Public Forum

1. You have a limited amount of time use it wisely. Collapse the debate down to the voting issues you believe you are winning.

2. Offense is more important than defense.

3. Weigh the debate accordingly.

4. I engage in paper flowing during debates; however, I do not specifically flow during crossfire, though I ensure to pay close attention. My hope is for debaters to view crossfire as an opportunity for polite and orderly exchanges, leading to meaningful conversations, rather than resorting to aggression and unwarranted accusations.

5. I will base my decision based on sound logic and drops on the flow.

About me

I have been coaching and judging PF for more than 4 years.

The execution of the argument is almost as important as the quality of the evidence supporting the argument. A really good disad with good cards that is poorly explained and poorly extended is not compelling to me. Conversely a well explained argument with evidence of poor quality is also unlikely to impress me.I care more about the analysis of the linkage.

Crossfire: is very important. Cross-ex should be more than I need this card and what is your third answer to X.

About Framework:

please kindly explain why your framework is more important in debates.

Free feel ask me questions if you have any
akram0217@gmail.com

Abrar Ahmed

Age: 33 Years

Ph.D. Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, P.R China

1. I have participated in public forum debate leagues as a judge since 2019.

2. If you present evidence without logic or a strong reference you will lose my vote.

3. I have no problem with fast-talking, until and unless the student speaks clearly. My suggestion for students is to "present updated and to the point about the topic". During the debate, your time is very precious so be more specific.

4. Action speaks louder than words. If you can beat your opponents with logic and evidence, you will have my vote. I do not like if some students use non-verbal reactions when their opponent is speaking (e.g., making faces, throwing up their hands, rapid "no" shaking).

5. As a judge I judge your whole debate but if your evidence is convincing during rebuttal and summary speech, you can win the vote.

6. As the time is limited for each section, so please manage your speech according to the time.

James Stephen H. Balbuena

University of the Philippines Debate Society

Simple standards on weighing arguments:

1. Which argument has the best impact?

2. Which argument is more feasible?

Remember, that both are equally important.

Even if you claim that your argument will save the world, if you haven't provided any mechanism why this is true and how you will achieve it, it won't fly.

Even if you have proven that your argument is certainly true, if you haven't explained its implications are relevant in the debate, it doesn't matter.

Everything else depends on your engagements for this is a debate. You also have a burden to disprove, compare, or co-opt the other team's values.

Lastly, I do not appreciate speakers who speak like they are in a sprint. In debates, clarity is important. It doesn't matter whether you recited the whole matter book if your opponents and your judge didn't get it.

I highly appreciate speeches that engage with the core issues of the debate. There should be effective weighing and compelling argumentation, with sufficient substantiation, to fully credit a speech.

For an argument to be logical and strong enough, I usually evaluate through the following standards: relevance, likelihood or feasibility, impact, and exclusivity.

In terms of style, I prefer those who delivers a clear and properly structured speech. The speed should not be an issue as long as you convey your message well.

Note (this was written when I only coached/judged policy)

Debaters Debate

Coaches Coach

Judges Judge

If you can’t beat a “bad” argument then you are a bad advocate for your cause (and you should lose).

Don't expect me to understand or apply the necessary context to certain words or catch phrases that you might use.

I will try to be fair in evaluating whatever you run. Impact calculus is important.

I think there are a number of ways debate can be done really well (my favorite thing about debate).

I prefer you do what you are best at instead of what you think is best for me. Make me adapt to you.

T

Tell me why your interpretation is better for debate. Do comparative impact calculus. What impacts are most important (what framework should the judge utilize when evaluating T impacts).

K

The more specific the links the happier I'll be. I think perms should tend towards utilizing the language of the alternative text and away from the generic "do both" or "plan and every other instance". I find a lot of my decisions usually revolve around a framework argument.

K Affs

I think topical k affs with advantages that are intrinsic to a simulation of plan action are the best.

CP

The more of the aff it includes the more skeptical I am of the CP’s legitimacy. Competition/Theory arguments are best when based on evidence (especially topic ev). I'm definitely in the "neg conditionality has gotten out of control" camp--1cp 1k probably ok, 1 CP that does the aff, 1 k with an alt that could do the aff and a word PIC definitely absolutely not legit (affs need to learn how to go for theory). Theory requires development and impact calculus.

Other

I enjoy debaters doing what they do well. If you’re funny, be funny. If you are smart, be smart. Cordial debates are generally more enjoyable. Context matters. If two aggressive teams have a heated rivalry then it’s going to produce an aggressive debate---I get that. Unnecessary aggression/rudeness/etc will result in lower points.

If you have any questions feel free to ask.

Email: jblumie@gmail.com

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 appreciate the clear delivery of your speech, it doesn't have to be slow, but CLEAR.

If you have a framework, I would like to see whether you have successfully proven your framework, it is your burden to prove it. Otherwise, I will just take your opponent's framework.

It is not enough to propose a principle argument, principle always has to be combined with practical impacts.

When doing rebuttals, please don't only provide a chunk of evidence and think you've done the rebuttals by doing so. Providing another chunk of evidence doesn't necessarily mean your opponent's evidence is false. Do give me reasonings on why their evidence doesn't count or is not so important. Numbers won't defeat numbers, but reasonings on numbers will. And if it's necessary, use the "even if" model, because sometimes you have to admit your opponent's evidence is trustworthy, but you can always weigh them to your advantage.

Do weigh more impacts, and tell me why your impacts are bigger.

I will try to be fair in evaluating your case, and the main determinant of my decision will be clashes. DO prove to me you win most of the clashes in the debate.

Lastly, please be polite, and don't yell at crossfire, it doesn't help anything at all.

Generally, I value content more than manner and method, as I am flexible to different speaking styles.

For framing, I value analysis and logic in characterizing more than face-value matter or evidence.

Engagement and comparatives of arguments are very important, as it is easier to just prove why claims are likely to be true.

Finally, good rhetoric, for me, makes a speech memorable.

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! My name is Kyle and I've been doing debate and public speaking for about 6 years now since. I mainly debate and judge using the British Parliamentary format and various 3v3 formats. My primary standards for judging include the engagement of material across teams (how well arguments clashed with one another) and explicitly proving to me why your team wins assuming a very generous characterization/frame of the opposing team as well the comparatives launched throughout the debate. I'm also more than happy to provide comments on content, style, and strategy which will be integrated in my feedback when deciding on the round. Please be kind and courteous as well, see you all during the tournament! :)

Kurt Huang

a fine argument consists of several layers of reasons and impacts

I believe all the debaters have make an exhaustive preparation on their cases and long for make the best of them in every round. But I highly suggest debaters pacing themselves when providing a speech in order to avoid slurring words together and to make the content more understandable since audiences and judges are not machine and they’re not knowing about everything for every motion. Make sure ur essential linkage,impact and evidence are understandable.

I think aggressiveness in debate can be good. It can really make the debate more dynamic and active. However, I believe a good debaters can differentiate aggressive and rude.Debaters who cross the line and disrupt the order will be punished.

Which team can provide more solid logic link (probability) and concrete impact (magnitude) can win this debate. Evidence is also important for me to weigh the exact impact from both team but I do believe it means little if the linkage and impact are underdeveloped.

First of all, respecting opponents and judges is the most basic thing in a debate.

Other than that, I highly value argumentation based both on statistical evidence and logic turns. This means that whatever a speaker claims, there have to be some supporting details. I don't put my understandings and rebuttals on any speaker's speeches, and thus it is the speakers' responsibility to say that those arguments that are not supported do not stand at all. Once a claim is not directly rebutted, then the claim will be counted as valid.

Tian Li

Argus are important, so make it persuasive and exclusive if possible.

If argus from both sides are already mature enough, do more on engagements\rebuttals, and tell me why your argus are more important or effective to this resolution.

I'd prefer clear and pivotal points, don't vague your points especially when you speak fairly fast.

I enjoy clear and logical arguments and speakers who put in the effort to articulating them well. I also enjoy engagements to focus on the logical rigor of analysis as opposed to simply based on fact finding or technicality. Although factual basis and technicality will still play a factor in my decision and appreciation of the engagement.

Hello!

1. I prefer concise and coherent speeches, please try to follow the allotted minutes per speaker

2. Substantiated and structured arguments are highly appreciated. Include a premise, diagnosis, examples, and conclusion for your arguments.

3. During crossfire, have relevant and important discussions. Nuanced questions and answers would be great.

Thanks :>

How important is defining the topic to your decision-making?
Defining the topic helps provide clarity about what the debate will focus on. It ensures that all
participants understand the subject matter and avoid unnecessary tangents or confusion. Clearly defining the topic ensures that all participants have an equal understanding of what is being discussed, preventing any unfair advantages or misunderstandings.
How important is the framework to your decision making?
Having a solid framework is essential for navigating through the exchange of ideas, supporting positions with evidence, and ultimately influencing my decision as a judge. It provides a roadmap for constructing and delivering compelling arguments, contributing significantly to the overall effectiveness of the debate.
How important is the crossfire in your decision making?
In a debate, crossfire is crucial in my decision-making because it allows for direct communication between participants, which makes it easier to clarify points, offer rebuttals, and assess flexibility and critical thinking abilities in real time. This stage provides the opportunity to refute the arguments of opponents while also requiring quick thinking to fill in any holes or weaknesses in the arguments. Crucially, a debater's performance during crossfire influences my perceptions, impacting the debater's position's overall credibility and persuasiveness. This, in turn, has a significant effect on the decision-making process regarding the strength and conviction of arguments presented.
How important is weighing in your decision making?
Argument weighing, which entails comparing and evaluating arguments according to their persuasiveness, quality, and relevance, is a crucial aspect of decision-making during a debate. Debaters can distinguish between important points, rank the strongest arguments, and successfully respond to counterarguments by using this technique. Argument weighing guides me as a judge in determining the most compelling and convincing side of the debate, influencing the final decision regarding the debate's resolution by assessing the strength of evidence, logical reasoning, and relevance to the topic.
How important is persuasive speaking and non-verbal communication in your decision-making?
Persuasive speaking and nonverbal communication are crucial in debate decision-making because they have a significant impact on the delivery and reception of arguments. Persuasive speaking improves the persuasiveness and memorability of arguments through powerful rhetoric and skillful language use, which affects how I evaluate the strength of a debater's position. Simultaneously, nonverbal communication, which includes body language, gestures, and demeanor, supplements verbal arguments by conveying confidence, credibility, and sincerity, ultimately shaping decision-makers' perceptions and having a significant impact on the overall evaluation of the debate's outcome.
How fast should students speak?
Students should generally speak clearly and at a pace that is understandable to the other participants in a debate. Even at faster speaking rates, it's critical to preserve coherence and clarity in debate formats that may promote it. The secret is to effectively communicate arguments without compromising their clarity. Students should strive to speak at a speed that will enable them to interact with their opponents, support their arguments, and make themselves understood by the judge. In order to communicate effectively during a debate, one must strike a balance between speed, articulation and clarity

Edward Luo

2nd Place Team at the 2020 TOC

Speed Preferences: Talking fast is acceptable, but I may not catch everything so I recommend slowing down to emphasize your key points (or use tone and volume/other methods to emphasize).

I like to see debaters weigh during Summary and Final Focus. I will ultimately make my decision based on whichever side successfully convinces me that their impacts have better links and outweigh the other team's impacts.

I will never make arguments for either side (or assume you imply certain meanings), so even if you think that the opponent has said a ridiculous argument that is obviously wrong, you should still make a brief effort to rebut it.

I generally favor teams with strong evidence. If one side logically or anecdotally explains how A leads to B, but the other team provides statistics showing the opposite, I will usually side with the team with the statistics (Unless the first team can prove to me how those statistics do not contradict their claim).

If your opponent gives evidence that seems false, ask for an evidence check or provide evidence that shows the opposite.

About me:

I debated for 3 years in China and won 2 NSDA China regional championships and national semi-finalist. I'm currently taking a gap year before I go to college and I have been judging PF debates for the past year. I understand basic rules and PF debate terms well, but I do expect debaters to explain it clearly when it comes to terms that are specific to the topic. Also, English is not my first language, so don't speak too fast (this doesn't mean you need to intentionally slow down, just make sure you are not speaking faster than 250 words per minute) to make it difficult for me to judge. As a judge, I fully understand the hard-works debaters did prior to the tournament, I will do my best to listen and flow in the round.

Specific suggestions to debaters:

1. Don't be rude. I like rounds that are clear and effective. I would stop flowing if two teams are just shouting at each other.

2. I care about impact calculus a lot. If no other framework is mentioned in the round, I would adopt a utilitarian framework to judge the debate.

3. I care about argumentation over presentation, pathos doesn't really work in most cases when I'm judging.

4. I do flow in the crossfires but make sure you talk about important crossfire moments in the following speeches.

5. HAVE FUN !!!!

Not a fan of spreading but I will still listen to it if you do. I don't evaluate based on the breadth of your argument but the depth. Future trend etc args are fine but needed to be supported with reasoning and evidence. Being loud doesn't make me more impressed. If you try to dodge questions or divert attention I will notice. What-aboutism is something I hate, please address the mentioned points with details. If your oppo drops an arg it doesn't mean you have an automatic win, address the impact of that arg in Summary or Final Focus.

Judge Li Miao:

1. Arguments need assertion(one sentence or several key words to summarize your main idea), reasoning(how does the idea work, like A leads to B), and impact(why does the idea matters). Clear argument structure can make it easier for me to follow.

2. Specific context can help you a lot to make a vivid scenario.

3. Rebuttal: quick point out the opponent's arguments by several words, then rebuttal it with a clear mind. It would be pretty excellent for you to try to analyze by multi-layers, like the "even if" analysis: firstly it is untrue, then even it is true in some degree, that is not important enough. ("even if" analysis is not a must, but it can help your structure clearer.)

4. Crossfire: one speaker asks the question first and answer by the opposite side, then exchange. Two sides are mandatory to ask questions in the crossfire. (at least one question)

I'm Chang Ni, a freshman at the University of Richmond.

I've been debating for 3 years, and have experience in public forum and Chinese debate.

I encourage debaters to pay attention to the following aspects:

Judge can't always flow or remember all you mentioned, appropriate emphasis on winning issues like key rebuttals, evidence, or statistics will help a lot.

Without weighing, it's easy for judge to waver if debaters don't tell judge why A outweighs B. Please pay attention to make sure that you win in weighing.

Judge can't always fully understand your points, so please try to balance your output and specificity.

It is easy for me to get lost or miss the important information if you are only reading stuffs instead of debating.

If you speak too fast or uncivil, you will lose me.

If you have great engagement, focus on logic and are passionate, it will help you stand out.

So, overall, I vote by

A. the clashes you win

B. whether you can use fewer clashes to successfully outweigh your opponent's impact

C. the completeness of your own argument

Good luck and have fun :D

framework is important. All kinds of debate should all have frameworks that prioritize what I look at in the round. In the rare case that neither team does any framing on any of the arguments, I will typically look at the critique, then topicality, then the case. Because the critique usually has to do with some sort of education affecting everyone in the room, it will usually come before a procedural that affects the “fairness” of one team…. On the other hand , I pay good attention to arguments during the clashes and how one is able respond to clashes thrown at them during the crossfires

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!

Hi! My name is Tonie and I've been judging and debating in the British Parliamentary Format and other 3v3 formats. I believe that the logical proof of the argument is most important in order to claim the truth of impacts or importance of the same. While facts and numbers prove a premise (and are appreciated), I believe abstracting the logic is always stronger as it does not rely on the truth or believability of the fact. My other standards for judging debates also include engagement across different material as all debates are meant to be dynamic. I specifically enjoy when speakers make an effort to bring the topic outside just theory and impact it, whether principally or tangibly, to people. I'm happy to provide comments on substantive content or style. I hope all speakers are practice equity when engaging with others. :)

Jay Postrado used to be a WSDC, and Parliamentary debater during his highschool years. He believes that effective communication comes in being concise, understandable to the common masses, and using the simplest of words in the most effective way.

LPC UWC '22

I have experience in Public Forum Debate and World School Debate.

I'd like to hear three things in the contentions/arguments:

1. Clear reasoning/warrant. It's essential to prove the causation rather than correlation between two variables;

2. Strong practical evidence with great feasibility; try to prove the overall trend rather than a single extreme case;

3. Quantitative impacts.

Based on these, I will usually adopt the IMPACT-WEIGHING mechanism to judge PF debate rounds, except someone gives me a unique framework with reasonable reasons. Therefore, it's important for debaters to clearly clarify what happened in the previous speech in Summary and weigh both sides' impacts in the Final Focus. Also, arguments/clashes that are not mentioned in the Summary CANNOT be further discussed in the FF.

I won't vote because of delivery or empathy.

Besides, NO PERSONAL ATTACK OR ANY DISCRIMINATORY SPEECH/BEHAVIORS. Those actions will lead to an automatic LOSE.

Mido Sang

Public Forum Debater, have judged PF before as well.

For PF:

Do what you are supposed to do in a PF debate: explain your link, have enough evidence (not taking evidence for granted is a good habit, explain it more), have specific impacts, and don't forget to weigh them.

Don't provide plans, don't raise new pieces of evidence/arguments in FF.

I don't see crossfire as a place to develop arguments but rather a place to get information across (most of the time).

For OO:

The importance of the topic is a very important judging criterion. Originality is another thing that I value a lot. Humor is much appreciated.

Will Scott

Director of Speech and Debate, Speechcraft Chengdu
Coaching (primarily PF and OO) in China for over 8 years, Debated policy debate at Liberty for 3 years (2009-12: Nukes, Immigration, Democracy Assistance topics), coached policy at James Madison for 2 years(2013-2015). Did speech in high school (Primarily OO and Extemp).

PF:

-Speed is ok if you are clear. I still flow by hand, so I need pen time. If you speak really fast and don't make it clear when you are changing contentions/cards, you run the risk of me missing it on the flow.

-If it's not in the final focus, I won't vote for it.

-If there's nothing in the summary I can connect the final focus argument to, I'm very unlikely to vote for it.

-If it's only in crossfire and never explained in a speech, I'm unlikely to vote for it.

-If there's a clear framework, I will evaluate the debate based on that framework. That doesn't mean you automatically win the round because you win the framework, just that I will look at the round through the lens of that framework.

-If the ballot is supposed to be something other than who wins the largest impact make sure I am aware of what you want me to do with the ballot.

-Stealing prep annoys me. Your speaker points will suffer.

-I don't have a defined preference as far as 2nd rebuttal frontlining the 1st.

OO/Informative

-You're not gonna change what you do for me. Speak clearly, do what you do, and have fun!

-If you're looking at this before the tournament, know that one of my biggest things is that I look for a preview in speeches. I will tend to write down the preview and use that to follow the body. If the speech has a clear preview that it actually follows then I will be very happy.

Extemp:

-I expect to see a clear structure and a clear thesis. While I generally keep up with current events, you should assume I have less knowledge than you on your topic and should explain thusly.

Experience: I have been an active member of the debate community for the past 5+ years. I spent the first 3 of those years as a Public Forum Debater and the rest 2+ as a judge and a coach. On top of that, I have has some experience in other public speaking events including but not limited to Original Oratory and Model United Nations.

Judging Philosophy: 1) The most important one is that I firmly believe that the debaters should be 100% responsible in helping me understand the content of their case and blocks. It is NOT my responsibility to have any prior understanding of any resolution and debaters should not expect me to, either. This means, in order for you to win a voting issue, you have to explicitly tell me why and cite any relevant information that was discussed in a round. 2) Pay very close attention to the arguments mentioned in a round. You are responsible for reminding me what is the most important information in the round. If your opponents have dropped an argument, I expect you to take full advantage of it. 3) So long as an argument can be explained with logic and backed up with credible information, I will buy it. 4) K/T are permissible, but please bear in mind that the public forum debate was supposed to be a kind of debate that the general public can understand. Your K/T should also follow that philosophy. 5) Be careful with the language you use. Do not use any degrading or offensive language when describing an argument from your opponents. 6) I will not tolerate any abusive behavior. Debate should be an inclusive environment and participants should at all times hold themselves accountable to that standard.

Flowing: I prefer to flow in writing and I take flowing very seriously. My decision will be made based on flowing so the debater should be very clear with their speech delivery and structuring.

Speed: I am generally ok with speed but I prefer a paced delivery.

Roadmaps: General roadmaps are permissible. I expect it to be done within one or two sentences. Anything longer than that will be crossed off on my flow. No specific argument should be mentioned in roadmap and will thus be crossed off on my flow.

Frameworks: If you are going to introduce a framework, you should be prepared to explain it, extend it and debate it. More often than not I find debaters introducing one but not being able to extend it consistently.

Observations and Definitions: They go along the lines of frameworks. But for these two, debaters should also help me understand why they are essential for your case.

Evidence Check: I will allow it in moderation, but I expect all checked evidence to be addressed in speeches. If a piece of evidence was checked but not addressed, I will deduct your speaker points.

Crossfires: I listen to crossfires though I will not always flow it. I will sometimes highlight arguments or evidence that catch my attention on my flow. However, you should still highlight any information you want to me to put on my flow. I expect any crossfire to be a civilized discussion in which both sides take turns asking and answering question, which means absolutely no yelling or delivering a monologue of speech.

Summary: I expect summary speeches to focus primarily on addressing voting issues. This means your main focus should be put on giving me an overview of the previous speeches and crossfires, identifying your winning arguments and explaining them to me. Conduct weighing when necessary. If there was any confusion you need to address, summary is the time to do it. Only when you have explained all aforementioned information should you proceed with further rebuttal.

Final Focus: I do appreciate some pathos in Final Focus, though you should not rely on it to win a Final Focus. You should approach this with a similar strategy as you would Summary: identify the most important winning arguments and go over each of them; you need to present your terminal impact in this round during Final Focus and conduct any weighing when necessary.

Speaker Points: My average speaker points is 26, but it might vary from tournament to tournament. When allocating points I tend to follow the six general ideas (analysis, reasoning, rebuttal, crossfire, evidence and delivery). Any misconduct in a round will result in deducting points (i.e. not addressing a piece of checked evidence, rude behavior, offensive language, etc).

TLDR: Nothing special. Debate for the final focus and be civil.

Bio

I am a debater judge with 5 years of judging experience (Since 2017) on a pretty consistent basis throughout both the offline and online era. My previous debating experience has been in both public forum and british parli. On top of that a lot of ev pack writing experience. If the current tournament is organized by NSDA China you might want to check if I wrote the ev pack for this season.

Decision Making

Unless something goes horribly wrong in the debate, I base my decision off the final focus first then work backwards. Debaters should therefore consider the FF the most important speech in the debate and allocate resources accordingly.

When considering arguments, I will consider all arguments that are true in the debate to be relevant. An argument is true if it has some form of logical or evidence based justification. Basically my bar is pretty low. Don't give me assertions (take note if you are running a framework, be prepared to justify that framework).

If you want me to consider arguments in the way YOU want me to consider them, then it's simple, tell me in round how you want me to consider the argument. Impact, tell me why the impact is important, weigh. In doing so, be fair to your opponent's argument. If you weigh based off of a strawman, then I probably will not agree with your analysis. If you don't tell me your clash analysis, then I probably will not view the clash in the way you want me to.

Crossfire

I generally don't flow the crossfire. I do listen.

Dream scenario is both teams sharing time and utilizing the crossfire strategically. Under such circumstances I will flow and take note. If the crossfire is a mess I won't bother.

Be civil. Be nice. DBAA.

Evidence Check

I love this rule in moderation. I hate this rule in excess.

ALWAYS (not sometimes. always) tell me what occured during the ev check in the following speech. If your opponent is the one ev checking you, and they don't talk about it, take advantage and point it out.

Framework

Anything other than a benefits vs harms topic requires a framework. Spend time on it if you want a clean result.

Speed

I will go for speed. Make sure that you still emphasize key points.

K/T

I will listen to them. Most times I will require solvencies for Ks. Ts just need to be fair. Automatic wins are very rare as they should be.

If there are any questions. Feel free to reach out to me at jzytang1@163.com

I enjoy well-reasoned arguments and dislike arguments without substance. They do not have to perfect, and I am glad to provide feedback whenever possible to improve this skill. I also value creativity with regard to how these arguments are delivered. I look forward to seeing how debaters and orators persuade me

Thank You =)

Name: USMAN

Age: 35

College: Shanghai JiaoTong University

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

1.      What types of debate have you participated before (only counting ones that you practice/participate extensively) and how long is your debate career?

-          Public Forum debate: 4 years of judging experience from 2018-2022 in debating tournament under NHSDLC and also several times judge under TOC.

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

I believe public debate is all about evidence with up-to-date examples and impact weighing of it. But please remember to be polite and humble to your opponent during debate especially during crossfire.  

3.      How do you consider fast-talking?

I don’t mind it at all fast talking as far you are polite to your opponents.

4.      How do you consider aggressiveness 

I am not in favor of aggressiveness; it makes you appear irrational Infront of me 

5.      How do you usually determine the winner of the debate?  Briefly explain in 1-2 sentences

As a judge I give win to those team who had good arguments and shows very good performance in rebuttal and final focus.

6.      Please specify any additional notes you want to share with debaters.

Please make sure you do prepare as much up-to-date research on the debate topic as you can before entering the round. You can only be successful with as much knowledge on the topic as you can. Have fun guys and wish you good luck for debate.

Hi, this is Junyue Wen(June is also OK). I've been a BP debater and PF debate judge. I major in law so I'll be more careful about the analysis related.

For me, a perfect argument should include a claim, warrant, and impact. Please remember that evidence-tackling is not my style, and instead I prefer debaters focusing on logical analysis. Also, be careful of your speed, which is more annoying when judging online. If you're speaking too fast that I can't hear what you say, it'll be reasonable that your point is less than you think. Finally, how do I decide which team wins? Well, I'll compare both teams' arguments based on clashes. If you do well in the important clashes, I'll vote on you.

Judging Preference Conclusion:

1. perfect argument=claim+warrant+impact

2. logical analysis instead of checking evidence only

3. don't speak so fast that it's difficult for normal people

4. do well in the important clashes

Enjoy!

mechanism and impact, good rebuttals are for sure needed; teams providing weighing with persuasive reasons might be preferred, in a way that I think this provides crucial advantage in proving what is the most important contention or clash in the debate and thus can win more credit.

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

PF and BP. Have 6 years of debate experience. I've judged 20+ TOC, 10+ WSDA, and 10+ DLC tournaments. Also, I did a half-year TA experience at Speechcraft in Chengdu, mainly for PF debate and speech.

2. How do you consider fast-talking?

This requires a combination of the clarity of the debater's delivery, as well as the accuracy of the delivery. If the debater can emphasize the key points by using voice intonation or appropriate pauses. It is acceptable to speak at a fast pace if the articulation is clear and the arguments given are detailed.

3. How do you consider aggressiveness?

This depends on the specific situation, if it does not involve personal attacks on the opponent with insulting words, or radical political statements, as well as discriminatory and racist content. It is only the personal debate character of the debater, will be expressed in the speed of speech, or emotional ups and downs fluctuate strongly, this is acceptable.

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

I would consider the following three sections:

First, the completeness of the structure of the speech. From the constructive speech whether to establish a detailed framework and definition (not just repeat the motion's content), rebuttal speech performance (including: whether to carry out effective rebuttal, and based on the constructive speech on the output of new extensions), and the final focus/summary speech whether to summarize the clashes properly, and point of valid view comparison (not just repeat the previous point of view needs to be summarized and condensed), and the final focus/summary speech whether to summarize the clashes and point of view comparison (not just repeat the previous arguements needs to be summarized and condensed). The performance of the rebuttal speech (including: whether there are effective rebuttals, and whether there are new ideas based on teammates' constructive speeches), and whether there are clashes in the final focus/summary speech, as well as the comparison of ideas (not just repeating previous ideas, but summarizing and condensing them).

Second, the overall performance at crossfire. Including: strategy design, whether to be able to ask effective questions (do a good job of attacking). As well as the ability to answer questions to improve their own side of the argument, to enhance their own side of the position (whether the defense is in place). Extra bonus points for performance: the ability to catch the other side's loopholes and contradictions in the answer to carry out many repeated attacks (here is the test of the team's two-person cooperation).

Third, how well the team works together, whether the pacing of the two people stays synergistic/complementary, and whether both people are on point when it comes to wrapping up at the end of the debate.

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

I don't have any preference for debating styles, but I hope that everyone will be able to have your thoughts and not just concentrate on reading scripts/flows just for the speed of speech and debate.

I am very attentive to the logic of each team's debate, as well as your interpretation of the topic and demonstration of your arguments. I hope everyone can respect the competition and your opponents, and don't be rude and interrupt when others are speaking.

If you don't have a framework and a clear winning condition, then you'll probably be at disadvantage of the round. I want the framework to thoroughly explain what you are aiming for for this debate, so please work hard on that part.

A valid argument has a claim+evidence+impact.

Don't expect me to fill in and understand logic fallacies in your speach, try to explain each and every points completely and logically to me.

Impact calculus is important. Please stress the impact of every single argument, if you could.

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.

Updated for Winter Invitationals 2022: Upenn/Harvard

My Pronouns are They/Them/Their

Personal Experience:

As a debater, I have over 6 years of competitive debating experience in Public Forum, both Chinese and US Circuit. I competed in various regional and national level tournaments. Just as a record I had runner-up and best speaker for NSDA CN National, broke in major US tournaments like the NSDA Nationals and UK TOC, with some octas from Stanford/Harvard Invitational. In a word, I participated in PF debate competitively with passion during my middle/high school years, and I had basic knowledge about LD, Policy, and BP format, I'd like PF to stay unique from "Diet Policy" though.

For CX: I'd like to make an early apology for not being an active CX debater myself, so don't assume that I would be too familiar with a lot of specific techniques, though I do like to watch CX videos and know basic concepts like Framework/Plans& Counterplans/all sorts of Critiques, etc.

For LD: I prefer progressive argumentation over traditional strategy, articulate as much as possible.

As a coach, I had over 2 years of coaching experience in China with middle and high school students, some of which have won major regional tournaments with 1st ranking in the Chinese circuit.

As a judge, I had over 3 years of judging experience, mostly in the Chinese circuit with NHSDLC and NSDA China, but I'm fully open to different styles from the Chinese and US circuits.

As a student, I study Computer Science at ETH Zürich(Yes, this is the Einstein school, NOT Princeton), if you have never heard of this school it's perfectly normal. Go on whatever ranking and check the first non-US/UK school or the first unfamiliar school, it's mostly it.

My professional knowledge is mainly about CS, Math, basics about international relations, and fundamental philosophy. Be careful with AI arguments since I might have an implicit bias about your statements if they go up against my algorithm knowledge.

Framework:

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

If there's no framework debate at all, I will follow default cost-benefit analysis on quantifiable impact, if both sides failed to access any quantification, I will then evaluate link quality>general performance>emotional appeal(it should be noted that I don't often buy seemingly exaggerated impact like human extinction, nuclear WW3, world doom unless you can access a good amount of probability cards)

I'd also take feasibility into consideration even if it's a should-no-would resolution, basic supply-demand statistics /empirical successful examples should do just fine for that.

Speed:

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

Crossfires:

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

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

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

Front-lining:

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

Summary and Final Focus:

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

Critiques:

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

Theory, and everything alike:

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

Judge's Name: Zhang Yirui

Types：PF

evaluation criteria:

1.Like to have a logical, complete and clear chain of evidence

2.Moderate speed of speech and clear expression

3.Mutual cooperation

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!

For Original Oratory, three keys in content: Importance, Relatability, Originality. Speakers can emphasize the significance of the speech. (for example, Why is it related to the society? How does it affect the world? Why people should care about it?) Speakers can involve audience in the speech, relate the issue with audience. In delivery, non-verbal: eye contact, gestures are the most important. Verbal delivery is important as well: pace, intonation, pitch, tone, volume, pronunciation.

For debate, 1 constructive part, I focus more on Logic, arguments, impacts, each team should clearly know their burden in debate. Premise-contention-evidence-logic-impact should be connected. 2 rebuttal, teams should attack more contentions from opponents instead of extending more case. 3 summary, when teams cannot convince me to buy their clashes, I will conclude clashes from my point of view.

Really appreciate teams who do impact weighing!

My Pronouns are They/Them/He/Him

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

Framework:

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

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

Speed:

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

Crossfires:

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

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

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

Front-lining:

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

Summary and Final Focus:

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

Critiques:

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

Theory, and everything alike:

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

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

MSU ’26
Debated pf for 1 year during high school (China & US circuits), 2nd year doing policy debate (2a)
Please add me to the chain: zmmdb8@gmail.com
Pronouns: she/her/hers

- Zero tolerance for anything ethically or morally horrible (racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, death good, any form of discrimination or harmful rhetoric, etc. directly lost you the debate)
- As an ESL I appreciate clarity over speed, go slightly slower on analytics please
- Extra speaks for pronouncing last names of Chinese authors correctly