In judging each round, I look for arguments that are both educational and informative. Debaters should rebut opponents’ contentions and justify why their arguments should be taken. I will sign my ballot based on the weighted impacts.

Debaters may have prepared a speech, but make sure it can be clearly heard. It is essential for the judges and opponents to hear and comprehend what you are saying.

Persuade me on why you should ultimately win a debate. This can be accomplished by making a logical case, fortifying it with relevant evidence and rebutting your opponents’ arguments. Please make sure that your evidence is linked to your points rather than just presenting information. My interpretation may differ from yours.

I pay attention to the performance of both parties during cross-fires (relevant questions and responses provided) because one side can cause the other to admit some of their claims.

Lastly, the summary and final focus enable debaters to properly evaluate and weigh of impacts. This should be well crafted.  

I am a new teacher/judge working my second in person tournament. I look forward to seeing you performing your speeches and debating.

For Public Forom Debate - there are a couple of things I ask:

Please be certain when stating your contentions that you clearly enunciate and speak at a normal pace so I can properly hear and record your contentions.

I like a civil crossfire, please use this time to properly address evidence and issues rather than shouting over each other.

Let's have a great tournament.

Hello! I am a full time speech and debate coach and have been for well over a decade. I'm likely to be familiar and comfortable with whatever style of argumentation you prefer, and will do my best to be generous in my interpretation of your speaking. I flow, and I will use my flow to make my decision. I'm impressed by creativity, clarity, and passion - show me these things and you'll be very happy with your speaker points. Here are a few general bits of advice that should apply across the board.

Description is more powerful than jargon. For example, "The contention's impact lacks uniqueness" is a very vague thing to say in a debate. "There is already a war in Europe now" is clearer and shows me you understand the content of the debate.

Speed is ideas communicated per minute, not words per minute. Speed is great! More arguments means more depth and complexity. That's all lost if you give up on the basics of speech to shave off a few seconds. Your spread should sound like your normal voice, just faster. Same rhythms, pauses, all that. If you slip into a monotone spew to get through your evidence, you may as well not read that evidence. 

Win the debate before making them lose. You win the debate by being right about your points. You don't win the debate by proving the other side is wrong. Of course it's important to engage with the other side and show flaws in their reasoning, but defend your house first. 

Be kind. Take turns in crossfire. Be considerate with evidence, timers, and so on. Don't make it personal, don't take it personal. At the end of the day, you're arguing against the other side's ideas, not against them as people. The best debaters know how to disagree without being disagreeable.

Good luck, have fun, and smile. You've got a lot to be proud of! Just showing up to a debate tournament takes a lot of preparation and courage, and I'm glad you're here!

One more thing...let's talk about evidence. There is a lot of confusion, stress, and bad behavior surrounding evidence. In general, you should be using cited evidence to give credibility to your arguments. "According to my research," "The experts say," and similar phrases mean the same thing as "In my opinion." In other words, not much. 

When you use cited evidence, you need to make it available to all other participants in the debate. The judge might ask to see it after the round to help make their decision. Your opponents might ask to look at it more closely. If this happens, you have a minute to find it and give it to them. If you can't, that's a pretty big hit to your credibility, so try to stay organized.

These "evidence checks" are not opportunities to argue outside of speech time. If you ask for evidence and the other team doesn't give you what you're looking for, bring this up during your next speech. Explain the flaws in the evidence, or what its absence means for the debate. This procedure is a privilege, not a right. If you are bickering or making gratuitous evidence requests, I will stop allowing evidence checks.

Lacking cited evidence means a point is unproven, not untrue. If you don't provide evidence to the contrary, then we all just shrug and use our best judgement.

Being deliberately misleading about evidence is unethical. This applies to fabricating evidence and deceptive editing that changes the meaning of a text (like deleting "not" from the sentence "The EU is not beneficial"). If you think someone is being unethical, tell your coach. If you have proof of unethical behavior during the debate, the round stops and the judge determines whether or not a violation has occurred. It's a very serious accusation with serious consequences for everyone involved, so never do it lightly or to gain an advantage.

It's not unethical to misunderstand something, exaggerate, or simply not have cited evidence for one of your points. Mistakes happen, especially when you're just getting started. The correct thing to do when you think there's a problem with the other side's evidence is to explain what's wrong with it in your speech time. Let the coaches and judges worry about the "rules," and you focus on debating your very best.

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

1. Judge's Name- Vincent Gaviyao

2. Tell us about your debating experience

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

3. Tell us about your debating experience

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

4. What I'd your speed preference?

c. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

5. How much do you know about the topic?

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

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

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

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, l take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely on my notes

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

portant facts.

I usually decide the winner of the debate based on three speeches rebuttal, crossfires, and summary. As long as you do well in these three speeches, you are guaranteed success.

I usually decide the winner of the speech based on relevance, relatability, and originality. The contestants who show the greatest emphasis on these three sections win the round.

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

Lastly, make sure to do your research and prepare extensively before entering the round. Good luck and remember to have fun, everyone!

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

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

ü I like policy and critical debate;

ü Please no progressive arguments or spreading.

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

ü Fairness can be an impact;

ü Explicit clash over implicit clash;

ü Analysis over evidence;

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

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

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

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

As a judge, I approach debates with a focus on fostering a positive and educational environment for all participants. I value respectful and thoughtful discourse, where debaters present their arguments clearly and explain why they believe their arguments should prevail in the debate.

In order to make a compelling argument, I expect debaters to provide a claim supported by relevant data and a warrant. It is important for debaters to cite their sources and be prepared to provide a full citation if requested.

Since debate is a value-based activity, both sides should establish a value and a value criterion. I encourage debaters to not only present these components but also to provide a comprehensive explanation of why and how their position is superior in the debate. While it is essential for the negative debater to present their own position, I believe that direct clash with the affirmative case is more persuasive than presenting negative contentions in isolation.

I prefer debates that prioritize effective communication over speed. It is crucial for debaters to be heard and understood, rather than rushing through their speeches. If you notice that I am having difficulty following your speed, I kindly request that you slow down for better comprehension.

In conclusion, I strive to create a welcoming and inclusive space for all debaters. I believe in the power of respectful dialogue and aim to provide constructive feedback to help participants grow. Let us engage in fruitful and enjoyable debates together.

- Emmanuel Agyekum

Hi there ;),

Nice to meet you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debate should be based on facts and evidence provided.

3. How do you consider fast-talking?

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

4. How do you consider aggressiveness?

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

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

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

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

PF

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

Conduct

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

Impacts

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

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

On disclosure

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

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

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

On evidence

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

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

On the nature of public forum

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

My paradigm is simple. I do not want to get bogged down in students telling me how debates should be judged based on a competitor's knowledge of hypertechnical jargon and concepts, or details known only to the most traveled and experienced of Public Forum debaters. There is a reason why Public Forum exists outside of Policy Debate and is why Public Forum has a larger tent and is more open to outsiders without extensive debate experience. A debate where too much time is spent on minute theories, details, or arguments of definitions is not interesting to me. Instead, competitors should focus on practical implications of the topic at hand, weighing the impacts of their contentions versus their opponent's contentions in a logical manner. 

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

Last, while I am okay with the occasional evidence check (allowing a team to evaluate the value or context of a quote taken from an opponent's piece of evidence), I will not "throw out" an entire case because of a mis-paraphrased or deliberately (or accidentally) misapplied statistic or quote. That said, please merely state that you believe the evidence as applied by your opponent is "misleading," "misrepresented" or "non-circumstantial" and move on. I will consider it in my judgment but will not make my judgement strictly based on this find. Many competitors who are new to debate may not have completely understood the context of the quote, while more experienced debaters are still middle or high schoolers and may not have mastered the usage of accurate paraphrasing and annotation skills as of yet. I do appreciate teams holding the other one accountable for honesty, though, and am for the concept of the evidence check as a useful inquiry tool.

I prefer arguments that are based on analysis of evidence that connects back to their claim -> rather than simply debates devolving into evidence fights analyze how the evidence you present supports your claim/disproves the opposing sides.

Think about impacts on stakeholders, use of case studies, and context.

Contentions that can demonstrate a nuanced level of reasoning, crossfire where you can expose vulnerabilities in the opposition's arguments, and rebuttals that can turn their points will be what decides the debate.

Cards cannot replace links. Be sure to bridge the gap between the evidence and your case. 

Be careful not to discredit your opponents' response to your case or rebuttal if they have responded. Respond to them directly and concisely in summary. 

Impact weighing is key in the FF. Sort out your priorities and weigh the essential clashes. 

Cooperation between the two partners can be a bonus. Be "in sync" with your partner on which impacts your case is focusing on, so that each speech weaves into the previous one.