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.

My name is Jeffery Yeboah Asuamah and I am a dedicated language enthusiast, I bring a wealth of experience in evaluating and nurturing English language proficiency. My journey is marked by a deep commitment to fostering effective communication and linguistic finesse.

Key Strenghts:

1. Expertise in Evaluation: With a keen eye for detail and a thorough understanding of language nuances, I specialize in evaluating language proficiency comprehensively, encompassing grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and overall communication skills.
2. Holistic Approach:I believe in a holistic approach to language assessment, recognizing the interconnectedness of language components. This approach ensures a well-rounded evaluation that goes beyond conventional metrics.
3. Personalized Feedback:My commitment to individualized growth sets me apart. I provide constructive and tailored feedback, addressing specific strengths and areas for improvement, empowering learners to excel in their linguistic journey.
4. Cultural Sensitivity:Fluent in the cultural context of language use, I appreciate the importance of cultural nuances in effective communication. This awareness enhances my ability to assess language proficiency in real-world scenarios.

I am new to judging but generally speaking I tend to be motivated by well reasoned logic with superior supporting evidence.

Hello, my name is Chen Yi and I used to practice policy debate in college. In a debate, I pay special attention to:

1. the originality of the argument, framework
2. the ability to listen to voices from the other side

Being able to understand their points of view and respond to questions are crucial for being a respectful and capable debater.

Feel free to present evidence, including direct quotes, but make sure not to make the quote too long and the evidence needs to be followed by your sound analysis. Pick the most essential ones to leave an impression in my mind.

The selection of the most relevant quotes also demonstrates the level of your understanding of different arguments. Besides, mentioning the author and source title can be helpful for me to do fact check if needed.

I also value team collaboration throughout the debate. If you and your teammate know how to play different roles and use your strength to help each other answer tough questions, and build a strong case together, I will take this into consideration when it comes to the moment of signing my ballet.

Enjoy the process and learn something new every time. Prepare, present, persuade!

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!

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.

Hello!

I value clear communication, soundly researched arguments, and a strong sense of professionalism amongst participants. A strong team, for me, will be one that balances advanced public speaking skills with building their arguments. I have a low tolerance for teams to make personal attacks against their opponents during their debates.

I am excited to hear what you have to share, today. The most proficient speakers have a good and original use of rhetoric, appropriate pacing, and grounded explanations.

HOPE DAVID
Age: 26 years

1. Debate Experience: I have participated in numerous debates over the past two years, encompassing various formats and topics.

2. Fast-Talking: I believe that fast-talking can be effective if the debaters maintain audibility, clarity, and understanding. The speed of speech should enhance, not hinder, the quality of arguments.

3. Aggressiveness: I value respectful assertiveness in debates, focusing on argument strength over personal attacks or disrespectful behavior.

4. Determining the Winner: I assess the debate based on each team's ability to support their arguments with evidence, logical reasoning, and persuasiveness. Effective responses to opponents' points are also crucial.

5.Additional Notes:Debaters should prioritize clarity, conciseness, and credible evidence. Avoiding personal attacks and emphasizing logical reasoning are key.

6. Judging Experience:I have judged 5 tournaments in the past year.

7. Note-Taking: I aim to take comprehensive notes covering all aspects of the debate.

8. Summary Speech: The summary speech should succinctly highlight the main points of contention and demonstrate why one team's arguments prevail.

Scale of 1-10:

9. Importance of Defining the Topic: 9 - Clear definition of the topic is essential for a solid decision.

10. Importance of Framework: 8 - A strong framework provides structure and guides the debate effectively.

11. Importance of Crossfire: 7 - Crossfire can provide valuable insights but may not be as decisive as other factors.

12. Importance of Weighing: 8 - Weighing arguments and impacts is crucial in determining the stronger position.

13. Importance of Persuasive Speaking and Non-Verbal Communication: 8 - Effective communication, both verbal and non-verbal, enhances the impact of arguments.

14. Preferred Speaking Speed: 7 - While speed is important for content coverage, maintaining clarity and comprehension is paramount. Aim for a balanced pace.

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.

Kaye Esperanza G. Elizalde

Age: 27

College: University of Southeastern Philippines

Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): Public Speaking Coach

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

I am an English Teacher from the Philippines since 2018 and have coached debaters as well. Since I have just recently moved in China, my first judging event was when I participated last WSDA Dec 2-3 Competition. I have judged both Middle School and High School Public Forum. I have also judged Spontaneous Debate as well as Original Oratory and Expository Speech.

2. How do you consider fast-talking?

Fast talking in general may be challenging for others to follow. It can be due to conveying excitement or delivering information with a sense of urgency. However, in Debate it is quite a talent to Fast Talk during Constructive and Rebuttals speeches since it is time limited. However, when one does fast talk yet cannot articulate well the words, it removes the purpose of giving information and will just be unclear for the receiver of the message.

3. How do you consider aggressiveness?

I view aggressiveness as a tool to overpower the opponent. It can also be used to show confidence in what you believe and are trying to say. It is being persuasive. In a debate, both parties must present their sides with ample assertiveness to persuade the judge about their claims, warrants and impacts to win. However, being aggressive alone still cannot impose certain victory. It’s only an aid to convince the people.

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

I always take down notes especially in the Constructive. Usually, both parties are starting strong about their claims. However, I notice that during Crossfires and Rebuttals, one team dominates the other. It’s about who can answer logically and with a more reasonable rebuttal. Also, I am looking for evidence that supports their contentions. Lastly, I am very particular with the team who cannot rebut quickly. It shows doubt towards their information and unpreparedness.

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

First, I tell them that whenever you deliver a speech, raise your volume 20% higher than your normal speaking voice. A lot of debaters are almost inaudible. Next, I tell them to think before you speak. Learn to conjure questions directly that the Judge and Opponents understand. Debate is time limited, most debaters waste Crossfires due to a lot of unnecessary phrases like repeating contentions rather than directly asking their questions. Lastly, I let them shake hands. To convey that both parties are strong and to accept that there will always be a winner and a loser.

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.

My approach to adjudication is rooted in fostering a dynamic and intellectually stimulating environment. I believe in the power of constructive dialogue, critical thinking, and effective communication as essential pillars of successful debating.

I prioritize fairness, objectivity, and impartiality, aiming to provide insightful feedback that not only highlights strengths but also offers constructive suggestions for improvement.

Ultimately, I view debates as an opportunity for intellectual growth, fun, and skill development.

Best of luck to all participants, and let the exchange of ideas commence!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Im a new judge, I kindly request that you speak slowly and clearly.it is essential that you consider the speed at which you speak. Please refrain from speaking too fast, as it may hinder my ability to fully comprehend and process the information being presented. Thank you for your cooperation.

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 !!!

As a previous participator in debate at a young age to coming of age to be a judge, below are my expectations from the contestant.

I appreciate well-structured arguments, logical reasoning, and evidence-based claims. While I enjoy innovative strategies, they must be grounded in solid debate fundamentals.

I prefer substance over style, so prioritize depth of analysis over speed, provide clear framework for the round. If you're running a specific theory or kritik, make sure to explain its relevance to the round. I appreciate when debaters engage in clash and clearly weigh impacts.

Quality over quantity. I value well-researched, credible evidence. Make sure your evidence is recent and relevant to the resolution. Misrepresentation of evidence will negatively impact your speaker points.

Engage with your opponent's arguments. I want to see clash and effective rebuttals. Address the key points of contention and explain why your case is superior. If you extend arguments, ensure they are impact full land weigh them against your opponent's case.

I assign speaker points based on clarity, organization, strategic choices, and effective cross-examination. Be respectful to your opponent and avoid unnecessary aggression. I reward creativity and strategic thinking.

While I have my preferences, I am open to different debating styles. Adapt to the round and your opponent. If you have unique arguments or strategies, explain them clearly.

I am open to non-traditional arguments, but they must be well-explained and justified. Help me understand the relevance of these arguments to the resolution.

Debate is a learning experience. Enjoy the round, be respectful, and take constructive feedback to improve. I am here to fairly evaluate the arguments presented and provide feedback for growth.

Wish you all best of luck.

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.

How Should Debaters approach Constructive Speeches? Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., Arguments may be grouped in order to address all of them., A few well-developed arguments prove more persuasive than a larger quantity of arguments. Arguments should each be addressed individually., Arguments should be delivered more rapidly with emphasis on resolving all substantive issues. How Should Debaters approach Rebuttal Speeches? Arguments should be delivered slowly with emphasis on communication delivery., Rebuttals should provide voters to address the important issues advanced in constructive speeches. Rebuttals should extend arguments individually and provide voters., Rebuttals should extend arguments individually which debaters advanced in constructive speeches., Arguments should be delivered more rapidly with emphasis on a broad array of evidence. How Should Debaters approach Evidence? Tag and card is fine, website link or hard copy all ok

2. 1-2 sentences to summarize your personal debate philosophy.

Debate should be based on facts and evidence provided.

3. How do you consider fast-talking?

I respect time management so l accept fast talking as long as the speaker is audible.

4. How do you consider aggressiveness?

It’s not necessary for a win …. Everything should be done in moderation showing respect for every debater.

5. How do you usually determine the winner of the debate? Briefly explain in 1-2 sentences
l consider all the facts given then compare the facts to the evidence provided .

6. Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters.
Debates should flow smoothly with the highest level of professionalism

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

DAVID BRIAN MUNYAO PARADIGM

Age: 23yrs

College:Beijing Institute of Technology

Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): Student

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

A reasonable number of debates more than 2 years

2. How do you consider fast-talking?

Am good with fast talking Provided the debaters are audible maintain clarity and are understandable speed should not affect quality of arguments.

3. How do you consider aggressiveness?

Provided its respectable and in contest we good focus on strength of your arguments rather than personal attacks

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

According to the teams ability to defend their argument with amble evidence and impacts clear articulation,logical reasoning and overall persuasiveness,how well can debaters respond to their opponents arguments and counterpoints.

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

-be clear and concise in your arguments and support your points with credible evidence

6. How many tournaments have you judged in the past year?

A. 0-5

7. How many notes do you take during a debate?

A. I try to take notes on everything.

8. What is the main job of the summary speech?

A. Highlight the major points of clash and show how your team won them.

Please answer the following questions based on a scale of 1-10.

9. How important is defining the topic to your decision making? 9

10. How important is frame work to your decision making? 8

11. How important is crossfire in your decision making? 7

12. How important is weighing in your decision making? 8

13. How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making? 8

14. How fast should students speak? 7

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.

I am fervently engaged in debate and public speaking. With six years of diverse debate participation, I emphasize clarity, articulate arguments, and a balanced approach. Advocating for respectful discourse, I value passion but caution against excessive aggressiveness. My evaluation criteria include content strength, logical reasoning, evidence quality, and persuasiveness. Framework clarity, evidence reliability, and efficient time management are pivotal in my assessments. As an objective adjudicator, I encourage debaters to present compelling and relevant cases while maintaining a respectful tone.

Good luck to all!

As a creative judge, my paradigm follows an imaginative approach,embarking on a journey where ideas are celebrated, curiosity is fostered, and innovation is the cornerstone. I believe in inspiring an atmosphere that cherishes openness and unrestricted thinking.

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.

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

I have experience judging NHDLC and NSDA tournaments in the past few months for PF, Novice, and Middle school online and offline competitions.

In my experience, I consider fast talking as not a very effective manner of conveying your argument. I want to follow your chain of arguments. Therefore, I appreciate it more when the debaters convey their arguments in a moderate-paced manner. Otherwise, I will miss out on important details.

In some cases, aggressiveness is helpful, especially in arguments where the debaters try to make their opponents understand their point of view. However, I prefer it when the debaters are professional and respectful. You can still present an effective debate when calm and firm. Employ convincing skills and evidence-based and impactful arguments. Impoliteness, insults, and personal attacks will not be entertained.

To determine the winner, I consider the overall structure of the debate. I follow the complete chain of main arguments. I then assess the strength of each argument, the quality of evidence, the logic of the reasoning, and the relevance of the points made. I look for clear impacts and explanations of why certain arguments matter more than others.

I don’t admit new arguments in the summary and final focus. Any new arguments introduced in the summary do not earn any points. Debaters should focus on strengthening their main arguments. They should explain why their arguments are more important or carry greater weight in the round. I also consider the clarity and persuasiveness of each debater's presentation. Effective refutation and addressing opposing points are also crucial for a strong case.

Every debate is different and based on my evaluation of the arguments, impacts, and overall performance, I decide on which side presented the stronger case and deserves to win the debate.

In case of any questions, I encourage debaters to seek clarification.

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!

Effective communication involves clarity, persuasion, and respect for opposing viewpoints. My goal as a judge is to evaluate the skills and arguments presented fairly, considering both content and delivery. I appreciate articulate, well-organized speeches or debates. A clear introduction, logical progression, and a firm conclusion are essential. Additionally, I value creativity and adaptability in adapting to the given format and topic. I am looking for well-reasoned arguments supported by evidence and sound reasoning. Solid and clear impacts and the ability to weigh arguments are crucial. Articulate and clear communication is crucial. Speak at a reasonable pace and enunciate. Maintain eye contact and exhibit passion for your arguments. Captivate the audience. The ability to effectively refute an opponent's points is a significant factor in my evaluation. I encourage debaters/speakers to be mindful of their opponents' positions, to engage respectfully, and to focus on the key arguments. I appreciate innovation and creativity but ultimately reward effective argumentation.

Remember, have fun, and make this a valuable learning experience!

I value strong, confident speakers who express their opinions coherently and effectively. I expect speakers to defend and articulate arguments and responses with clarity and informatively while respecting and adhering to the values and ethics of debate.

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 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.

Public Forum (PF) Debate Judge Paradigm:

Background: As a PF debate judge, I appreciate well-reasoned arguments, clarity, and effective communication. I value depth of analysis and strategic use of evidence. I encourage debaters to engage in clash, respond to opponents' arguments, and communicate with a broad audience.

Expectations:

1. Clarity and Organization: Clear, organized, and signposted speeches are crucial. Make it easy for me to follow your arguments and responses.

2. Evidence and Analysis: Support your arguments with relevant evidence, but don't forget to analyze and explain the implications. Quality over quantity when it comes to evidence.

3. Crossfire: Engage in productive crossfire. Use it strategically to highlight weaknesses in your opponent's case and strengthen your own.

4. Impact Calculus: Explain the significance of your arguments. Tell me why your impacts matter more than your opponents'.

5. Respect: Maintain a respectful tone. Be persuasive without being overly aggressive. Encourage a constructive debate atmosphere.

6. Flexibility: Adapt to the flow of the round. Flexibility in strategy and argumentation is appreciated.

Original Oratory (OO) Judge Paradigm:

Background: As an OO judge, I am looking for compelling storytelling, effective use of rhetoric, and a speaker who can captivate the audience. I appreciate creativity, passion, and a clear message.

Expectations:

1. Engagement: Connect with the audience. Keep me engaged throughout your speech.

2. Clarity of Message: Clearly articulate your main message. Ensure that your speech has a clear purpose and takeaway.

3. Delivery: Pay attention to pacing, intonation, and overall delivery. A well-delivered speech enhances the impact of your message.

4. Emotional Appeal: Don't be afraid to evoke emotions. A good balance of logic and emotion can make your speech memorable.

5. Creativity: Be creative in your approach. Whether it's in your language, examples, or structure, originality stands out.

6. Timing: Respect the time limits. Practice to ensure that your speech fits within the allocated time.

Impromptu Speaking Judge Paradigm:

Background: As an Impromptu judge, I value adaptability, quick thinking, and effective communication. I understand the constraints of the format and appreciate speakers who can navigate them successfully.

Expectations:

1. Clear Structure: Despite the limited preparation time, organize your thoughts coherently. Have a clear introduction, main points, and conclusion.

2. Relevance: Address the topic directly. Stay focused on the key aspects of the prompt.

3. Use of Examples: Support your points with relevant examples. Quality examples can enhance the persuasiveness of your impromptu speech.

4. Delivery: Maintain good eye contact and vary your delivery. Confidence in impromptu speaking is often key.

5. Adaptability: Be ready to adapt. If a certain approach isn't working, be flexible enough to switch gears.

6. Use of Time: Use your time wisely. A well-paced impromptu speech is more effective than one rushed or dragged.

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. 

PF

• In my view, the goal of debate is to educate debaters on both the topic area and the practice of debating.
• I come to the debate expecting the debaters to explain not just what their arguments are, but why they matter and, more importantly, why I should vote on them.
• Overall, I will evaluate a debate based on the analysis given in the Final Focus as to why a team should win the round. If that analysis is inconclusive or unpersuasive I will work backward across my flow until I can find an RFD.
• The role of the summary speaker is to summarize. Summary speakers who do 3 minutes of rebuttal will be penalized speaker points.
• I do not flow crossfire. The way I see it, CF is for the debaters to clarify the debate and bring new information to light. Nothing in CF will ever be a voting issue unless it is brought up later in a speech.
• I don't care about dropped arguments unless I'm told a reason why dropping that argument matters.
• Doing evidence check will result in a loss of speaker points. It is a waste of everyone's time. If you missed something, ask about it in crossfire.
• Doing evidence check and not actually analysing the evidence in the following speech will result in an even greater loss of speaker points.
• If the tournament allows, I will give oral feedback in addition to the feedback on the ballot.

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

SEKO EVANCE

Age: 25 Years

1. Debate Experience: I have participated in a variety of debates for over 2 years, covering a range of topics and formats.

2. Fast-Talking: I believe fast-talking can be effective as long as it's clear, audible, and maintains clarity. The speed of speech should not compromise the quality of arguments.

3. Aggressiveness: Respectful and focused aggressiveness is acceptable in debates, but personal attacks should be avoided. The emphasis should be on the strength of arguments rather than attacking opponents.

4. Determining the Winner: The winner of the debate is typically determined by the team's ability to defend their argument with evidence, logical reasoning, clarity, and persuasiveness. Effective counterpoints and responses to opponents' arguments are also crucial.

5. Additional Notes: Debaters should be clear, concise, and support their points with credible evidence. Focus on logical reasoning and avoid personal attacks.

6. Judging Experience: I have judged between 0 to 5 tournaments in the past year.

7. Note-Taking: I try to take comprehensive notes on all aspects of the debate.

8. Summary Speech: The main goal of the summary speech is to highlight the major points of clash and demonstrate how your team won those points.

Scale of 1-10:

9. Importance of Defining the Topic: 9 - Defining the topic clearly and accurately is crucial for decision-making.

10. Importance of Framework: 8 - Framework provides structure and guides the debate, influencing decision-making significantly.

11. Importance of Crossfire: 7 - Crossfire can provide valuable insights and clarifications but may not be as decisive as other factors.

12. Importance of Weighing: 8 - Weighing arguments and impacts helps in determining the stronger position and ultimately the winner.

13. Importance of Persuasive Speaking and Non-Verbal Communication: 8 - Persuasive speaking and effective non-verbal communication contribute to the overall argument.

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.

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.

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.

a. Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)

b. Conversational speed (120-150wpm)

c. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

d. Fast speed (200+wpm)

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.

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.

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)

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

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.

PF:

I will be evaluating on the round overall, not on a single issue or point. I’ll be looking for clear, effective communication of arguments with evidence to support them. My decision will be based solely on the arguments and evidence presented in the round. Expect that I will flow throughout and that I will be looking for sound reasoning and analysis, preparedness and organization, and finally effective clash and teamwork. I expect a high level of civility and respect between debaters. Rude or unprofessional behavior will negatively impact speaker points.

I have experience judging PF debates both online and offline with NHSDLC over the past several months. When it comes to speaking speed, I find that a moderate pace is preferable for clear communication and easy understanding.

In terms of aggressiveness, it can be effective if done respectfully. Maintaining a professional tone is crucial, and personal attacks or disruptive gestures are never acceptable.

To determine the winner, I focus on the coherence and accuracy of arguments, the quality of evidence, and the persuasiveness of the debater's delivery. I don't entertain new arguments in the summary speech, emphasizing the consolidation of main points. The winner is typically the debater with the strongest, well-supported arguments and effective rebuttals. The goal is a respectful and informative exchange of ideas, with the winner being the one who best achieves that objective.

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.

Jane Waithira Wanjiru

Age: 23yrs

College:Central South University- Changsha

Current Occupancy (Student in college, or career field): Student

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

A reasonable number of debates more than 2 years

2. How do you consider fast-talking?

Am good with fast talking Provided the debaters are audible maintain clarity and are understandable speed should not affect quality of arguments.

3.How do you consider aggressiveness?

Provided its respectable and in context I focus on strength of your arguments rather than personal attacks

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

According to the teams ability to defend their argument with ample evidence and impacts clear articulation ,logical reasoning and overall persuasiveness, how well can debaters respond to their opponents arguments and counterpoints.

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

I encourage debaters to be clear and concise in presenting their arguments. It is important to support your points with credible evidence from reputable sources. Additionally, I appreciate when debaters maintain a respectful and professional tone throughout the debate.

I value well-structured arguments that directly address the resolution. I prefer debaters who speak clearly and confidently, and who engage with their opponents' arguments respectfully. I appreciate the use of real-world examples and current events to support arguments. I am open to various debate styles, but I expect debaters to maintain a professional demeanor throughout the round. I am open to speed in delivery as long as it enhances the overall quality of the debate. Overall, I prioritize persuasive and impactful communication in evaluating debate rounds.

Cherry Zhao

My paradigm is simple. I do not want to get bogged down in students telling me how debates should be judged based on a competitor's knowledge of hyper-technical jargon and concepts, or details known only to the most traveled and experienced of Public Forum debaters.

A debate where too much time is spent on minute theories, details, or arguments of definitions is not interesting to me. Instead, 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.

I prefer civil discourse during Crossfire. I discourage students from raising voices, cutting off competitors in the middle of their answer, denying students a chance to answer, or throwing personal jabs or name-calling during CX. Allow your opponent to explain themselves.

I look for solid, convincing, and logical arguments, and 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.

Last, while I am okay with the occasional evidence check (allowing a team to evaluate the value or context of a quote taken from an opponent's piece of evidence), I will not "throw out" an entire case because of a mis-paraphrased or deliberately (or accidentally) misapplied statistic or quote. That said, please merely state that you believe the evidence as applied by your opponent is "misleading," "misrepresented" or "noncircumstantial" and move on. I will consider it in my judgment but will not make my judgement strictly based on this find.

Many competitors who are new to debate may not have completely understood the context of the quote, while more experienced debaters are still middle or high schoolers and may not have mastered the usage of accurate paraphrasing and annotation skills as of yet. I do appreciate teams holding the other one accountable for honesty, though, and am for the concept of the evidence check as a useful inquiry tool.