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

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

I was president of both English and Chinese debate team during college, now work in the field of licensing. Started to judge different tournaments for DLC since 2015, both off-line and online.

In terms of preference, I value clear presentation and direct logic, simply repeating how strong your cases is not helping you to win, identify your opponent's logical flaw then rebut or defend analytically, ideally to connect with your prepared evidence, or to rebut basing on the real clash. As for speakers point, being kind and clear is the key. And please, don't yell.

I am a junior at Smith College, double majoring in quantitative economics and psychology. I debated in Public Forum for four years in high school. I have judged multiple tournaments in China and in the states.

In terms of preference, I normally focus on clashes in the round and the use of weighing mechanisms. Explicit weighing would be useful. Debaters should also be able to explain the logic of the evidence they used instead of simply listing it to prove their arguments.

I do not encourage being aggressive during the crossfire.

I look forward to seeing debaters' ability to identify logical flaws in their opponent's case and connect their analytical response with their prepared evidence in the rebuttal. Reading blocks without any engagement cannot win the round.

Experiences:

3 Years PFD experiences

2 Years Judging PF (NSDA/NHSDLC)

(I know a bit of PD)

WARNING:

Please do not use derogatory or exclusionary language, including but certainly not limited to referring to arguments as ‘retarded,’ saying that you ‘raped’ someone on a particular argument, or using ‘gay’ as synonymous with stupid, etc.” On that note, it definitely doesn’t impact turn something like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.; things like cap and extinction, though, I’m fine with. If you do something morally repugnant, I’ll drop you with the lowest speaker points.”

Things that will kill your chance at my ballot:

-Racism, sexism, or anything offensive to anyone

-Belittling someone in round

-Reading things that link back to the idea of oppressive situations being acceptable

-Making the room uncomfortable or unsafe.

-Not reading a trigger warning on something that clearly needs one

Please always remember: the debate is a safe space and should be treated as one.

Delivery:

I’m fine with speed. But the clarity is always prior to speed. You need to be aware of your delivery skill.

Roadmaps:

Love a good roadmap, but your roadmap should be something along the lines of “aff case, neg case. I’ll be starting on x argument”. Anything more than that, and you’re wasting everyone’s time.

Ks/T:

Flesh it out if you expect me to buy it. I’ll listen to it for sure, but it needs to be done well.

Framing:

I have high expectations when it comes to framework debates. If you’re going to do it, be sure you can do it well in front of me. I feel pretty vague in framing to judge it if you’re not fleshing out the arguments for me, but if you can flesh it out, I’ll listen. Just don’t fly through these arguments because I’m going to need a little bit more time to catch them and comprehend them than I usually would.

Speaker Points:

I was once told, “if you ever get a ‘WIN-30’ you should quit debate because that means you were perfect and you no longer need the activity.” 26 will be the avg point I give.

Evidence Check:

If you request an evidence check, you need to address that card or at least mention that card during the following speeches. Otherwise, I’ll consider that as the way you steal the prep time, especially when you request several pieces of cards.

Crossfire:

CX is a section for question and answer, not individual speech. Don’t be rude. Don’t yell. I’ll deduct your speaker points if you make me mad. I’ll not flow CX, which means you must mention the important info during the NEXT speech.

Summary:

I prefer a frontline summary. Clashes are fine, but make sure there’s a real clash in this round. Don’t take clash as an excuse for messing the round.

Don’t simply repeat your arguments. Do extensions.

Final Focus:

Idc Pathos.

FF is not simply another 2mins summary for the 2nd speaker. You’re supposed to weigh your impacts, show your terminal impacts and give the voting issues. You’re supposed to be the one to help me to write down the ballot through your final focus. I was hoping you wouldn’t give me the chance to help you do the weighing coz you cannot imagine or predict how I will consider your impact.

Flowing:

I flow on paper or on an excel sheet depending on where I am.

Strategy:

Going for arguments/impacts/scenarios that your opponent dropped and contextualizing it to the round is the best thing you can do. Too often, debaters don’t notice dropped/under-covered arguments, and it’s super frustrating for me bc I already see my ballot written. If you go for more complicated arguments, you’ve made your job harder and mine, so I’ll be less happy.

Any other questions feel free to:

Email me: Jacksonyufang@gmail.com

Or ask me before the round

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

1. The standard for my decision of the debate

(1) RFD

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

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

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

(2) Speaker point

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Specific elaboration of different parts of the debate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Since 2015, I have been judging for National High School Debate League of China, including dozens of online debates and offline regional tournaments in Chongqing, Chengdu, Shenzhen and Guangzhou.

For the whole debate, I expect clear expression with appropriate speaking speed, which actually is an essential requirement that many debaters neglect to meet. At the beginning of one debate, I pay extra attention to see if there’s a complete structure of the constructive speech, especially that the framework should be a requisite. As to the crossfires, I appreciate effective evidence to support strong logic. Bear in mind that an argument is a claim and warrant with an impact. I don't like arrogant debaters showing no respect to either the judge or their opponents.

This is Jane. I currently studying finance in Cityu of Macau. I used to be a BP debater and now I am a judge. I've judged for 5 years. In my way of judging logic is more important than the evidence. So I prefer a logic debate instead of evidence attack. I am more likely to vote for a single, well-developed arguments over many arguments that are not as developed. I don't want u to be a jerk in the crossfire. About the debate style and framework, I really don't care as long as you can express your arguments clearly and logically. Good luck.

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

I have 4 years PF debate experience and have attended several NSDA and NHSDLC regional and national tournaments in China, as well as Harvard, Stanford, and Berkeley annual debate tournaments. I've been coaching debaters in several debate camps in China during 2019, and I have worked as a PF debate coach from 2021-2022. In turns of judging experience I've judged several regional PF debate tournaments and the 2019 NHSDLC Nationals for both MS and HS divisions, as well as Stanford/Harvard annual debate tournament.

In terms of judging PF debate, I would like to hear more weighing and impact comparison from both sides, and debaters to directly engage with opponents' arguments instead of simply presenting defensive arguments. I prefer contentions with strong logic links and data/evidence and line-by-line rebuttal.

I started to debate in 2017 as a high school freshman and accumulated extensive debate experiences which were but mainly in Public Forum. I ranked 10th in the national debate ranking list in China and had won various awards in tournaments. As I graduated from high school, I began my judging career in 2020 as a college student and have since then judged more than 200+ rounds of public forum debate (both online and on-site). Overall speaking, I have judged and debated on a wide range of resolutions, social, political, economic, etc.

My judging philosophy is rather simple: Rule of Logic. I deliberate my decisions with a number of factors: argumentation (logic), quality of evidence, impact evaluation, and debating style (eloquence). (ps: evidence before impact for quality of evidence might decide if impacts are real and solid; for example the methodologies in which the research in your evidence was conducted clearly influences the relevant data)

I don't have a particular preference about speed since English is de facto my native language, or nearly, but debaters must speak with clarity (don't let speed compromise your content) otherwise i might not be able to understand and thus fail to judge your arguments.

Both slower speaking pace or a faster one are working for me. Frameworks are crucial for me to evaluate Public Forum debates. I would prefer well-developed arguments over many arguments that are not as developed. I prefer evidence with logical analysis compare to the arguments that are logical but lack of sufficient evidence. If both team can try to calm down in the crossfire and present efficient and useful questions, it will be my pleasure to judge them.