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.

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 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?

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.

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!

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

I come to the debate with a clear slate and imagine I have no prior knowledge on the topic, I expect debaters to be able to allow me to understand the topic by the end of the debate to make a clear choice.

In my opinion debate is used to look at both sides of the argument and perspectives of a topic

I expect debaters to provide logical arguments and back them up with evidence.

I want debaters to explain why topics are important and a step-by-step process in their argument leading to a conclusion.

Debaters should not leave gaps in logic that need to be filled to be able to understand how they have arrived at their conclusion

It is also important for debaters to explain why their argument matters and how the implied results of their argument will effect society.

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.

Greetings and welcome to my judging paradigm. I approach debates with an open mind, seeking to provide constructive feedback and promote a positive educational experience for all participants. As a judge, I strive to be fair, impartial, and attentive to the arguments presented in each round.

I believe that debate is a valuable platform for intellectual growth, critical thinking, and effective communication. Debaters need to engage in thoughtful analysis, support their claims with evidence, and demonstrate logical reasoning. I encourage debaters to be respectful, considerate, and inclusive in their interactions with others.

In evaluating rounds, I consider several factors, including(But not limited to):

1. Content: I assess the strength and clarity of arguments, the quality of evidence, and the logical coherence of the presented case.

2. Delivery: I take into account the debaters' speaking skills, including articulation, tone, and the ability to effectively engage with the audience.

3. Rebuttal and Clash: I value debaters' ability to engage with opposing arguments, provide effective rebuttals, and engage in meaningful clashes with their opponents.

4. Strategy: I appreciate strategic decision-making, including the ability to adapt to the debate's flow, utilize time efficiently, and construct persuasive narratives.

5. Etiquette: I expect all participants to uphold the highest standards of sportsmanship, respect, and professionalism. Discriminatory, hateful, harmful, and profane language will not be entertained.

Thank you for the opportunity to judge your debates, and I look forward to a productive and enjoyable tournament.

Judge Philosophies

1.Judge’s Name:NDUMISO ENOCK LANGA

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?
As much as every part of the round structure is important I tend to discover the strength or weakness of the debaters during the cross fire and rebuttal speech,the dynamics in responding to questions asked and the comprehensive skills to your opponent’s arguments (this depicted by crushing points in reference to your opponents information presented which further depicts exceptional memory and logic reasoning).I love eloquent speakers who rely less on notes/reading,debators who know what they talk about and base their evidence on latest information.Team work is key,a team with the same energy and that blends perfectly without one outshining the other or one evidently lagging behind.

Some of the key elements to assist debaters:
Confidence
Preparation
Background research of the topic
Art-use of gestures,emotions where needed,facial expressions,Voice projection,movements,boldness,emphasis on key points,eye contact with the adjudicators.

9.Is there anything else you would like the debaters to know about you?
I’m very friendly and accommodative ,debaters can consult me anytime if they need oral feedback or if they have any queries regarding the scoring or the notes on the rfd.I would love to assist where I possibly can .

Judge Portfolio:

World Impromptu Public Speaking Champion

TED & TEDx Coach | 2x TEDx Speaker

First Asian to train virtually in Fortune500 Companies

Specialising in Virtual, Hybrid, AR, VR & Holographic Presentations

Judged over 1000+ Speech Contests (International & Local - E.g. NSDA, USAD, HOSA, WSDA 21st Century, Star of Outlook TM, Startups etc)

17 years Public Speaking Experience

*Unique X-Factor: Trained with people with disabilities, refugees and rehabiliated prisoners, while judging related contests*

Students’ Achievements - Trained and Coached over 50000 students including CEOs and GM roles

Students winning World Champion in Public Speaking (Virtual), Startups, Debates etc.

Getting on the Guinness World Record, TED and TEDx Stage.

For Public Speaking related - I am here to know you, your ideas and your potential to help you grow to be a better speaker. I am also here to learn with you. (Open) I am open to any style and if you can be “yourself”, that’s a bonus!

For Debate: I look with a simple assessment: PREP - Point, Reason, Examples, Presentation Style and format.

After the first initial round of assessment: I will start looking critically at every point, tracing the credibility, relatability as well as your crossfire performance.

What stands out? What do I learn? What am I amazed by? What insights may have been overlooked? These are the questions that I will ask myself.

The tick-off: We respect you for your time, I hope that you respect us for our time. If you didn’t prepare, we will know!

As a speech judge, my role is to evaluate and score your speeches. Your performance will be assessed based on several crucial criteria.

Firstly, ensure your speech is clear and delivered with a strong, audible voice. It's essential that the audience easily comprehends your message. Secondly, your theme should be consistent, leaving no doubt about your speech's main idea. Incorporate relevant evidence and supporting materials effectively. Engage the audience by using appropriate gestures and body language. Lastly, adhere to the allocated time for your speech, avoiding both rushing and exceeding the limit.

Good luck, and I anticipate evaluating your performance.

I believe that public forum debate is all about evidence gathering and impact weighing.It does not matter what arguments you have as long as you can provide supporting evidence and weigh it well, youcan win the round.

I believe that a speech is all about the relevance of the chosen topic, the relatability of the topic to the audience, and originality that is there are any truly original topics. These three key areas are important when presenting a speech and if done well will help you earn higher points.

I don't mind fast-talking contestants as I think it helps inmaximizing the usage of speech time. However, we still need to understand what you are saying so being too fast is not good for anyone.

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.

In a debate judging, I prioritize clear argumentation, evidence-based claims, and logical reasoning. I value concise and impactful delivery, adherence to time limits, and respect for opponents. I appreciate debaters who engage with the opposing arguments and maintain a professional demeanor. Ultimately, I aim to assess the strength of arguments, depth of analysis, and overall debate strategy to determine the winner.

Previous tournaments judged

1. Suzhou NSDA tournament January 2021

2. Tiger tournament hosted in Shanghai2019,20212022 (July and November)

3. NSDA Wuxi tournament2021

4. WSDA Guangzhou 2022

5. WSD Hangzhou offline 2023

6. Lozo Shanghai 2023

7. TOC Ice cup hangzhou 2023

8. TOC Pumpkin Spice Cup Shanghai 2023

9. BASIS International Nanjing 2024

10. BASIS International Bilingual Chengdu. 2024

11. TOC ASIA Flower Cup 2024

12. BASIS International Park Lane Harbour 2024

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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)

4. 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.

5. 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)

6. 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)

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

Well detailed claim, link and impact of each contention raised. The points should be supported by good evidence, high quality of rebuttal.

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

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

As a debate judge, l prioritise clear communication, logical argumentation, and effective use of evidence. l appreciate debaters who exhibit a thorough understanding of the topic and can articulate their positions coherently. Clarity and organisation are key; debaters should present well-structured cases with impactful introductions and conclusions. l value depth over breadth, so a few well-developed arguments with strong evidence will carry more weight than a multitude of superficial points. Debates should engage with their opponents' arguments, demonstrating critical thinking and the ability to rebut effectively.

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.

As a judge, fairness is paramount in my evaluations. I consider only the actual arguments made by each debater, without biases toward other factors. Clear rationale is provided so competitors understand how to continuously develop. Standards are applied consistently across all rounds under my purview.

Justice also guides my assessments. Impactful claims matter more than volume of assertions. Debaters addressing the resolution as written will not be disadvantaged compared to those straying beyond the core topic. Accommodations are made so no participants face judging disadvantages outside of their control.

Moreover, my feedback aims to coach rather than critique personally. Suggestions target debating techniques specifically, with illustrative examples from the performed debate. Effective methods observed are noted to help debaters recognize useful strategies to refine.

Most importantly, I begin commentary positively by acknowledging strengths shown before critiquing weaknesses. Competitors are motivated by progress acknowledged rather than past performances emphasized. An encouraging tone, eye contact and smile accompany all of my feedback delivery. Comments center debaters’ focus on practicing skills through constructive practice instead of “winning.”

Through maintaining fairness, justice, coaching and positivity as cornerstones in my judging approach, I aim to assist all debaters in building confidence in their argumentation abilities. My paradigm supports continuous growth by providing understanding on ways to sharpen reasoning in future opportunities for applied experience. Most of all, an encouraging environment is created where participation itself is rewarding.

As a speech judge, I prioritize clear communication, logic, and respect. I am open to various frameworks but value clarity above all. During the rounds, I actively flow the speech. Quality evidence is crucial, and I assess its relevance, reliability, and recency.

Speaker needs to display clarity, persuasion, strategy, and correctness.

Ultimately, my decision rests on evaluating speech content, delivery method and language choices. I encourage a focus on quality, constructive dialogue, and sportsmanship throughout the session.

I am a seasoned PF debate enthusiast and judge, stressing the significance of clarity and comprehension in debates, cautioning against aggressive behavior while advocating for a respectful tone. With over 5 years of experience judging university and high school tournaments, I emphasize evaluation criteria of strong arguments, evidence, persuasion skills, and engagement with opposing viewpoints to determine the debate winner. I encourage debaters to present clear, concise arguments supported by reputable evidence and to foster respectful dialogue for a meaningful exchange of ideas.

My name is Lisa Alexandria Samakande, an 18-year-old student currently studying computer science at Liaoning University of Technology in Jinzhou. While my primary focus is on computer science, I've also been involved in parliamentary debates during my secondary school years. Having achieved honors in national Allied Arts for Speech and Drama, and participating in British speaking exams, my journey in speech and debate has been deeply rewarding, not only in terms of formal recognition but also in personal growth.

From a young age, performing arts and debate have always been interesting to me; they are passions that have made me grow as an individual, due to coaches and adjudicators and the people around me. For me, being an adjudicator isn't merely about judging performances; it's about providing constructive feedback that helps participants be their best possible selves, simultaneously cultivating an environment where growth and learning can thrive.

Regarding debate preferences, I'm comfortable with fast-talking, though I believe aggressiveness has no place in professional discourse. While acknowledging that we are all human and emotions can come into play, maintaining professionalism should be standard. In determining the winner of a debate, I consider the points clashed by each opponent and their presentation style on the podium.

I'm open to new experiences and eager to learn from each debate I judge. During debates, I aim to take notes on key points, balancing between capturing important arguments and focusing on the overall presentation.

For me, the main job of the summary speech is to summarize the main arguments in the debate and highlight the major points of clash to demonstrate how a team has won them. When making decisions as a judge, defining the topic and framework are of utmost importance, followed closely by weighing the arguments presented. Persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication also play significant roles in my decision-making process.

In terms of speaking speed, I believe students should aim for a moderate pace, allowing for precision and comprehension without sacrificing substance. In conclusion, my goal as an adjudicator is to ensure I do my best in every situation I am put in to make sure each candidate I interact with gets what they deserve and grows from this experience.

My paradigm is rooted in creating an educational and fair environment that promotes critical thinking, effective communication, and respectful discourse. I believe that the purpose of competitive debate extends beyond winning or losing; it serves as a platform for intellectual growth and the development of essential life skills.

In evaluating debates, my primary standard for decision-making is the clarity and strength of argumentation. I place significant emphasis on well-reasoned, evidence-supported arguments that contribute to a coherent and logical case. Effective communication skills, including clarity of speech, organization, and the ability to articulate complex ideas, are paramount.

I also value strategic thinking and adaptability in debaters. The ability to respond to opponents' arguments with agility, while maintaining a consistent and coherent case, demonstrates a deeper understanding of the topic. Flexibility and strategic use of cross-examination and rebuttal time can be powerful tools when employed thoughtfully.

In addition to substance, I prioritize fairness and respectful engagement. Debaters should demonstrate an understanding of the importance of ethical considerations in argumentation. Respectful cross-examination, adherence to time limits, and a genuine willingness to engage with opposing perspectives contribute positively to the overall quality of the debate.

As part of my decision-making process, I consider the quality and relevance of evidence presented. Debaters should use credible sources to support their claims, and the evidence should be contextualized effectively within the broader argument.

While style is not the primary focus of my judging paradigm, effective delivery and presentation can enhance the overall impact of a debater's case. However, style should complement substance rather than overshadow it.

In providing feedback, I aim to offer constructive criticism that guides students toward improvement. I highlight strengths and weaknesses, emphasizing areas for growth and providing specific suggestions for enhancement.

Ultimately, my goal as a judge is to contribute to the educational experience of the participants by fostering a positive and intellectually stimulating atmosphere, promoting fair and thoughtful decision-making, and encouraging the development of critical thinking and communication skills.

Miss Kgosi is a leader, self motivated and good in team work. As a judge, I am looking for genuine argument that contrasts legitimate opposing views or unintended consequences. I seek for opponents to present evidence and skills that shows that a debater can construct a convincing case. Secondly, the skill that shows that a debater can listen and understand the other side and can rebut the statement, third, communication, the speech is clear and sound, a debater can deliver or present their case with clear pronunciation. Last but not least, team work, the group needs to work as a team and understand their roles.

Good luck and have fun.

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