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.

I have been debating and judging competitively for roughly two years and a half across multiple intervarsities and in both national and international tournaments. Much of my experience, especially in adjudication, is centered around British Parliamentary, Asian Parliamentary, World Schools, and Australs formats, although I also have a background in judging other debate formats such as Junior Debate and Public Forum. Regarding what I consider to be effective argumentation, I value the logical soundness of a claim versus evidence that isn’t nuanced and well-integrated into the analysis. This means that I am more likely to be persuaded by sufficiently analyzed arguments over largely assertive material or impacts. Moreover, I strongly value good engagement and willingness to weigh and accept trade offs instead of being insistent on responses. My decisions are based on which team successfully wins the most important voting issues that are usually determined by what teams explicitly or implicitly agree to be important in the round. While I think that style is something that should be holistically assessed with analysis, I definitely appreciate speakers with good clarity and structure that makes it easy to track and credit where appropriate.

Highlight Achievements:

Open Finals Judge, EFL Finals Judge, 30th KIDA National Championship (Korea Spring Nationals 2022)

Open Octofinals Chair, Philippine Intercollegiate Debating Championship 2022 (PH AP Nationals)

Invited Adjudicator, Gold Quarterfinals Judge, Doxbridge World Schools Debating Championship 2022

1. Daniel Joash Cerrado
2. Tell us about your debate judging experience.

1. I have never judged debate before.

2. I have judged debate for less than a year and this is my first time judging Public Forum.

3. I have judged debate for less than a year and have judged Public Forum before.

4. I have judged debate for more than a year, but Public Forum for less than a year.

5. I have judged Public Forum debate for more than a year.

1. Tell us about your debating experience.

1. I have never debated competitively before.

2. I debated Public Forum for less than a year.

3. I debated other formats for less than a year.

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

5. I havedebated other formats for more than a year, but not Public Forum.

1. What is your speaking speed preference?

1. Deliberate speed (100-120wpm)

2. Conversational speed (120-150wpm)

3. TED talk speed (150-200wpm)

4. Fast speed (200+wpm)

1. How much do you know about the topic?

1. I coach debate and have researched this topic

2. I have professional-level knowledge about this topic.

3. I regularly read news about this topic. It’s an interest of mine.

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

5. I have no idea about the topic. Please make sure I understand things.

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

1. Yes, if the second rebuttal doesn’t respond to the first rebuttal I consider it a dropped argument

2. No, the second speaker rebuttal is only responsible for answering the first constructive

3. I’m not sure.

4. While the second rebuttal speaker is generally responsive to constructive material, engagement with the provided responses is always welcome and helpful.

1. How important is the flow (your notes) in making your decision? What do you write down in your notes?

1. It’s very important. I take lots of notes and make my decision based almost entirely based on my notes.

2. It’s somewhat important. I use my notes to aid me in making my decision.

3. It’s not that important. I tend to judge the debate more wholistically.

4. Other (Please Specify)

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

I generally decide debates on the basis of which team wins the most important issue(s) of the round, based on what teams explicitly or implicitly agree to be important in the round.

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

I value clear mechanisms, established premises, effective responses, and good engagement and weighing.

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 =)

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 :>

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.