• is it aligning well with your arguments
• can I trace back your decision-making to that framework etc?

How important is crossfire in my decision making (6)

• mostly using it to validate your arguments.
• use it to check whether your points hold weight.
• also to see which contention is better, should they clash.
• can be more crucial, in checking whether you can stand by your arguments, in the face of opposition.

How important is weighing in my decision making (8)

• Being able to compare and contrast is important to me.
• I need to know you can address your opponent's points and still show why yours are more important.

How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in my decision-making (2)

• It's better to sell your arguments.
• I encourage you to do it but won't penalize you if you don't.

How fast should students speak (7)

• I don't mind speed, but be eloquent and deliver your arguments well.
• If you are taking gasps of air, you are speaking too fast between speeches.
• Slightly above average would be the ideal speed for me.

Conduct

Civil in XF without excessive deference to one another, please.

Impacts

I like to see measurable benefits & harms. Long term considerations are good.

I don't like to see FF impacts suddenly inflated for hyperbolic effect. Keep it real please.

On disclosure

I am against disclosure. I accept and acknowledge that in round it can create better 'clash' however, I think it is toxic for the debate community as a whole. Frequently debaters exchange cards, and the debate system degenerates into a 'this card beats that one' where debaters are presenting rote learned arguments rather than engaging with the actual content of the topic at depth.

Call it a shibboleth of mine, but I do believe that a debate is a clash of ideas - and that this requires debaters to engage with the concepts in round, rather than rely on suggested responses generated by a team outwith. Solid research & engagement with the topic will see good debaters through.

In any tournament where the rules do not actively require disclosure please take account of the above.

On evidence

Be willing to call for card checks on your opponents. Happy to see debaters offer fair and reasonable scrutiny of your opponents' research. It's part of the game and it is debater's duty to police proper use and application of research.

If the round hinges on a piece of evidence, I may ask to see the card. This is because our activity is based on empirical evidence and to ensure fairness and adherence principles of integrity.

On the nature of public forum

By its name and nature, PF should be accessible to the public. Practices such as spreading eliminate its utility as a tool for learning how to communicate effectively to the public. The quality of analysis which has gone into a case read at speed simply to 'outrun' your opponent by their not having sufficient time to respond to your contentions is not something I usually find compelling.

I am a PF and BP debater. I am the first speaker in debating so please speak slowly, speed talking won't let you win this round. I don't accept aggressiveness so please respect your opponents in crossfire and other times as well. It's important to challenge the opponents' arguments and provide counterarguments, but doing so in a respectful manner. Remember to remind me over and over again in summary speeches and final focuses about winning points, comparisons of clashes are also vital to win.

Below is my CV:

NHDLC High School Second Place
TAS International Chinese Debate Competition Champion
NSDA Junior High School Champion
NHDLC High School Champion